Mumbai Court September 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.
Secretariat Staff Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. Vs. Registrar of Co ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-14-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 26.04.2008 passed by the Authorised Person and the Nominee of Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Government of Goa, whereby the Dispute Application No.6/2004/ARCS/CZ filed by the petitioner-Society has been dismissed for non-prosecution. 2. It is submitted by Mr. Nigalye, the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Registrar's Nominee had ceased to have jurisdiction to entertain the dispute on account of coming into force of Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 (the Act of 2001, for short) and the Rules framed thereunder. It is thus contended that the impugned order is without jurisdiction. Mr. Nigalye, the learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that by an application dated 15.05.2008, the order was sought to be recalled, however, no orders were passed on the same. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the order dated 15.03.2007 and the notification dated 22.01.2008 in order to submit ...
Vibha Vs. Arun
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-14-2016
Kum. Indira Jain, J. 1. Admit. 2. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties as record and proceedings are received. 3. By this appeal appellant/wife challenges the judgment of the Family Court, Amravati dated 30-12-2015 dismissing the petition filed by appellant/wife for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 4. Facts giving rise to the appeal may be stated in brief as under :- Appellant is wife of respondent (hereinafter appellant shall be referred as 'wife' and respondent shall be referred as 'husband'). They got married on 11-03-2000 as per customary rites. After marriage wife went to Wardha to cohabit with the husband. The family of husband was consisting of his father, mother, brother, sisters and two kids of married sister. It is the case of wife that soon after marriage she realized that approach of family members towards her was not good. They used to taunt, disrespect and harass her...
People Interactive (India) Private Limited Vs. Vivek Pahwa and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-2016
1. The Plaintiff seeks to restrain Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 (collectively, the contesting Defendants ) from using the domain name secondshaadi.com in any manner, including as part of the domain name for their web-based matrimonial services. The Plaintiff also seeks to restrain the contesting Defendants from passing off their website as that of the Plaintiff. The final relief sought is to restrain Defendant No. 5, a webhost and a domain name registrar, from hosting the contesting Defendants website, and to direct it to de-register or terminate the contesting Defendants domain name registration. 2. When the suit was first filed, there was a complaint that the contesting Defendants had used articles and material from the Plaintiff s website. This has been resolved since. Both sides accept this. 3. The Plaintiff belongs to the People Group of Companies. It owns several well-known websites, brands and trade marks. Among these are the marks Shaadi.com and Shadi.com. The 1st Defendant is registr...
Vandana Creations Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater M ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal takes an exception to the Judgment and Order dated 16th April 2014 passed by the City Civil Court, Mumbai in L.C. Suit No.1717 of 2013. By the impugned order, Trial Court has rejected the plaint on the count that jurisdiction to entertain the same is barred, in pursuance of Section 149 of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, (for short the MRTP Act ). Needless to state that, appellant-original plaintiff is aggrieved by the order. 2. Brief facts of the appeal are to the effect that the appellant is the owner of Shop No.2, situate in Rajdoot Co-operative Housing Society, 57, Linking Road, Khar (West), Mumbai - 400052. He has purchased the said shop from the Builder, namely, M/s. Ankur Developers, by virtue of an agreement dated 9th December 2010. Since the purchase of the said shop, the appellant is carrying on his business activities therein, after obtaining requisite permissions and licenses from the respondent-Municipal Corporation. 3. On 17t...
Amrita Sanjay Achharya Vs. Sanjay Achharya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-2016
PC:- 1. I am unable to understand why the Registry insists on an order of a Court in matters like this. 2. The Petitioner is the mother of two minor children, a daughter named Thavi and a son named Vedant. Thavi is sixteen years old. Vedant is six years old. Their father, the Petitioner s husband, Sanjay died intestate on 9th September 2015 in Mumbai. In addition to the Petitioner and two minor children, Sanjay was survived by his mother, Lata. There is a pending Petition by the present Petitioner for Letters of Administration. 3. In the meantime, the Department has raised an objection and directed the Petitioner to obtain an order of a Court that the Petitioner, Amrita, being the mother and natural guardian of the minor children is their guardian . This is a completely incomprehensible requirement. In law, once the father has passed away, it is evidently the birth mother who is and must be the natural guardian of the minor children. If she is the mother and natural guardian and the De...
Provincial Housings and Property Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-2016
B.P. Colabawalla J. 1. Rule. By consent of parties, rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. By this Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has challenged the Notification bearing No.SRO 150 dated 19th June, 1976 (for short, the said Notification ) issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence (Respondent No.1). This Notification is issued in exercise of powers conferred by section 3 read with section 7(c) of the Works of Defence Act, 1903 (for short, the said Act ). By virtue of this Notification, certain restrictions are imposed on the enjoyment of land in the State of Maharashtra and more particularly described in the Schedule thereto. Apart from challenging the said Notification, the Petitioner has also challenged Condition No.55 imposed in the revised Letter of Intent ( LOI ) dated 30th May, 2009 requiring the Petitioner to obtain the NOC of the Juhu Wireless Station, being a Division of Respondent No.2. 3. Som...
Anil Vs. Siddeshwar Krida Mandal and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-08-2016
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 3.9.2012 passed by the School Tribunal, Aurangabad by which his Appeal No.18/2009 has been dismissed. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 22.4.2013 passed by respondent No.6 Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad. 3. The contentions of the petitioner can be summarized as follows:- [a] After following the due procedure of law, the petitioner was appointed as an 'Assistant Teacher' in respondent No.2 school from 25% Graduates' quota. [b] After completion of his probation of 2 years, he was granted permanency. [c] Respondent No.3/Education Officer granted approval to the permanent appointment of the petitioner. [d] In WP No.5184/2007, the Education Officer was directed to consider the grievance of the petitioner. [e] The appointment of the petitioner was declared to be valid by the directions of the Education Officer dated ...
Saroj and Another Vs. Kongaree Veera Reddy
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-08-2016
1. The original defendants in Regular Civil Suit No. 22 of 2004 have preferred this application, challenging the legality and correctness of the order dated 1st January, 2014, passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 32 of 2010 by the learned Adhoc District Judge-1, Latur whereby the respondent (original plaintiff) has been permitted to withdraw the said suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the same subject matter. 2. The respondent instituted the above numbered Regular Civil Suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ausa, seeking declaration of his title to the suit property, admeasuring 11 gunthas out of the land block No. 19/B/1, situate at village Budhoda, Taluka Ausa and further sought perpetual injunction restraining the applicants from disturbing his possession thereon. The suit came to be dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ausa vide judgment and decree dated 9th September, 2009, mainly on the ground that the suit property, in fact, wa...
Vishwaradhya and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-08-2016
Oral Judgment: (S.S. Shinde, J.) 1. In a nutshell, background facts for filing the present Criminal Application are as under: Respondent no.2 namely, Supriya Shastri married to applicant no.1 Vishwaradhya Shastri in the year 2007 as per Hindu rites and rituals. According to her, at the time of the marriage, 25 tolas of gold was given to the applicants besides utensils. After marriage, applicant nos.1 to 3, who are the husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law respectively of respondent no.2, treated her well for some time. However, thereafter, they demanded some silver articles and car. All of them started ill-treating her on non-fulfillment of their demands. The Criminal Case filed for the offence punishable under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code on her report, however, that ended in acquittal of the applicants. According to Respondent No.2, she was driven out along with her son by applicant no.1. She started residing at her parents house at Vedant Nagar at Nanded. Thereafter also she...
Kailas Sambhaji Lohakre Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through Principa ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-08-2016
Sangitrao S. Patil, J. 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. A short but important question that is involved in this Writ Petition is whether the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board holding a juvenile in conflict with law guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 324, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code would be a disqualification for him to join the services in Army. 3. The petitioner completed his Diploma in Mechanical Engineering with distinction on 9th June, 2015. Respondent no.4 initiated District-wise open ground recruitment process for his Department on 27th July, 2015. The petitioner appeared before respondent no.4 and participated in the recruitment process. His medical examination was conducted. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared for written examination on 29th November, 2015. Respondent no.4 published a list of successful candidates, wherein the name of the petitioner was in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »