Mumbai Court July 2016 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Malayan Banking Berhad Vs. Indusind Bank Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-2016
1. The Plaintiff has filed the suit claiming a sum of Rs. 3,47,87,865.42 along with interest at 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit or such other rate as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. 2. The Plaintiff is a bank situated in Malaysia. Sometime in December, 2011 MMTC Ltd. ( Buyer ), a Government of India organization placed an order for purchase of copper wire rod from one M/s. Synergic Industrial Marketing Services SDN. BHD., a company in Malaysia ( Seller ). At the instance of MMTC Ltd., the Defendant issued an irrevocable Letter of Credit dated 2nd December, 2011 for USD 544,500/- (+ / 3%). The letter of credit was available for negotiation with the Plaintiff and was governed by UCP-600. The beneficiary viz., the seller submitted the documents to the Plaintiff and since the documents were in accordance with the requirements of the letter of credit, the Plaintiff negotiated the documents and paid the amount to the beneficiary. This negotiation took placed on ...
Cedric Bosco Savio Lobo Vs. State of Goa, represented by its Chief Sec ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-11-2016
Oral Order ( Per F. M. Reis, J) 1. The above petition inter alia seeks for a direction to the respondent nos.1 and 2 and all other concerned authorities to initiate legal proceedings for the demolition of the house bearing no. B-249 located in Survey no.62/1 of village Panchayat of Reis Magos. 2. Briefly, the case of the petitioner is that in the village of Betim there exists a property bearing survey no.62/5 which is situated entirely within 100 metres of the high tide line of river Mandovi and falls within the No Development Zone of CRZ-II area of Betim village. It is further his case that on 19.7.1991 Mrs. Augusta D'Souza made an application in Form B to the North Goa Planning and Development Authority( NGDPA for short) for the construction of a residential bungalow in the property Surveyed under No. 62/5 of village Betim. It is further his contention that said Mrs. Augusta D'Souza has falsely represented at point no. 12 in Form 11 that the property is not in the vicinity of the coa...
Nalanda Magasvargiya Majoor Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit and Others Vs. T ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-11-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Heard Shri A.M. Ghare, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri A.S. Fulzele, learned Additional Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri V.G. Wankhede, learned Counsel for Respondent No.3. Considering the nature of controversy raised and with the consent of the parties, we have taken up the matter for final disposal. Rule is therefore issued and is made returnable forthwith. 2. Short question to be looked into is Whether judgment dated 29.04.2015 in Writ Petition No.2113/2015, delivered by the learned Single Judge enures to the benefit of present petitioners? 3. Petitioners, 8 in number are Labour Cooperative Societies, affiliated to Respondent no.3 District Labour Cooperative Federation. Its' general elections were due in 2015. As per judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge the elimination of names of three petitioners in Writ Petition No.2113/2015 from final voters list on the ground that they have not paid supervisio...
Prashant Pandit Salve and Others Vs. Suvarna Prashant Salve and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-2016
P.C. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The Petitioners submit that by virtue of the prayers put forth below paragraph 9 of the Petition, they are challenging the proceedings in C.C. No.625/M/2014 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 25th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai,and pray for quashing of the proceedings. In the cause title of the Petition, it is indicated that the order dated 8.6.2015 passed below Exhibit 5 in the said proceedings has been subjected to a challenge. 3. The Petitioners have put forth two grounds in this Petition. Firstly, that under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, the D.V. Act ), a complaint may be considered by the Magistrate and an order can be passed on such application only after the Magistrate takes into consideration any report regarding a domestic incident received by him from the Protection Officer or the Service Provider. Section 2(n) of the D.V. Act ...
Gorakh Baban Kankate and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-2016
Oral Judgment: (Mridula Bhatkar, J.) 1. In this appeal against conviction, the judgment and order dated 16.5.2005 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, is challenged. The accused are convicted for the offences punishable under sections 302, 149 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and are sentenced to suffer R.I. for life and fine. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: The deceased Vilas Haribhau Londhe was assaulted on 2.3.2002 infront of a Maruti temple in village Urali Kanchan, Taluka Haveli, District Pune at 9.30am. On account of a competition of wrestling in a fair, there was a dispute between the deceased, his family members and the accused persons A few years prior to the incident, the accused and associates of the deceased quarelled and the deceased was prosecuted in a criminal case registered against him. However, six moths prior to the incident, the deceased and his brothers were acquitted and, therefore, the accused were angry with them. The d...
Shwetali Ganesh Wadekar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-2016
Prakash D. Naik, J. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. Learned APP waives service for Respondent - State. 3. The petitioner has preferred this petition challenging the proceedings arising out of the First Information Report (for short "FIR") registered with Turbhe MIDC Police Station, Navi Mumbai vide C.R.No.253 of 2014. The offence was registered under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") at the instance of the petitioner being the original complainant against the second respondent. 4. In the FIR, it is alleged that the petitioner/first informant was employed with a company namely Finopeti Limited, Shiravane as inventory executive. The accused was working as a manager in the said company. It is alleged that the accused used to harass the complainant and some time used to touch her inappropriately. The accused also threatened her that she should leave the employment. Hence, the first formant lodged the FIR on 11th October, 2014. 5. Police completed the inv...
Girish B. Rai Vs. Kalindi K. Rai and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-2016
1. By this review petition the review petitioner (original petitioner) seeks review of the order and judgment dated 10th January, 2011 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.255 of 2002 along with Contempt Petition No.111 of 2006. By the said order and judgment dated 10th January, 2011, this Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the review petitioner and consequently dismissed the Contempt Petition No.111 of 2006 as infructuous. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this review petition are as under : 2. The petitioner is having qualification of Shastri (B.A.) from Sampoornanand University and B.Ed. (Physical) from Mumbai University. On 13th June, 1995, the petitioner was appointed as trained graduate teacher in the respondent no.3 school which is the Government recognized and aided private secondary school run by the respondent no.2 society. The appointment of the petitioner was approved by the respondent no.4 i.e. Education Officer (Secondary), Thane on 22...
Jeevan Jyoti Sharma Vs. State of Goa, Through the Chief Secretary Stat ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-11-2016
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Shri V. Rodrigues, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri D. Lawande, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. Rule. 3. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. 4. Shri D. Lawande, learned Government Advocate waives notice on behalf of the respondents. 5. The above petition inter alia prays for a writ to direct the respondent no.2 to register the marriage of the petitioner without insisting for A Court order as the same is not contemplated in law. 6. Shri V. Rodrigues, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner points out that the petitioner desire to perform the marriage with Mr. Rajesh Gobind Bhatria, who is an Americaln National. It is further her contention that the respondent no. 2 as per notification dated 17.1.2014 in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3(1) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 the Government of Goa has been appointed as the Marriag...
Syed Amin Syed Nabi Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-11-2016
V.M. Deshpande, J. 1. The appellant has questioned his conviction and consequent order of sentence in the present appeal, which is imposed upon him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Sessions Trial No.205/2011 dated 23.05.2014 by which the appellant was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case as it is disclosed during the course of trial is as under: When Sahebrao Jagdale was discharging his duties as Police Sub Inspector at Police Station, Badnera on 06.07.2011 at about 11.15 p.m., Mohd. Sharafatullah (PW3) came to the Police Station and gave his oral report Exh.-36. On the basis of the same, Sahebrao Jagdale registered a crime bearing Crime No.116/2011. The printed FIR is at Exh-37. The FIR states that Mohd. Sharafatullah (PW3) is having two sons. Elder is Naja...
Mangesh Vs. Shalini and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-11-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Admit. There is no need to call for record and proceedings as the relevant documents are already annexed to this revision application. 2. Heard finally by consent of parties. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order is erroneous and has been passed in breach of settled principles of law. He submits that the learned Principal Judge of the Family Court has not at all considered appropriately the evidence brought on record by the applicant regarding income being earned by respondent No.1. He also submits that it is well settled law that when wife has been shown to be earning income, sufficient to maintain herself, she ought to be held as not entitled for maintenance. In support, he referred to me a judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge of Patna High Court in the case of Dinesh Sharma v. Rupa Rani Sharma reported in 2013 Cri.L.J. 469. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the impugned order is neither erroneous nor ...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »