Mumbai Court May 2016 Judgments
Food Corporation of India Vs. Brihanmumbai Mahanagar Palika and Anothe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-05-2016
A.S. Oka, J. (As Bhadang J. is sitting at Bench at Goa, signed Judgment is pronounced by A.S.Oka J. as per Rule 296 (iii) of the Bombay High Court Original Side Rules). 1. The petitioner in this petition-the Food Corporation of India has sought a declaration that the demand made by the first respondent-Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (for short 'the said Corporation') of property taxes in respect of the property held by the petitioner is illegal. There are consequential reliefs claimed in the petition. 2. The petitioner is a Corporation duly constituted under the provisions of the Food Corporation of India Act,1964. It is a Government of India Undertaking which is fully controlled by the Government of India. In this petition, we are concerned with the godowns held by the petitioner at Poisar and Magathone within the limits of the said Corporation. The case made out by the petitioner is that the Union of India acquired the land admeasuring 3,47,903 sq yard at village Poisar and ...
Tag this Judgment!Virendra @ Gijrya and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, through Police ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: May-05-2016
1. Heard Shri D.V. Chauhan, advocate for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.182/2016, Shri S.P. Gadling, advocate for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.197/2016 and Shri S.S. Doifode, A.P.P. for the respondents in both the writ petitions. 2. The petitioners, in both writ petitions, have challenged the order passed by the learned Special Judge designated under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (for short MCOC Act ) rejecting the applications filed by the petitioners under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners have also challenged the order passed by the learned Special Judge directing that the remand papers along with bail warrant of the accused be transmitted to the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and directing the accused to attend the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate for further proceedings in the crime registered against them and directing the Jail Superintendent to produce the accused before the Court of A...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Shrinivasan Vs. National Spot Exchange Limited and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-05-2016
G.S. Kulkarni, J. 1. These appeals arise from a common order dated 23 September 2015 passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting the Notice of Motion's taken out by the Appellants (Defendant nos.14 and 15 in the suit), under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking rejection of the plaint, qua the appellants for want of a cause of action. Respondent no.1 is the original plaintiff. 2. To appreciate the case of the appellants it would be necessary to consider the plaintiff's/Respondent no.1's case as contained in the plaint. For the sake of convenience, in considering the plaint, we refer to the parties as arrayed in the plaint. Plaintiff's case in the plaint:- 3. The Plaintiff's suit is inter alia for the recovery of the amount aggregating to Rs.680,239,7,706.55 to be jointly and/or severally ordered and decreed to be paid by defendant nos.1 to 16 alongwith interest at 18% p.a. as per particulars of claim annexed as Exhibit 'U' to the plaint ...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Umedmal Bhikulal Vs. Saibaba Trading Company, Through its Prop. S ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-05-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard counsel for the applicant - original complainant and learned A.P.P. for respondent No.2/ State. In this matter, this Court earlier issued notice to the respondent No.1 original accused. However, now it is noticed that, in the trial Court, the complaint came to be dismissed even before the process was issued. At the stage of issue of process, the procedure does not contemplate hearing the accused. As such, it is not necessary to further pursue this matter for service of notice on the respondent No.1 - original accused. The limited question is, whether opportunity should have been given to the complainant to record his verification. The question of issue of process is to be considered under Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The stage of Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not yet reached because Section 256 provides that, if summons has been issued on complaint and thereafter complainant remains absent, the Magistrate would have discretio...
Tag this Judgment!Deepak Murari Shivalkar and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-05-2016
Oral Judgment: (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Rule in both petitions. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. As both petitions involve common questions of fact and law, they were heard together, that we dispose of them by this common judgment. 3. By writ petition No.1667 of 2013 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek a writ of certiorari or a writ, order or direction in the nature of the above calling for the records and proceedings of the Letter of Intent ('LOI' for short) dated 14th August, 2012, Annexure-V, Intimation of Approval ('IOA' for short) in respect of a plot of land, more particularly described in the petition and on scrutiny of all these, to quash and set aside the same. 4. It is common ground that the petitioners are occupying some structures standing on what is called as Nevatia Municipal Colony / the said property. The first respondent is the State and the second respondent is the Slum Rehabilitation Authori...
