Mumbai Court July 2011 Judgments
Mrs. Arti D/O. Amar Pandey Vs. Manoj Kundanlal JaIn and ors.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-28-2011
1. Heard Mr.S.Adukia, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 3. None for the applicant. 2. The revision applicant has challenged the order dated 30th October, 2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Revision Application No.1180 of 2009 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to set aside the order of issuance of process which was passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Nagpur. 3. It appears that Summary Criminal Case was instituted for the alleged offence punishable under Section 138 r/w. Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. After recording verification, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Court No.10), Nagpur, by an order dated 30.7.2009, issued process for the offence punishable u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 4. It appears that complainant Arti d/o. Amar Pande instituted complaint against six persons (accused nos. 1 to 6 ) on the ground that they were having business of sale and purchase of...
Tag this Judgment!ial Logistics India Vs. Quantum International and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-2011
1 The present Summons for Judgment is taken out by the Plaintiffs in a Summary Suit for recovery of unpaid freight and other incidental charges by the Defendants in a sum of ` 8,33,656/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 1 January 2006 upto 25 September 2008. 2 The Plaintiffs carry on a business as Consolidators and Freight Forwarders. Defendant no.1 is the sole proprietary concern and doing a business as exporters of garments. Defendant no.2 is also carrying on business of the same nature. Defendant no.3 is an internationally approved Freight Forwarding Agents for carriage of goods by Air and stated to be the authorised agent of the carriers of the consignments in question. Defendants 1 and 2 were the owner of the consignments consisting of cotton woven garments which were entrusted to the Plaintiffs for effecting shipment to New York. No relief is claimed against Defendant no.3. 3 The Plaintiffs effected the carriage by Air of the four consignments to New York. The Airw...
Tag this Judgment!Madhukar Alias Babanrao S/O Ganpat Original Sabnis Vs. Smt. Kantabai W ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-28-2011
1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 13.9.1993, passed by the 10th Jt. Civil Judge (J.D.), Amravati in Regular Civil Suit No.30/1991, decreeing the suit of the respondent/plaintiff in the sum of Rs.23,400/- with future interest @ 18% per annum from the date of suit till its realization and confirmed in appeal by the Extra Joint District Judge, Amravati on 3.2.1999 in Regular Civil Appeal No.4/1994, the present appeal was filed by the appellant/defendant. 2. In support of the appeal, Shri Rahul Dhande, the learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that though there is concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below while decreeing the suit of the respondent/plaintiff, the findings of facts are utterly perverse and thus would constitute substantial question of law. The findings are not based on evidence on record documentary as well as oral. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the suit was clearly barred by limitation but the Courts...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Basant Lall Shaw and anr. Vs. Hri Manoj Kumar Jayaswal
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-28-2011
1) Rule, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2) The above petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 13/5/2011 passed by the learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur whereby the application (Exh. 13) filed by the petitioners herein under Sections 5 and 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for the sake of brevity, hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") came to be rejected. 3) The issue, which arises for consideration in the above petition, is as to whether the dispute as regards implementation of the directions of the Escrow Agent appointed under the Indenture of Family Settlement dated 31/7/2008 is arbitrable and has to be referred to the Arbitrator ? 4) The factual matrix involved in the above petition can be stated thus : The petitioner no.1 is the father of the petitioner no.2 as well as the respondent. The petitioner no.1 has establi...
Tag this Judgment!Gajanan S/O Tejrao Deshmukh Vs. the Additional Commissioner and ors.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-28-2011
1) Rule, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2) The above petition takes exception to the order dated 1/7/2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati in exercise of the revisional power under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. By the said order, the Revision filed by the respondent nos. 6 to 10 herein came to be allowed and the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Additional Collector came to be set aside. 3) Perusal of the impugned order discloses that in the penultimate paragraph of the said order, the Additional Commissioner has recorded that certain facts have not been considered, namely, that the petitioners before him, i.e. respondent nos. 6 to 10 herein were having ancestral right over the well as also easementary rights; that the civil Court's order is in favour of the said petitioners and that the Sale Deeds of the years 1956 and 1966 are having evidentiary value...
Tag this Judgment!Adarsh Co-operative Housing Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-2011
AJN 00-CRI-WP570.11 :1:IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.570 OF 2011Adarsh Co-operative Housing ) Society Limited, a Society ) registered under the Maharashtra ) Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, ) having its address at: CTS No. ) 652, Block VI, Colaba Division, ) Captain Prakash Pethe Marg, ) Adjacent to Backbay Bus Depot, ) Colaba, Mumbai - 400 005. ) ... Petitioners Versus1 Union of India, near CGO ) Building, Marine Lines, )Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - )400 020. )2 State of Maharashtra through ) the Office of the Government )Pleader, Public Works )Department, High Court, )Mumbai - 400 023. )3 Central Bureau of ) Investigation, Anti Corruption )Branch, Tanna House, 11-A, )Nathalal Parekh Marg, Colaba, )Mumbai - 400 039. ) ... Respondents Mr. V.A. Thorat, senior counsel with Mr. S.L. Maneshinde and Mr. Saket Mane i/b M/s. Vidhi Partners for the petitionersAJN 00-CRI-WP570.11 :2:Mr. D.J. Khambatta, Additional Solicitor Gener...
Tag this Judgment!Music Broadcast Private Limited Vs. Indian Performing Right Society
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. The plaintiff has sought a declaration that the defendant is not entitled to demand or recover royalty and/or licence fee or require the plaintiff to pay the same in respect of broadcast of sound recordings by the plaintiff at its FM Radio Stations and is not entitled to interfere with such broadcasts by the plaintiff for non payment of royalty and/or licence fee; a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from demanding or claiming or making any claim in respect of or interfering with such broadcasts by the plaintiff for non payment of royalty/licence fee and a decree in the sum of `.1,27,62,589/- towards refund of royalty/licence fee received by the defendant from the plaintiff from 1st August, 2003 upto 31st July, 2006, together with interest. In the alternative to the above prayers, the plaintiff has sought a declaration that it is entitled to a licence to broadcast the works from the defendant's repertoire on payment of royalty as stipulated by an order da...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Parsappa Kodvan Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-2011
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The I Ad-hoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Solapur, vide impugned judgement and order dated 18.12.2002 convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under section 302 and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for life; fine of Rs.5,000/- is also imposed on the appellant, in default to suffer R.I. for one year. 3. The circumstances which have given rise to the prosecution of the appellant are as follows:- On 13.7.2002 Kiran Namdeo Aucha (P.W.10), Investigating Officer, at about 11.00 p.m. received an information from police head constable Shinde that the owner of Sunil Hotel at Lamboti, viz., Abhiman Waghmode has informed the police station by phone that his servant Ashok Parasappa Kodvan (the appellant) has killed his wife in the field at Lamboti. Police station diary entry (exh.39) was made accordingly. PSI Aucha went to gat no.66 owned by Abhiman with the police staff. They found the dead bod...
Tag this Judgment!Avinash Trimbak Namjoshi Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-2011
1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed that appropriate writ or direction be issued to the respondents to pay to the petitioner post retirement benefits as mentioned in Annexure I annexed to the memo of petition, along with interest at the rate of 18% on the delayed payments. This relief is sought in terms of prayer clause (a). By prayer clause (b), the petitioner has prayed for declaration that the action of the respondent no.2 refusing to modify the option no.8 under the post retirement benefit scheme available to the employees of the respondent no.1 is arbitrary and illegal and hence violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. By prayer clause (c) the petitioner has prayed for direction to the respondent to make available to the petitioner option no.8 which was in vogue prior to 1.4.1995, out of the 8 options mentioned in the booklet Annexure C annexed to the memo of petition. By prayer clause (d) an alternate prayer i...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjay Dinanath Tiwari Vs. Director General of Police (Anti ... Respon ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-2011
1. This petition is filed in public interest by one Mr. Sanjay Dinanath Tiwari, who claims to be an RTI activist. The grievance of the petitioner is mainly against respondent 9 - Kripa Shankar Ram Niranjan Singh, who is the President of the Mumbai Pradesh Congress Committee. He was a State Minister for Home in the State of Maharashtra and is presently a Member of Legislative Assembly in Maharashtra. In 2006, he was appointed as the All India Congress Committee Observer in the State of Jharkhand. Respondent 10 is the wife of respondent 9. Respondents 11 and 12 are his son and daughter-in-law respectively. Respondents 13 and 14 are his daughter and son-in-law respectively. 2. In short, the case of the petitioner is that respondent 9 owns huge properties and assets, which are disproportionate to his known sources of income. The properties which are stated to be ill-gotton are also in the names of members of his family, who are parties to this petition. Those members of his family have no ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »