Mumbai Court December 2010 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.
Prognosys Medical Systems Ltd. Vs. Mumbai Municipal Corporation and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-2010
The Municipal Corporation invited tenders on 25 January 2010 for the supply and installation of four Flat Panel Digital Radiography Systems at KEM Hospital. On 10 March 2010, the technical bids were opened. The Municipal Corporation received six bids of which four were considered as being responsive. After scrutiny of the contents of the technical bids, the report of the scrutiny was placed before the Technical Scrutiny Committee on 23 August 2010. Dr.Hemant Deshmukh, Professor in the Department of Radiology observed a demonstration together with the Executive Engineer in the Medico Electronic Cell in June and July 2010. A report was prepared by these two officials and by the concerned Heads of Department at KEM, Nair and Sion Hospitals. During the course of the scrutiny, a letter was received from the Third Respondent on 7 May 2010 offering a demonstration of the system installed by it in South Korea and Turkey. This request was approved by the Competent Authority. A team of officials...
High Court on Its Own Motion Vs. Mr.N.B.Deshmukh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-2010
1. This Suo Motu contempt action is initiated on the basis of the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court, in relation to an incident when : the Respondent/Contemner allegedly committed contempt on the face of the Court. The order on the basis of which this Suo Motu action is commenced is dated October 10, 2008, which reads thus: "P.C.This Court is seized of judicial work which has been assigned in accordance with the roster of work issued under the directions of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice. At 3 p.m. today, an Advocate by the name of N.B.Deshmukh, appeared in Court and sought to interrupt the course of the proceedings by insisting that this Court should take up his matter forthwith. He informed the Court that he had attempted to mention the matter before other Learned Judges (the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, Hon'ble Shri Justice J.N.Patel, Hon'ble Shri Justice F.I.Rebello and Hon'ble Shri Justice D.K.Deshmukh) and that he has thereafter appeared before this Court. The matter d...
M.A. Azim, Age Major Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-21-2010
1 This Writ Petition is filed challenging the Judgment and Order dated 1st of January, 1991, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Aurangabad in Reference (IDA) No. 24 of 1987. 2 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Aurangabad received reference under Section 10 & 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, from the Deputy Commissioner of Labour between the employee M.A. Azim and the Works Manager, S.T. Central Workshop, Chikalthana, Aurangabad. In answer to the said notice, the second party i.e. petitioner herein has filed his statement of claim. It was also contended that the petitioner joined service with first party, as clerk on 3rd June, 1968 and he was promoted as Junior Assistant with effect from 18th August, 1977. His service record was clean and unblemished. He was not punished for any type of mis-conduct at any time. In the year 1980, he became sick and had submitted medical certificate to the respondent, requesting leave for 20 days from 12th July, 1980 to 31st July, 1980. T...
Reshma Singh D/O.Late Achal Bahadur Singh Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-2010
1. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is prayed that the Special Case No. 39/1999 pending in the Court of Special Judge for Greater Mumbai at Mumbai be quashed and set aside qua the Petitioner before this Court on the ground that continuation of the said proceedings against the Petitioner is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.2. The relevant facts which gave rise to the filing of the present Petition are as follows:-a) The Petitioner alongwith her mother Smt. Mani Kaul and step brother Vikram Kaul and one Manjit Singh Kaur who was employed as Inspector of the State Excise Filing Squad are facing prosecution for offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 109 of Indian Penal Code instituted in the Court of Sessions for Greater Mumbai at Mumbai being Special Case No. 39/1999.b) The prosecution case against the said Manjit Singh Khera (accused no. 1) is tha...
World Sport Group (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Board of Control for Crick ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-2010
1. This is a petition under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for an order restraining the respondents from creating any third party rights in respect of the rights conferred upon the petitioner under an agreement dated 25.3.2009 or transferring, alienating or otherwise affecting any rights granted thereunder. The petitioner has also sought an order restraining the respondents from interfering with the implementation of the operations by the petitioner under the said agreement.2. The respondents are a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. The IPL is a sub-committee of the respondents. One Lalit Modi was at the material time appointed by the respondents as the Chairman and Commissioner of the IPL. The Respondents own and control the commercial rights in respect of a cricketing event known as Indian Premier League (IPL).3. In November, 2007, the respondents invited tenders to grant the media rights in relation to the IPL.4(A). According...
Smt. Laxmibai W/O Laxminarayan Vs. the Jalgaon Merchant Co-operative B ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-20-2010
01. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself.02. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties.03. The challenge in this Letters Patent Appeal is to the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2337 of 2010, on 18.10.2010, thereby allowing the said writ petition, resulting into quashing and setting aside the order dated 11.8.2008 passed by the Cooperative Court, Jalgaon, below Exhibit 30 in Dispute No.1057 of 2007, restraining the opponents therein from putting the property in dispute for sale, and also resulting into setting aside the judgment and order dated 15.11.2008 passed by the learned Member, Maharashtra State Cooperative Appellate Court, Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad, in Appeal No. 169 of 2008, thereby dismissing the said appeal.04. Respondent No.1 herein is the Cooperative Bank and the appellant herein is alleged to be ...
Baban S/O Ananda Dange Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-20-2010
1. By this appeal, the appellant has challenged his conviction u/s 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code awarded vide judgment and order dated 25.11.2008 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli in Sessions Trial No.25/2005. By the said judgment the appellant is sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/, in default to suffer SI for six month and Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/, in default to suffer SI for 15 days, respectively.2. Brief facts of the case can be summarized thus a) Prakash Vishwanath Ghongade (PW1) lodged a missing report on 17.04.2005 in Narsi police station that his brother Badrinath was missing. Investigation of the said complaint was entrusted to Beet Jamadar. On 18.04.2005 PW1 Prakash lodged complaint (Exhibit22) against the present appellant and hence offence punishable under section 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the appellant at Crime No. 17/2005. Investigation of the said offence ...
Pacific BasIn Ihx (Uk) Ltd Vs. Ashapura Minechem Ltd
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-2010
1] This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:- "(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare the arbitration Award dated 8 July 2009 read with 15 March 2010 enforceable as decree of this Hon'ble Court."2] It is submitted by the petitioners that they are a company incorporated in England and carrying on business at the address set out in the cause title. They are inter alia ship owners, ship operators and charterers. Respondent before this Court is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at the address mentioned hereinabove. It carries on business as exporters of Bauxite and other minerals. 3] The petitioner seeks enforcement of a foreign Arbitration Award dated 8th July 2009 and a further award dated 15th March 2010 under which the petitioners have been awarded sums more particularly set out in para 2 of the petition. A copy of the Award in relation to the main dispute and also a copy of the Award in relation to costs is annexed to ...
Mohanlal S/O Ukchand Soni Vs. Mandakini Ramchandra Shah and ors.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-20-2010
1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing at admission stage.2. The decree of eviction recorded in Regular Civil Appeal No. 79/2007 by the learned District Judge at Dhule, reversing the judgment of dismissal of Regular Civil Suit No.126/2004, is questioned by the tenant. On 9.3.2010, after hearing both the learned counsel, this Court inform to decide the appeal finally at admission stage and it was fixed to 17.6.2010. The matter was adjourned under several circumstances.3. The controversy hinges on finding recorded by learned Principal District Judge, Dhule, holding default by the applicant in terms of Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act and the statutory notice could be a proper service required under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The landlord came with a case that the suit notice dated 7.10.2003 was served. The tenant disputed the same by establishing that between ...
The Commissioner of Central ] Excise and Custom, Daman, Vs. M/S. Gujch ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-2010
:1 The above Appeal filed by the Revenue against the Judgment and Order dated 13th January 2004 passed by the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai raises following substantial questions of law : "i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the goods were not required to enter in RG I ?ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal is right in law in holding that since there is no confirmation from the buyer that the goods were as per specification and therefore justified in not entering in the RG I? iii) The Hon'ble Tribunal had failed to take into account the provisions of Rules 173 Q (1) of the Central Excise Rule, 1944?" 2 The facts necessary to be cited for adjudication of the said substantial questions of law can be conveniently stated thus :The Respondents herein are engaged in manufacture of various products, which are, excisable goods failling under Chapters 22, 28, 29, 34...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »