Mumbai Court December 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.
Ushadevi Rajaram Nimbalkar and ors. Vs. the Ratnakar Bank Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-2011
1 Rule. With the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2 The above Petition takes exception to the Order dated 24-6-2011 passed by the Learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Kolhapur, by which Order, the Misc Application No.1351 of 1980 came to be disposed of by observing that since the objector is dead, the objections are "filed" for want of the objector. 3 It is not necessary to burden this order with unnecessary facts. However, suffice it to say, that there is a money decree passed in favour of the Bank which is dated 25-6-1974. The execution proceedings for executing the said decree were set in motion and the property in question which was mortgaged was permitted to be auctioned. Pursuant to the said auction, the Respondent Bank itself purchased the said property as there was no other buyer. On 3-5-1980 the Respondent Bank filed Misc Application No.1351 of 1980 before the executing Court under Order 21 Rule 95 of the Civil Procedure Code for possession of the pr...
Sow. Girika Wo Badamrao Pandit and ors. Vs. Dist. Beed. the State of M ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-2011
1. The petitioner and respondent nos. 3 to 5 filled in nominations for the election of Councillor of Gevrai Municipal Council from Ward No. 2-B. 2. The objection was taken to the nomination of respondent no. 3 on the count that she is having five ( 5 ) children and one child born after the cut off date, as such is disqualified. The Returning Officer rejected the nomination of respondent no. 3. Respondent no. 3 filed Appeal before the District Court. The District Judge allowed the Appeal of respondent no. 3 and directed the Returning Officer to accept the nomination paper of respondent no. 3. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. Mr. N.L.Jadhav, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no. 3 is wife of Shantilal Pisal. Shantilal Pisal has four ( 4 ) issues from his first wife. After the death of the first wife, Shantilal married with present respondent no. 3 and respondent no. 3 gave birth to a child on 03/08/2004. As such, it will have to be sa...
Darphale Yogita Jagannath and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-2011
JUDGMENT (PER A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.):- 1. All these petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment, as the issues raised therein are identical. 19 2327.10.doc 2. The challenge in these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is primarily to the advertisement dated 10th February, 2010 issued by the Maharashtra State Council of Examination, inviting applications to fill in the post of Shikshan Sevaks in Zilla Parishads, Municipal Corporation Education Boards (except Mumbai), Municipal Councils, Cantonment Boards in the State of Maharashtra by conducting Central Examination Test from amongst the D.Ed. / D.T.Ed. As the advertisement was issued in the light of Government Resolution dated 16th December, 2009, the petitioners have prayed that the respondents be directed to amend / modify the same, especially in respect of qualification of primary teachers, so as to include the Arts Teachers Diploma ('A.T.D.', for the sake of brevity) for appointment as Shikshan Sevaks....
Sumit Sanjay Jaiswal and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-2011
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties heard finally. 2. Both the writ petitions take exception to the judgment and order dated 30-03-2011 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik in Grampanchayat Appeal Nos.6 of 2011 and 5 of 2011 respectively in Writ Petition Nos. 3323 of 2011 and 3325 of 2011. 3. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellate authority has confirmed the order passed by the Additional Collector, Dhule thereby allowing the application filed by respondent No. 3 herein, and the petitioners herein are disqualified as a Members of the Grampanchayat Ner under the provisions of Section 14 (h-1) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (for short, "said Act"). 4. The background facts of the case are as under : . It is the case of the petitioners that, in the month of July, 2010, election for Ner Village Panchayat was conducted in which the petitioner Sumit filled in nomination form from Ward No.6, reserved f...
Ms. Shree Ambica Developers Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-2011
1. The petitioners have approached this Court against the order dated 17.3.2011 passed by the Vice Chairman and Managing Director, CIDCO revoking the permission granted to the petitioners for change of user of Plot No. 1 in Sector 1, Kharghar from commercial to commercial cum residential and directing restoration of the user of the plot for commercial purposes. The only question that arises is whether the respondents - CIDCO is entitled to cancel the permission granted earlier for change of user of Plot no. 1 at Kharghar from commercial to commercial cum residential use after the CIDCO having granted such permission and the petitioners having acted on it. 2. Respondents - CIDCO allotted plot no.1 to the petitioners for commercial use in pursuance of a tender in which the petitioners were the highest bidders. The petitioners were allotted plot after their bid of Rs. 40,00,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Crores) was accepted. The petitioners having obtained the allotment duly applied for and was ...
Drive India Enterprise Solutions Ltd. Vs. Haier Telecom (India) Pvt. L ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-2011
1. The Appellant/original Petitioner filed Petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 essentially for restraining Respondent No.2 (original Defendant No.2) from encashing certain Standby Letters of Credit (SBLC) issued by Respondent No.3 (original Defendant No.3). 2. The Appellant-Petitioner and Respondent No.1 entered into agreements dated 05.02.2010 and 15.04.2010 for import and supply of certain mobile handsets. The Petitioner were to issue certain SBLCs at the request of Respondent No.1 but in favour of Respondent No.2. 3. Respondent No.1 was to export and supply the mobile handsets. Purchase orders were placed by the Petitioner and certain SBLCs were given. It is contended by the Petitioner that Respondent No. 1 did not supply the products in terms of the aforesaid agreements though the Petitioner made full payment under the contract. The Suit is only in respect of SBLCs. The SBLCs are issued not in favour of Respondent No.1. They are issued specificall...
Mrs. Agnes Ruddy Odhoch Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-2011
1. The appeal is preferred by the original accused challenging the judgment and order dated 05.12.2007 passed by the Special Judge, Greater MP 2 Apeal1297_07.doc Mumbai, whereby the accused / appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 21(c), Section 23(c) r/w. Section 28 and Section 29 r/w. Section 21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in brief "NDPS Act") and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.1 lakh, and in default to pay fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of one year on each count. 2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that Narcotic Control Bureau, Mumbai Zone (II) (for brief "NCB") received an intelligence on 05.05.2002 that two African ladies namely Josephine Funsani and the present appellant Agnes Ruddy Odhoch were to smuggle substantial quantity of heroin out of India in their baggages or on person. Both the ladies were to board Kenya Airways Flight No. KQ-201 scheduled at...
Ms.Nandanvan Co Operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-2011
1. In this appeal from order, the appellant is taking exception to the order passed by the Judge, City Civil Court, Borivali Division, Dindoshi on 28th July 2011 in L.C.Suit No.733/2009. The trial Court has directed return of plaint to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper court on the ground that the the prayers made in the plaint are beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial Court and that the valuation of the suit is not correctly recorded in the plaint. 2. The respondent/ plaintiff presented suit claiming the declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to a deed of conveyance in respect of plot of land admeasuring 3,250 sq.yards equivalent to 2,717 sq.meters bearing Survey No.27, Hissa No.1 corresponding to C.T.S.No. 287, 287/1 to 35 of village- Vile-Parle (East) together with the building known as Nandanvan-A consisting of ground plus three upper floors and building known as Nandanvan-B consisting of ground plus sixth floor and part seventh floor. The substantial relief...
Mr.Mukesh R.Gokal. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-2011
1. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for direction against the respondents to take cognizance of the complaint made by the petitioner dated 10th June, 2006 and submit appropriate report in that behalf after conducting inquiry. It is further prayed that the investigation of the case be entrusted to third agency other than respondent No.3. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner asserts that he is dealing in the garment export business and has manufacturing facilities at Chennai. He had business transaction in the year 2000 with one M/s.Lalitha Fashions of Chennai having their business at Lalitha Handlooms, No.25, Shanmugarayan Street, Chennai-600 021. Later on, some difference and disputes arose between the parties. According to the petitioner because of the delay in supply of material, the petitioner had to suffer substantial loss. Notwithstanding that the said firm filed criminal complaint of cheating against the petitioner instead of sett...
Ms. Veet Rag Homes Private Limited. Vs. Union of IndiA.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-2011
JUDGEMENT (Per S.A.Bobde,J.) 1. The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing and setting aside the order dated 25.4.2008 of the Minister (Industries & Mining) recommending grant of mining lease of bauxite ore under section 11(3) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as the "Act", read with rule 34 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 and the order of the Mines Tribunal rejecting their revision under section 30 of the Act thereby upholding the grant of mining lease in favour of the respondent no.3. 2. The petitioner M/s.Veet Rag Homes Private Limited and the respondent no.3 M/s.Akash Universal (P) Limited alongwith 16 other applicants applied for mining lease for mining bauxite over an area of 192.36 hectares at Mauze Kumbhawade, dist. Ratnagiri, after the said area had been notified under section 11(2) of the Act on 12.12.2006 by the Director, Geology and Mining and applications were invited for grant of a mining lease o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »