Mumbai Court November 2011 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.
Bombay Latex and Dispensions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jethalla Amritlal Doshi and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-2011
1 In this Civil Application, the learned Single Judge (Coram: D. G. Karnik, J.) had directed impleadment of the Advocate who had represented Applicants in the Small Causes Court. Accordingly, Advocate has filed reply and the Respondents have also filed reply. Affidavit in rejoinder has been filed by Mr. Lalit B. Narang, President of the Applicants. By my order dated 23rd September, 2011, the record of the Court of Small Causes was called for to verify the fate of the Applications filed for certified copies. 2 Both these Civil Applications for condonation of delay have been lodged on 22nd December, 2010 and 23rd December, 2010 respectively. These Applications have been filed on the basis of application for certified copies which were filed on 16th November, 2010 for which the copies were delivered on 26th November, 2010. Pursuant to my earlier order dated 23rd September, 2011, the original record of the Court of Small Causes is produced which indicates that Applications for certified co...
Dinesh Vasantrai Bhuta Vs. Mrs. Vasantben Harvilas Jani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-2011
1 On 29th August, 2011, the hearing of the Petition was concluded and the Judgment was reserved. 2 RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard by consent of the parties. Mr. Vani, Advocate for the Respondent waives service. 3 The Petitioner is the Original Plaintiff in RAD Suit No.35 of 1998 which has been filed in the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai under Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947. It is the case of the Plaintiff that he is the monthly tenant of the Defendant/ Landlord in respect of the flat ad-measuring 2121 sq. feet on the ground floor of the building known as "Asmita" at Vile Parle (W), Bombay. The Plaintiff has pleaded that the suit premises were let out to him in the year 1969 and it is his further case that though the rent was agreed to be Rs.1,300/- per month, the Defendant stated that if the rent is shown high, property tax would be charged at higher rate, that a Leave and License Agreement was kept ready by the Defendants which showed that a near relative of ...
Mahendrakumar Harmansingh SiriyA. Vs. Bombay and ors
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-2011
1. The Petitioner has been retired prematurely from judicial service in public interest under Rule 19 of the Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules 2008 read with sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Maharashtra Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1982. The Petitioner joined judicial service as a Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate, First Class on 29 March 1996. The Petitioner attained the age of 55 years on 11 October 2010. The Review Committee consisting of the Chief Justice and the four senior most Judges held a meeting on 19 October 2010 for considering the cases of judicial officers for review and continuation in judicial service beyond the age of 50, 55 and 58 as the case may be. As regards the Petitioner, the following decision was arrived at : " The Annual Confidential Reports of the above Judicial Officer for the latest period i.e. 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 show that his integrity can be doubted. In the Annual Confidential Report for the years 2007-2008, the Hon'ble Guardian J...
Mrs. Kalyani A. Shetty of Hotel Anand Punjab. Vs. State of Maharashtra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-2011
1. Heard Mr. Kansara, learned Advocate for the Petitioner and Ms. Cardozo, learned AGP for the Respondent. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. Heard by consent of the parties. Ms. Cardozo, waives service of rule on behalf of the Respondent. 4. By this Writ Petition, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 16.03.2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police(HQ-1) from the office of the Commissioner of Police, Greater Mumbai in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 27 of the "Rules for Keeping Places of Public Entertainments in Greater Bombay" Rules. By the said order, the License No. 43/Colaba granted to the Petitioner to keep a place for public entertainment has been suspended for a period of 30 continuous days. The Petitioner is also challenging the judgment and order dated 18th August, 2011 passed by the Hon'ble Minister(Home Affairs) Government of Maharashtra in the Appeal filed by the Pe...
Chandrakant C. Anandpura Vs. the General Manager Jet Airways India Pvt ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-2011
S.B. Mhase, President: 1. This appeal is directed as against the order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South Mumbai District, Mumbai in consumer complaint No. 208/2002 decided on 14.1.2005. By this order, the complaint which was filed by the appellant/complainant was dismissed. Therefore, aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order of the District Forum, complainant has filed this appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and challenged the said order. 2. The appellant in the present appeal is the original complainant while the opponent No. 1 and 2 are the original opponents. For the sake of convenience, the appellant is referred to as Complainant and respondents are referred to as Opponents in this order. 3. The opponent is a Airways Company. The complainant had traveled on 19.10.2001 from Mumbai to Udaipur in the flight 9W 3405. The departure of the said flight on that day was scheduled at 1710 hours. The total journey period of the said flight ...
Ajaykumar Yadaorao Nikhar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-11-2011
1. Order dated 16/10/2004 passed by Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidating caste claim of petitioner as belonging to Halba scheduled tribe forms subject matter of challenge in this matter. Impugned order is under Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis) Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act,2000--referred to as Act no.23 of 2001 hereafter. Petitioner has sought that caste certificate on 9/3/1983 & contested election as councilor of Municipal Council, Bhandara on 22/1/2002 against a reserved seat. Because of this invalidation, Collector had declared him disqualified on 6/11/2004 and it was recalled on 22/11/2004 as this Court on 11/11/2004 stayed the order of Scrutiny Committee. Thereafter, during pendency of this petition & because of orders dated 29/11/2004 in it, he has been elected again in January,2007 as scheduled tribe candidate on the strengt...
Vitthal Pandurang Pawar and ors Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-11-2011
1. This appeal is directed against the conviction of the appellants by the learned Special Judge, Pune for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the IPC ) and Section 5(2) r/w Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (for short, the PC Act ) and sentence of RI for 3 years with fine of `500/- or in default RI for 15 days, imposed upon each of them for each of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC, as also RI for 1 year with fine of `250/- and RI for 1 year with fine of `500/- for the offence punishable under Section 5(2) r/w Section 5(1)(d) of the PC Act. Appellant No.2 was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the IPC and sentenced to RI for 1 year with fine of `250/- or in default RI for a further period of 7 days. 2. Facts which are material for deciding this appeal are as under: Appellant Nos.1 and 2 Vitthal Pawar and Ramesh Kharat were ...
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd Vs. the Nagpur Municipal Corporation
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-11-2011
1 Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally the learned Counsel for the respective parties by consent. 2 The prayer in this writ Petition is to hold and declare that the Rules 14 (a), 14 (d), 14(f) 14(h) and Rule 44 of the Octroi rules for the assessment, collection and refund of cess, octroi duty imposed under Section 114 (1) (e) of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948 ( hereinafter referred to as " CNC Act)" and for the prevention of evasion thereof are unconstitutional, illegal, null and void being contrary to Article 265 of the Constitution of India and Section 152 of the CNC Act. Said impost is on goods and animals brought within the octroi limits of Nagpur Corporation for sale, consumption or use therein. The Petitioner also prays for the declaration that Nagpur Municipal corporation is not entitled to recover any penalty from the Petitioner under it's bill for penal octroi duty No. NMC/OCT/1107/AMC, dated 18/02/2011 and the notice of demand No. NMC/OCT/1166/AOS10-11, dat...
Kashinath Shivba Khillare Vs. Fuley Magasvarg Vikas Mahamandal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-11-2011
1]Heard Mrs. Deshpande for petitioner, advocate Marathe for respondent no.1, advocate Rahul Dhande for respondent no.3 & 4 and learned A.G.P. Shri Sonak for respondent no.2. Nobody appears for respondent no.5. 2] Short grievance of advocate Deshpande is though three petitioners before this court are senior to respondent no.3, 4 & 5, while effecting promotion to the cadre of Manager, on the strength of seniority-cum-merit, their entitlement has not been considered. Respondents no.3 to 5 who are juniors have been given said promotions. She therefore relies upon judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1994 SC 1693 [S.D. Raghunandan Singh ..vs.. State of Karnataka and others] to claim deemed date of promotion as all petitioners and respondents had by now retired on superannuation. 3] Advocate Marathe and advocate Dhande are supporting the impugned action. Advocate Marathe relies upon reply - affidavit filed on record to show how respondents are found entitled to promotion. Shri Dhande s...
Ms. Elegant Capitals Private Limited. Vs. in Cablenet (Andhra) Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-2011
1. By the above Summons for Judgment, the Plaintiff has prayed that the Judgment be entered in favour of the Plaintiff in the Suit against the Defendant for the sum of Rs. 15,37,70,000/- as more particularly set out in the particulars of claim being Exhibit - I to the Plaint, along with further interest at the rate of 13% per annum on Rs. 11,10,00,000/- from 24th March 2009 till payment and/or realization thereof and costs. 2. The Plaintiff is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The Defendant is also a Company registered and incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The Defendant is engaged in the business of providing cable television network to the subscribers in the State of Andhra Pradesh. 3. According to the Plaintiff, in or about March 2006, Mr. R.V Chowdary (Managing Director of the Defendant) .R.requested the Plaintiff for financial assistance by way of Inter Corporate Deposit (ICD). On 25th March 2006, an Inter Corporate Deposit Agreement was entered into bet...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »