Mumbai Court August 2016 Judgments
Kalpana Kamlesh Patadia Vs. Sitaram Kunthe, Municipal Commissioner of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. As both these contempt petitions raise common question of fact and law and arise out of one and same order passed in two different suits, they are being heard and decided together by this common Judgment. 2. The petitioner in Contempt Petition No. 189 of 2015 is the wife of petitioner in Contempt Petition No. 190 of 2015. They are the owners of the flats bearing Nos. A-11 and A-6 situated on the second floor of the New Chandraoday Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. as specifically mentioned in the cause title of the suits. Both the flats had 180 sq. ft. terrace each, adjoining to the flats. Both the petitioners covered their respective terraces with asbestos sheets. In respect of this coverage of the terraces, Municipal Corporation was pleased to pass an order dated 23.04.2013 for demolition of the unauthorized covering of the terraces. The petitioners, hence, filed two separate suits bearing L.C. Suit No. 2477 of 2013 and Suit No. 2476 of 2013, inter alia, praying for...
Tag this Judgment!Satco Capital Markets Ltd. Vs. Rahul H. Bajaj
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-2016
Anoop V. Mohta, J. The Appellant/Applicant-Original Respondent (Satco), has taken out this Notice of Motion for stay of the execution and operation of the award as confirmed by impugned order dated 7 January 2016, passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the Arbitration Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ( the Arbitration Act ), thereby maintaining award dated 30 September 2014, passed by the Sole Arbitrator. The operative part of the award is as under: ORDER 1. For the aforesaid reasons prayers clauses (a) to (c) and (h) of the Statement of Claim are rejected. 2. Prayer clauses (d), (e) and (f) of the Statement of Claim are granted. 3. Prayer clause (e) is granted with modification that the rate of interest shall be 12% p.a. simple. 4. The Respondent shall deliver to the Claimant 1,50,000 shares of ARBL as mentioned in prayer clause (d) within 120 days from the date of receipt of this Award. 5. the Respondent shall pay to the Claimant dividen...
Tag this Judgment!Shaikh Nasim and Others Vs. The Union of India, Through its Ministry o ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-25-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. In all these Writ Petitions, the petitioners have taken exception to the impugned orders passed by the Director of Education, Maharashtra State, Pune, thereby withdrawing the approval granted to the appointments/services of the petitioners. 3. It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners that the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development Department of School Education and Literacy, vide letter dated 13.04.2009, instructed the Education Secretary, Government of Maharashtra to implement new scheme of Inclusive Education for Disabled at Secondary Stage (in short IEDSS ). Along with said letter a copy of the guidelines and proforma for submission of proposals was also enclosed. It is further submitted that in pursuance of the directions issued by the Central Government, the State Government on 31.08.2009, issued a Go...
Tag this Judgment!Manisha and Others Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-24-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Admit. With the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, heard finally. 2. The appellants have challenged the judgment and order passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aurangabad, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.551/2013, on 16th September, 2015. The impugned judgment is challenged only on the ground that though the Tribunal did assess the amount of compensation payable to the claimants to the tune of Rs.12,04,200/- (Rs.twelve lacs, four thousand, two hundred), awarded to the claimants the compensation only of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs.ten lacs) since in the claim petition the claimants have claimed that much of compensation. Shri Deshmukh, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, relying on the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Nagappa Vs. Gurdial Singh (2003 (2) SCC 274), submitted that the Tribunal can award compensation more than the amount claimed by the claimants if, according to the Tribunal, the claim...
Tag this Judgment!Pundalik Gangadhar Sinai Sanvordekar (since deceased) through his lega ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-24-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule, made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the contesting respondent nos.1(a) to 1(i) waives service. Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioners are challenging the judgment and order dated 13/04/2016 passed by the learned Ad hoc District Judge, Margao, by which, the judgment and order dated 30/12/2010 passed by the learned Mamlatdar of Sanguem in Case No. MAM/TNC/DECL/8/99, has been confirmed. By the impugned judgment, the respondents have been declared as tenants of the suit property known as Titapemol Bearing Survey no.18/1, situated at Corranguinim village of Sanguem Taluka. 3. The brief facts are that now deceased Shankar Gopal Bhandari filed an application under the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 (the Act, for short) against now deceased Pundalik Sanvordekar and Dr. Upendra Sanvordekar, claiming a declaration about he being a tenant of the property bearing Survey No.18/1 at Corranguinim V...