Tag this Judgment!Vivek Balkrishna Mahajan Vs. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secr ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-05-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to claim benefit of reservation of sportsmen category. MPSC had issued an advertisement for the posts of clerk-cum-typist, providing reservation of sportsmen category to some of the posts. The petitioner, being eligible for reservation of sportsmen, submitted an application claiming reservation of sportsmen category, in response to the said advertisement. 4. It is further the case of the petitioner that after following due process of selection, the petitioner was selected as against a post reserved for sportsmen category. In view of the selection of the petitioner as against a post reserved for sportsmen category, his claim of sportsmen category was referred by respondent no.3 to the office of respondent no. 2 for verification. It is the case of t...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Chaitali Samir Parekh (Widow of th ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-05-2016
Oral Judgment: (C.V. Bhadang, J.) 1. Samir Parekh aged 29 years met with an unfortunate death, in a freak accident, which occurred on 26th April, 2001 involving three vehicles. 2. Mrs. Chaitali Samir Parekh, widow of the deceased, filed application no.255 of 2002 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Mumbai under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "the Act"), claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,00,000/- (Rupees Three crores). In the said application, apart from the owners of the two vehicles namely a Tata Sumo Jeep bearing registration No.MH-01-S-8355 and a Wagon-R bearing registration No.MH-04-AW-8373, the insurers of these two vehicles were made parties. The original respondent nos.1 and 2 namely Chandrakant Parekh (since deceased) and Smt.Hasumati Parekh, are the parents of the deceased. The compensation was claimed jointly and severally against the opposite party nos.1 and 2 and the insurers. 3. It would be necessary to briefly set out the manner in which t...
Tag this Judgment!Creative Tours and Travels (India) Private Limited Vs. Intellectual Pr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-04-2016
Oral Judgment: (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. By this Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner challenges the order passed on 26th November 2012 by Respondent No.1. 2. By the impugned order, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, (IPAB), has passed an order on Miscellaneous Petition Nos.232 and 233 of 2012 in the case of an original registration and directed expunging of the impugned trademark. It has also directed payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- by the Petitioner to the successful Respondent No.3. 3. It is the claim of the Petitioner that they are a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. The predecessor of the Petitioner was a Proprietary Concern of Mr. V.S. Abdul Karim, who carried on business under the trade name of "Creative Enterprises" from the year 1979 and then changed the name to "Creative Travel and Tours" in 1992. In 1997, the Petitioner was incorporated under the corporate name, namely, "Creative Tours and Travels (India)...
Tag this Judgment!Kajiva Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shyam Narayan and Brothers
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-04-2016
Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. This Appeal is filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Arbitration Act ) challenging order dated 31 August 2015 passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting the Appellant's Arbitration Petition under Section 34 on the ground of limitation. That resulted into confirmation of Award dated 17 February 2014 passed by the learned Arbitrator which allowed the claim of the Claimant/Respondent. 2. The Respondent had undertaken the work of excavation for fleet building at Marol, Andheri (East). Disputes and differences had arisen between the Appellant and the Respondent due to nonpayment of the dues of the Respondent in connection with the work. 3. The Respondent had filed a Civil Suit No.2934 of 2010 in this Court for recovery of its dues on or about 10th November 2011. The Respondent had also filed Company Petition No.282 of 2011 on or about 20 June 2011 under the provisions of sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956. B...
Tag this Judgment!Raosaheb Shahurao Jawale Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-04-2016
1. Heard Mr. Hange, learned Counsel for the applicant accused who is seeking regular bail in Crime No.112/2015 registered on 3rd December, 2015 for an offence punishable under Section 376(J)(L) and Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code. It is the case of the prosecution that one Eknath Dongre happened to be cousin of Mrs. Janvibai aged about 55 years, a mentally disturbed lady. It is claimed that when the complainant was passing from the road where the accused-applicant was residing, he heard certain shouts and as such he pushed the door of the applicant's house and saw the applicant and victim in naked position. It is the case that applicant was about to rape the victim and as such the applicant was caught red handed. 2. In view of the complaint, the applicant came to be arrested on the same day. Investigation in the matter is already complete and charge-sheet is filed. 3. While trying to make out the case for grant of regular bail, Mr.Hange submits that even if the prosecution case is...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »