Mumbai Court September 2016 Judgments
J.V. Gokal Charity Trust and Others Vs. Contrex Pvt. Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-2016
CONTENTS A. INTRODUCTION.................................................... 4 B. FACTS..................................................................... 6 C. MAINTAINABILITY...............................................12 D. LIMITATION..........................................................78 E. RELIEFS AND ORDER...........................................87 A. INTRODUCTION 1. The facts of the case are straightforward. The issues they raise, though narrow, are not. A very great deal of learning has been cited on both sides of the debate: some of the precedents are very old indeed. Counsel have argued that later decisions effectively upturn the older ones, even if they do not say so in so many words. There are two principal issues of law: first, limitation; and, second, whether the jurisdiction of a civil court is ousted in claim such as this because of the statutory provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 ( MPTA ) (Earlier the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (Act 29 ...
Tag this Judgment!Prashant Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-19-2016
1. By this application, the applicant is seeking his release on bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The allegations against this applicant and others against whom crime bearing No.156/2014 has been registered at Police Station Ambazari on the basis of complaint lodged by one Shri Vivek Ashok Pathak are that the applicant being the Director of Wasankar Wealth Management Private Limited (WWMPL for short) and also in charge of other companies of which he is either the director or proprietor, by making a false representation knowing it to be false, to the gullible investors made them invest their hard-earned money in the various investment schemes floated by his companies and did not return the money so invested in accordance with the promises given by him and thus committed offences of cheating, criminal breach of trust and fraudulent defaults punishable under Sections 420, 406 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3 of the Maharas...
Tag this Judgment!Sarika Mahendra Sureka Vs. Mahendra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-2016
1. This appeal takes an exception to the order dated 19.07.2014, passed by City Civil Court, Dindoshi, Mumbai, in Notice of Motion No.1959 of 2011, filed in S. C. Suit No.1560 of 2011. The said Notice of Motion was preferred by respondent No.2, seeking relief of interim injunction restraining appellant and respondent No.1 herein from entering upon and remaining in the suit premises, situate at A/5, Model Town Co-op Hsg. Soc. Gulmohar Cross Road No.7, J.V.P.D. Scheme, Mumbai and/or not to disturb her peaceful use and occupation of the suit premises in any manner whatsoever. 2. Brief facts of the appeal can be stated as under:- The appellant is the daughter-in-law of respondent No.2 and wife of respondent No.1. The marriage of appellant with respondent No.1 took place on 22.5.1991 and since then appellant is continuously residing alongwith respondent Nos. 1 and 2, with other family members, in the suit flat being her matrimonial home. The appellant is also having one major son, born with...
Tag this Judgment!Shaikh Farooq Vs. Shaikh Rafiq and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-19-2016
1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the original complainant (hereafter referred as "complainant") against the acquittal of Respondent No.1 -original accused (hereafter referred as "accused") in Summary Criminal Case No.820 of 2012 by J.M.F.C. Court No.20, Aurangabad on 27th June 2013 for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ("the Act" in brief). 2. The complaint filed by the complainant in the trial Court claimed that the accused was friend of the complainant and they had cordial relations since long and also belong to same community. In Ramzan of 2011 accused was in need of money for his business and approached the complainant with the request of hand-loan of Rupees One Lakh. Considering the request of the accused and the relations, complainant told the accused that it was a huge amount and it would be preferable to execute an agreement. The accused however, suggested that he will execute cheque of hand-loan amount for repayment of hand-l...
Tag this Judgment!Sumati @ Asha and Others Vs. Yashodhara and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-16-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties. 4. By this petition, the petitioners-original plaintiffs have challenged the legality and correctness of the order dated 20th July, 2015 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, below Exh.209 in Special Civil Suit No.126/2006 thereby allowing the application for adducing the secondary evidence in respect of Will dated 6.11.1997 and also the order passed by the same Court on 2nd September, 2015 refusing to review the order dated 20th July, 2015. 5. The petitioners filed civil suit being Special Civil Suit No.126/2006 seeking reliefs of declaration and permanent and mandatory injunction. In this suit, the respondent Nos.1 to 6 are the original defendants. The respondents appeared before the trial Court and filed their written statement. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 along with their written statement also filed counter claim seeking 1/4t...
Tag this Judgment!Voltas Limited Vs. M.P. Entertainment and Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. The above Application is filed by the Applicant -- Voltas Limited against the Respondent -- M.P. Entertainment and Developers Pvt. Ltd. for appointment of a Sole Arbitrator under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the Act") to adjudicate the disputes and differences that have arisen between the parties relating to two Work Orders both dated 2nd August, 2007 (Exhibits-A and A-1 to the Application). 2. According to the Applicant, the facts leading to the filing of the present Application, in brief are as follows : 2.1. On 2nd August, 2007, two inter-connected Work Orders namely MP/ENT/033/07-08 and MP/ENT/033/1/07-08 were issued to the Applicant by the Respondent for "HVAC Low Side" and supply of 3 water-cooled 475 TR centrifugal chiller unit. Both the Work Orders (at pages 22 and 24 of the Application) contained the following Clause : "In case of any dispute during the execution of the work and if the matter is referred to Arbitration then i...
Tag this Judgment!Santaji Yuvak Bigar Sheti Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. Dewanan ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-16-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Admit. 3. Heard finally by consent. 4. The respondent was prosecuted for dishonour of cheque bearing No.088739 dated 17/10/2012 issued by him for Rs.1,07,000/-, which was drawn on Nagpur District Central Co-operative Bank, Zilla Parishad Branch at Nagpur and issued in favour of the appellant. On merits of the case, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class found that the complainant/appellant failed to prove that the cheque in question was issued by the respondent for legally recoverable debt and, therefore, acquitted him of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by his judgment and order dated 16/01/2015. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Magistrate has taken an erroneous view that the debt represented by the amount of the cheque in question was not legally recoverable as it was barred by limitation period of three years. He submits that the Limitation Act is a general statute and although i...
Tag this Judgment!Tantrik Shikshan Karmachari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit Vs. The Assi ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-16-2016
1. Rule. Heard finally with consent of counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 3rdDecember, 2014 passed by the Asstt. Commissioner of Labour in exercise of powers under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 [for short the Act of 1948 ]. By the said order, the petitioner has been directed to pay minimum wages to the respondent nos. 3 and 4. 3. The facts giving rise to the present Writ Petition are that the petitioner-Society is duly registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. This Society, as per its bye-laws, is functioning on 'No profit; No loss' basis. Its object is to advance loans to its members who comprise of employees working with the Industrial Training Institutes. The respondent nos. 3 and 4 claim to be in employment with the Society and, according to them, they were not being paid wages as per the Act of 1948. The said respondents, therefore, on 8th January, 2013 moved the Asstt. Commissioner of Labour under th...
Tag this Judgment!Janardan Vasant Patil and Others Vs. Director General of Police and An ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-2016
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raises a question of great significance and importance. That question is whether the respondents to this writ petition were justified in rejecting the application of the petitioners before us requesting for grant of permission to form an association of police personnel for the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police and below. 2. Though the petitioners have understood the controversy as above, there are other issues involved. That is arising out of a refusal of the then Director General of Police, vide the impugned order, to the concerned police officials to establish an association of policemen. It is the permission to establish such association which itself is rejected. This rejection is challenged on the ground that it violates the freedom guaranteed vide Article 19 of the Constitution of India and particularly Article 19(1)(c). That right to freedom and in the subject case of forming asso...
Tag this Judgment!Shelf Drilling International Inc. (Formerly known as Sedco Forex Inter ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-2016
B.P. Colabawalla, J. 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of parties, rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. By this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner challenges the validity and legality of the order in Original No. 211/DC/Gr VB/GM/2016-2017 dated 29th April, 2016 (for short the impugned order ) passed by Respondent No.3 (for short the Refunding Authority ) purporting to hold that the Petitioner is not entitled to any interest on the refund granted to it, under the provisions of Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962. According to the Petitioner, the impugned order is contrary to the order in Appeal No.MUM-CUSTM-SMP-196/2015-16 dated 27th October, 2015, passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), as well as the order passed by this Court on 4th April, 2016 (and which is annexed at Exh. B to the Petition). 3. The brief facts giving rise to the present controversy are that, the Petitioner (formerly known as S...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »