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.
Ramesh Ramchandra Kalyankar and Others Vs. Suresh K. Haware and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-2016
1. By these two arbitration petitions filed under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 the applicants in both these matters seeks appointment of arbitrator in terms of clause 29 of the agreement entered into between the parties. 2. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners invited my attention to the clause 29 of the agreement and also the correspondence entered into between the parties. He submits that both the parties have suggested two different names. The respondents however have not agreed to the name suggested by the petitioners. 3. The arbitration petitions are opposed by the respondents on the ground that since there was no consensus on the name of the learned arbitrator between the parties, the said arbitration agreement referred in clause 29 of the contract has automatically become inoperative and thus disputes and differences between the parties shall be subject to the court situated at Karjat, Thane which alone has jurisdiction to entertain...
Union of India Acting through, Controller of Stores Vs. M/s. Motor and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-2016
1. By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner has impugned the arbitral award dated 9th February, 2015 passed by the learned arbitrator directing the refund of the amount deducted from the bills of the respondent by the petitioner as liquidated damages according to the re-fixation of delivery. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:- 2. On or about 8th May, 2012, the petitioner invited open tender no.23/12/8028 for 370 sets of Set of Body Side Arrangement Assembled with Flap Doors and Body End Arrangement for BOXNR Wagon issued through IREPS with the approval of competent authority with delivery period within 60 days. The said tender was opened on 12th June, 2012. The respondent herein submitted their offer with delivery period of 60 days. Since the offer made by the respondent was found competent, the petitioner issued Advance Acceptance Letter dated 14th January, 2013 to the responde...
Sk. Rustum Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-01-2016
1. The Appellant - original Accused (hereafter referred as "Accused") has been convicted by the IInd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No.58 of 2002 on 28th January 2003, under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC" in brief) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rupees Two Thousand. In default he has been directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, present Appeal has been filed. 2. I will refer to the prosecutrix (examined as PW-2) and her mother (examined as PW-1) and sister (examined as PW-5) as "victim", "mother of victim" and "sister of victim" respectively to conceal their identity. 3. The case of prosecution, in brief, is as follows: A) The victim resides in Gavalipura in Cantonment area of Aurangabad. The mother of victim is tenant of one Shaikh Mohammad Shaikh Ismail (also referred as "Shaikh Dada"). On 20th February 2000 victim filed F.I.R. a...
Panchfula Ramkusan Ukey Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-01-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. The appellant has approached this Court being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandra, dt.7.1.2013 in Sessions Trial Case No.26 of 2011 thereby convicting the present appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-; in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, as could be gathered from the material placed on record, is thus : Lata Yograj Kayate (PW-1) had lodged oral report below Exh.30, on the basis of which the First Information Report came to be lodged below Exh.31. It is stated in the F.I.R. by the first informant Lata (PW-1) that her father-in-law deceased Yadaorao Badhuji Kayate was assaulted with sticks by Original accused no.2 i.e. present appellant as well as her husband Ramkusan. It is the case of prosecution that, on th...
ICICI Bank Ltd. and Others Vs. S. Kumars Nationwide Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-2016
Oral judgment: 1. This entire bunch of Petitions have been filed by different Petitioners seeking to wind up the Respondent Company on the ground that it is unable to pay its debts. I have been informed that out of this entire group, Company Petition Nos.698 of 2014, 739 of 2014, 79 of 2015, 265 of 2015, 674 of 2015 and 964 of 2015 have not yet been admitted. 2. Even though no affidavit in reply has been filed by the Respondent Company disputing the claim of many of the Petitioners on merits, one composite affidavit dated 22 June, 2016, has been filed inter alia contending that the Respondent Company has filed a reference before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction ( BIFR ) and which was registered on 10 December, 2015, and therefore, these Petitions cannot proceed in view of the bar contained in Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short SICA, 1985 ). 3. In contrast, it is the contention of the Petitioners that by virtue of t...
Santosh Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-01-2016
B.R. Gavai, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mangrulpir dated 26.11.2013 in Sessions Trial No.106/13, thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months, the appellant has approached this Court. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, as could be gathered from the material placed on record is as under :- The deceased Asha was married to Sanjay Dongardive DW-1 about 6 to 7 years prior to the incident. Initially they were residing in the joint family along with the elder brother-in-law and mother-in-law. However, the deceased and Sanjay started residing separately after sometime. They were blessed with one girl child, who unfortunately did not survive. Thereafter, they were again blessed with one child who was about 1-1/2 years old at the time ...
Nitin Bansi Jadhav Vs. Pallavi Nitin Jadhav and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-01-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate dated 25.06.2015 by which the petitioner is directed to pay compensation of an amount of Rs.15,000/- to the first respondent and pay Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.3000/- per month to respondent No.2 from the date of its order. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Court, Shahada dated 22.02.2016 by which his Criminal Application and the Criminal Revision filed by the respondent No.1 has been allowed. 3. Mr.Savale, learned Advocate for the petitioner has strenuously criticized the impugned orders. Contention is that the order of the Court granting maintenance should necessaraily be made effective from the date of the order and not from the date of the application. Similarly, his net salary was @ Rs.13,000/- as on the date on which the salary certificate ...
Pravin Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-01-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. The appellant has approached this Court being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Washim in Sessions Trial No.97 of 2010, dt.27.8.2013 thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-; in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and also convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-; in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. 2. The prosecution case, as could be gathered from the material placed on record, is thus : The field of deceased Sudhakar Banarase was adjacent to the field of original accused Nos.1 and 2 within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Karanja. On 11.9.2010, on the day of Gane...
Richmond Mercantile Limited FZC Vs. Vinergy International Private Limi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-2016
1. By this petition filed under sections 46 and 47 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Arbitration Act ), the petitioner seeks a declaration that the arbitral award dated 25th September, 2014 passed by the arbitral tribunal is enforceable as a decree of this Court and be executed accordingly. The petitioner also seeks various interim reliefs in this arbitration petition. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this arbitration petition are as under: 2. The petitioner company is incorporated in Sharjah and carries on its business of trading in bulk bitumen. The respondent company is incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. 3. On 15th August, 2008, the petitioner and the respondent entered into a master supply agreement (hereinafter referred to as the said agreement ) in writing for supply of bulk bitumen for extendable term from 25th June, 2008. Under clause 19 of the said agreement, it was provided that the said agreement wo...
Akshay Pradeep Bhatia Vs. University of Mumbai Through its Vice Chance ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-2016
P.C. 1. By this Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner challenges the letter / communication dated 6th June 2016, by which Respondent Nos.2 and 3 informed him of the decision of the 1st Respondent that the Petitioner is ineligible for admission to First Year B.Com. (B + I) Course by virtue of Ordinance No.O.5209. The Petitioner states that originally he resided at Bahrain and thereafter when he came to India, he cleared his Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination (H.Sc.) in August, 2011 from Central Board of Secondary Education. Relying upon a copy of the certificate of the Central Board of Secondary Education certifying that the Petitioner has cleared the examination and with an endorsement therein "C", it is submitted that the Petitioner has not cleared this examination at one and the same sitting. He did not get the minimum percentage. He was not able to obtain the minimum percentage of the marks in the subject of Physics. After two months, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›