Tag this Judgment!JM Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Board of T ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-2016
B.P. Colabawalla, J. 1. Rule. By consent of parties, rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia challenging (i) the termination letter dated 27 September, 2012 issued by Respondent No.1 to Respondent No.2 terminating the lease dated 29 October, 1935; and (ii) the Show Cause Notices ( SCNs ) both dated 18 February, 2013, issued by Respondent No.4 under Sections 4 and 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short the PP Act ). 3. The property in question is all that piece and parcel of land admeasuring approximately 1036.71 sq. mtrs. bearing plot No.26 (old RR No.1245) and cadestral Survey No. 10/384 of Colaba division together with the building standing thereon consisting of ground + four floors, two garages and a pump-house (hereinafter referred to as said property ). At the outset, we must mention here that it is not in dispute before us that the 1st ...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Zodiac Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Krishna Developers Through i ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Admit. 2. With the consent of the learned counsels for the appellant and respondents, this appeal is heard finally at the stage of admission itself. 3. This appeal is preferred by the original defendant No.1 challenging the order dated 22nd August, 2016, passed by the City Civil Court, Dindoshi, Mumbai, thereby making the Notice of Motion No.1811 of 2016 in S.C. No.702 of 2016, absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) thereof, restraining defendant No.1 from entering upon and/or remaining upon the suit property bearing CTS No.484 (part), situated at village Vile Parle (West), at Gulmohar Road, Juhu, Mumbai 400 049, admeasuring 4400 sq. meters and further restraining him from carrying out any construction thereon. (For the sake of convenience, parties to this appeal are referred to by their original status in the trial court as plaintiff and defendant) 4. Facts of the appeal are to the effect that the respondent No.1 plaintiff claims himself to be the sole proprietory fi...
Tag this Judgment!Aidek Tourism Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-2016
1. By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Arbitration Act ), the petitioner has impugned the arbitral award dated 23rd March, 2009 as modified by an order dated 22nd May, 2009 and the impugned additional award dated 30th November, 2013 as corrected by an order dated 9th January, 2014. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this arbitration petition are as under: 2. It was the case of the respondent that the petitioner approached the respondent for taking 10 Tata Estate Cars on hire purchase basis. The parties entered into another Hire Purchase Agreement on 10th March, 1995 in respect of the 10 cars bearing Nos.MH-06-3236, MH-06-3229, MH-06-3230, MH-06-3227, MH-06-3224, MH-06-3226, MH-06-3225, MH-06-3223, MH-06-3228 and MH-06-3231. The total agreement valued was Rs.56,49,156/-, including interest which was to be paid in monthly installments of Rs.1,56,921/- over a period of 36 months from 10th March, 1995 to 1...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. K.K. Vidyut Vs. The union of India Through its Ministry of Railwa ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-24-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. Rule.Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 2. The petitioner firm has approached this Court, being aggrieved by the decision of the respondent nos.2 to 4 in rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner. 3. The respondent nos. 2 to 4 had invited tenders for supplying and stacking of 1,50,000 cum machine crushed ballast between Seoni (including) (conforming to specifications of machine crushed stone ballast issued by RDSO, corrected up to date) in cess, in formation or in yards, in connection with gauge conversion between Chhindwara-Nainpur vide tender Notice No. CEC/BSP/2015-16/60. The tenders were to be submitted in two envelopes. The first envelope was pertaining to the technical and financial capacity of the bidder and the second envelope was with regard to the price bid. In response to the tender notice dated 2nd September 2015 as may as eight bidders had submitted their bids. The first envelopes were opened on 23rd December, 2...
Tag this Judgment!The Superintending Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Board, (O a ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-24-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. The petitioner (Erstwhile the MSEB) has challenged the impugned judgment dated 31/01/2005 and 27/01/2005 in Complaint (ULP) No.69/2003 and 71/2003 respectively. The respondents in both these petitions are the original complainants in the said complaints. 2. By the judgment of the Industrial Court, the petitioner is held guilty of unfair labour practices and has been directed not to recover the amount as stated in the order dated 31/03/2001 and refund the amount to the extent it has been recovered from the respondents. 3. This Court, by its order dated 09/06/2005, has granted interim relief to the petitioners in respect of clause 4 of the order of the Industrial Court. 4. I have heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides on 19/08/2016 and today, at length. 5. It is not in dispute that both the respondents herein were working as Upper Division Clerks with the petitioner at its office at Nanded. One Mr.M.A.Bashir was to retire on 01/02/1997. However, the respon...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »