Mumbai Court October 2002 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.
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and ors. Vs. Jyoti Constructio ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-25-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR1008; 2003(3)ARBLR489(Bom); 2003(4)BomCR770; 2003(4)MhLj25
ORDERD.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Admit. The learned counsel for the respondent waives service. By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. In these proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai calls into question an award rendered on 3rd June, 2002 by a sole Arbitrator who was nominated to adjudicate upon the disputes that arose between the parties. The disputes between the parties were referred to the arbitration of Shri Madhav Yeshwant Oke, a former Secretary in the Irrigation Department of the Government of Maharashtra. The Contract between the parties3. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai invited tenders in 1989 for, the installation of a pipeline with a diameter of 3000 mm over a length of 7 km from Majiwade (Thane) to the junction of the Mulund- Goregaon Link Road on the Eastern Express Highway at Mumbai. The respondent was a successful bidder whose tender came'to be accepted on 14th August, 1...
Paranjape Metal Shapers Pvt. Ltd., a Company Incorporated Under the In ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-25-2002
Reported in: (2004)ILLJ672Bom
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This Writ petition takes exception to the order passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub-Regional office, Kolhapur, dated 7.11.1995 under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (Herein after referred to as the said Act).2. Briefly stated the petitioner is a private limited company. It was engaged in the activity of processing of cylinders and had its unit Bhosri at Pune. It has come on record that the said unit was closed down from 1979 because of labour problems. The petitioner company however, in the meantime decided to go for expansion and diversification as is mentioned in the directors reported dated 4th December, 1984 (13th Annual Report). In that report it is mentioned as observed by the authority below that, under the heading 'expansion programme' (item 4)-the unit at village Sanghvi near Shirval is stated to be part of expansion and diversification undertaken by the petitioner company.' Pursuant t...
Patiram Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-25-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ4718
D.D. Sinha, J. 1. Heard Mr. Daga, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Fulzele, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.2. The appellant-accused has challenged the judgment and finding of conviction recorded by the trial Court in the present appeal for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.3. Mr. Daga, learned counsel, contended that in the instant case the prosecution has examined eleven prosecution witnesses. However, the material witnesses are Istari Sakharwade (PW-1), the father of the deceased, Shankar (PW-2), who claims to be an eye-witness to the incident, and is the elder brother of the deceased Someshwar, Smt. Lalitabai (PW-3), the mother of the deceased, Smt. Gopikabai (PW-4), another eyewitness, and Dr. Gopal (PW-8). It is contended that the other witnesses, i.e., Patiram (PW-5) and Dnyaneshwar (PW-6) are the Panch witnesses examined by the prosecution in order to prove seizure of clothes of accused, Spot Panchanama, Inq...
Purna Cooperative Sugar Factory (Purna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana), Thro ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-24-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)MhLj292
A.P. Deshpande, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates appearing forthe parties.2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith byconsent of parties.Respective Advocates waive service for therespondents in the both petitions.3. Writ Petition No. 1752/2002 is filed byPurna Cooperative Sugar Factory, Basmatnagar and oneJaiprakash Salunke, who is presently the Chairman(Managing Director) of the petitioner no. 1 / Society.The respondent no. 1 in the said petition is one ShriJaiprakash Mundada, who is presently a Member of theLegislative Assembly. Writ Petition No. 2422/2002 isfiled by the respondent no. 1 (Shri Jaiprakash Mundada).An order passed by the Secretary, Department ofCooperation, State of Maharashtra, dated 19-4-2002 ischallenged in both the petitions and, as such, thepetitions were heard and are being disposed of by thiscommon judgment. For the sake of clarity in thejudgment, parties are referred to as are in the causetitle in Writ Petition No. 1752/2002. Petitioner No. 1 /Purna Cooperative S...
Jetu Jacques Taru Lalvani Vs. Shreeji Mineral Waters Pvt. Ltd. and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-24-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR449; 2003(3)BomCR238; 2003(1)MhLj497
S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. The plaintiff has taken out this Chamber Summons for an order under Section 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 holding that the respondents have furnished a guarantee for the performance of the decree in the above suit and have rendered themselves personally liable for the same and that the plaintiff has therefore become entitled to execute the decree in the above suit against the respondents -- guarantors.2. The plaintiff has also sought directions for issuing a warrant of attachment and other consequential reliefs. However, it is not necessary to consider prayer (b) in this regard in view of the statement made by Mr. Mudnaney, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff.3. The Chamber Summons raises the following interesting questions of law :--(a) Whether a person who is not a party to the suit can be held liable under Section 145 of Civil Procedure Code in respect of a guarantee issued before a decree is passed. (b) Whether Section 145 of the ...
Kamlakant Udaibhan Singh and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-24-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Bom123; 2003(1)ALLMR1197; 2003(4)BomCR268; (2003)2BOMLR67; 2003(2)MhLj284
C.K. Thakker, C.J. 1. Rule. Mrs. J. S. Pawar, Additional Government Pleader, appears and waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondents. In the facts and circumstances, all the matters have been taken up for final hearing. 2. These petitions are filed by the petitioners for appropriate writs, directions or orders directing the respondents to consider the applications made by the petitioners and to issue licences to the petitioners for carrying on Video Games Parlours. Interim relief is also prayed restraining the respondents, their officers, servants and agents from preventing the petitioners from carrying on business of Video Games Parlours. Further interim relief is also prayed that during the final disposal of the petitioners' applications and for a period of three weeks thereafter, the respondents, their officers, servants and agents be restrained by orders of injunction from preventing the petitioners from carrying on the business of Video Games Parlours. 3. The case of...
Maharashtra State Financial Corporation Ltd. Vs. Naresh Kunjilal Gupta ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-24-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR667; II(2003)BC44; 2003(4)BomCR271
F.I. Rebello, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 4.7.2002 whereby the District Court in proceedings initiated under Section 31 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 hereinafter referred to as the State Act has refused to transfer the proceedings to the Tribunal constituted under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. It may be pointed out that by Notification dated 23.7.1999 in exercise of powers conferred on Section 3, Debt Recovery Tribunal has been constituted for the States of Maharashtra and Goa.2. On behalf of the appellants, it is contended firstly that the appeal as instituted falls within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 hereinafter referred to as the Debt Recovery Act. It is contended that they had applied under Section 31 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 of the District Court. Their application was maintainable considering Sect...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Maa Agency and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-24-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR1003; 2003(2)ARBLR402(Bom); 2003(4)BomCR234; 2003(2)MhLj643
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Admit. Respondents waive service. By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal forthwith.2. In these proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, an award of a sole Arbitrator, dated 18th December 2001 is called into question. The Sole Arbitrator in the present case was the Chief Commercial Manager of the Western Railway. The dispute between the parties related to a contract which had been entered into for the printing and distribution of the All India Railway Time Table - August 1998, in pursuance of a purchase order dated 13th July 1998. Disputes arose between the parties and these were referred to arbitration. On 7th July 2000 and on 9th August 2000, the first respondent sought a reference to Arbitration of two claims. The petitioners referred these two claims to Arbitration on 8th August 2001. Before the Arbitral Tribunal, the first respondent raised three claims, two of them being claims in respect of which a reference ha...
Avinash Eknath Nikalje Vs. Sou. Leela Avinash Nikalje
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-24-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Bom244; 2003(3)MhLj450
V.C. Daga, J.1. This appeal is by the original petitioner/husband against the judgment and decree dated 6th March, 2000 passed by the learned Family Court, Pune in P. A. No. 262 of 1993 refusing to grant decree of divorce sought by the appellant/ husband on the ground of cruelty as contemplated by Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 ('Act' for short).2. When this matter was initially called out we enquired with the parties to the appeal as to whether it was possible to reconcile their differences and start living together. However, we were informed that number of attempts were made by different benches from time to time but they could not bring about any settlement between the parties, with the result, we were left with no other alternative but to proceed with the hearing and decide the same in accordance with law.Factual Score 3. The factual score depicts that the parties to the petition got married on 31st October, 1979 under Special Marriage...
Prakash Manikchand Mutha Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-24-2002
Reported in: 2003(4)MhLj484
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This petition filed under Articles 226 and227 of the Constitution, deals with the interpretation of Section 73-A(5) of theMaharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (For short, 'the Act'.) and praysfor a writ or direction that the respondent No. 5 has suffered disqualificationunder the said provision, on the ground that he has been a designated Officer ofthe respondent No. 6 Bank i.e. Vaijapur Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd. atVaijapur for more than 10 years in aggregate/consecutively. Before we examinethe rival contentions and record our findings, it would be imperative to set out thefactual matrix in greater details so as to appreciate the issues involved in thispetition.2. The respondent No. 6 Bank, is a co-operative bank, registered under theAct and its area of operation was enlarged pursuant to the resolution dated 11-11-1973 to the municipal area of Vaijapur (a Tahsil Headquarter) and GramPanchayat Area of Lasur Station in Gangapur Taluka of Aurangabad Di...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »