Mumbai Court July 2011 Judgments
M/S. Puyvast Chartering B.V. and anr. Vs. Kec International Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-2011
1 The Petitioner have challenged impugned award dated 28 February 2007, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Arbitration Act), passed by the sole Arbitrator. The basic events are as under:- 2 Petitioner No.1 who is the owner (the owner) and original opponent entered into a GENCON charter party/Fixture Note on 8 April 2005 (the charter party) with the Respondents (The Charterers) for the carriage of 6297 MTs of steel angles in bundles and bolts/nuts packed in boxes from load-port Mumbai to discharge port Tripoli, Libya. Petitioner No.2 was the agent of Petitioner No.1 (the agent). 3 It was agreed that the Respondents should load/discharge it's cargo within three days from the arrival at Mumbai port. The vessel arrived at Mumbai on 28 April 2005. The loading was completed on 7 May 2005 and sailed on next day from Mumbai. The vessel arrived at discharge port Tripoli on 6 June 2005. The vessel commenced discharge on 7 June 2005. There was delay of...
Tag this Judgment!The General Manager (Telecom) and anr. Vs. Zarir S/O Pesi Mawalwala an ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-15-2011
1) Rule with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2) The above petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India take exception to the order dated 20/01/2011, by which the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Nagpur answered the Reference, which was referred to it for adjudication, in favour of the workman i.e. the petitioner No.1 in Writ Petition No.3055/2011. 3) The petitioner No.1 in Writ Petition No.3055 was initially appointed on 21/01/1986 as casual labour with the Chief General Manager, Railway Electrification Project Telecom and thereafter he was transferred to the Divisional Engineer Telecom, Microwave (Survey) from the year 1989. He has worked with the respondent BSNL up to 25/06/1993 when he was given the temporary status by a letter dated 02/03/1988 under the provisions of the Casual Labourer (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme. It appears that by order dated 18/02/1989, regularized 69 ...
Tag this Judgment!Shabbirbhai Bookwala Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-2011
1. This petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order of detention passed on 11/2/2011 by the Secretary (Appeals and Security), Government of Maharashtra, Home Department and in his capacity as the Detaining Authority under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (the Act for short). The said order came to be executed on 17/2/2011 and while confirming it, as per the order dated 16/5/2011 under Section 8(f) of the Act, the period of detention has been said to be one year. 2. As per the reasoned order passed on the very same day i.e. 11/2/2011, on 24/3/2010, the officers of the Air Intelligence Unit (AIU), on the basis of the intelligence received, had intercepted the detenu in transit lounge on his arrival from Hongkong by Jet Airways Flight No.9W 0075 while he was found surreptitiously exchanging his hand bag and baggage with another passenger by name Shri Mohd. ...
Tag this Judgment!Manohar S/O Mahadeo Dande Vs. Manohar S/O Bhaskar Bhave
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-15-2011
1) Rule with the consent of 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 14/06/2011 passed by the learned Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Nagpur, by which order the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the order of no cross dated 15th July, 2010 and for setting aside the order of closing the matter for judgment on 3rd December, 2010 came to be rejected. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner and his counsel were always remained present on the dates when the matter was fixed for cross-examination. However, on 15th July, 2010 the counsel was late in reaching the Court, as a result of which, the no cross order came to be passed against the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, filed the said application Exhibit-28 for setting aside the order dated 15/07/2010, which came to be rejected by the impugned order dated 14/06/2011. ...
Tag this Judgment!Haribhau S/O Balaji Dhole and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-15-2011
1. As the challenge pertains to Land acquisition and interim orders are operating against the respondents, the matter has been heard finally by making Rule returnable forthwith at the request of Shri Parchure, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mrs. Dangre, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents No. 1 & 2 and Shri Dhatrak, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 - Public Trust for which the lands of the petitioners are being acquired. 2. Shri Parchure, learned counsel has pointed out that in in earlier Writ Petition No. 650 of 2001 filed by these petitioners challenging Notification dated 04.05.2000 under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the subsequent notification dated 01.02.2001 under Section 6 thereof and notices under Section 9 were also questioned. That writ petition was disposed of on 20.08.2009 by Division Bench of this Court after noticing that Section 5-A of Land Acquisition Act is in two parts and the later part which required proper application of ...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Jagannath Patil and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-15-2011
1. The petitioners before this Court are questioning the suspension of nominations to its Standing Committee by Municipal Corporation, Akola, in its meeting dated 28.02.2011 by Respondent No. 1 - State Government under Section 451 of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 1949 Act). The nominations have been made under Section 31-A(2) thereof. 2. After the petition was filed before this Court on 11.03.2011, this Court issued notices to the respondents and on 25.03.2011 ordered status quo till the hearing of the matter for admission. On 20.04.2011, the contention about Section 451 were noted and Respondents No. 1 & 2 then agreed to comply with the procedure under Section 451 and follow principles of natural justice. In view of this, the matter was kept pending and Respondents No. 1 & 2 were permitted to hear the petitioners. Accordingly, State Government passed further appropriate orders on 25.05.2011 and maintained its earlier order dated ...
Tag this Judgment!Satish S/O. Dwarkaprasad Sharma Vs. the State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-12-2011
1. Heard Mr. Firdos Mirza, Adv. for the applicant, Mr.A.S.Parihar, A.P.P. for respondent no.1 and Mr.R.D.Bhuibhar, Adv. for respondent no.2. 2. By this application u/s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 2nd February, 2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kelapur, Distt. Yavatmal in Criminal Complaint Case No.14 of 2011. The learned J.M.F.C. appears to have directed police to conduct investigation in view of power u/s. 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. The learned Advocate for the applicant has contended that the trial Court failed to consider that the complaint is not maintainable and if entertained, it would amount to abuse of the process of law. It is also submitted that the procedure as contemplated u/s. 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Chapter XV of the Code ought to have been followed instead of directing the police to investigate u/s. 156 (3) of the Code of Crim...
Tag this Judgment!Progressive Education Society and anr. Vs. Raju S/O Damodharrao Atakar ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-12-2011
1. Rule, with the consent of the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The above petitions involve identical facts and issues and therefore are being heard together and disposed of. By the above petition, the petitioners are challenging the orders passed by the School Tribunal on the ground that the Appeals are not maintainable. 3. Facts involved in the above petitions in brief can be stated thus - 4. The petitioner no.1 herein is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act and is also a Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act. The petitioner - Society runs three schools and one Primary School in respect of which grant-in-aid is received from the State Government. The petitioner also runs three primary schools on no-grant-basis. The respondent no.1 in each of the above petitions are working with the petitioner No.2 - Primary school which is, admittedly, receiving grants from the State Government. On account of certain acts committed by the respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Bayaji Kisan Andhale and anr. Vs. the State of Mah and ors
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-12-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing. 3. By the present criminal application filed by the applicants under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure prays that First Information Report bearing Crime No.I-456/2010, dated 16.12.2010, registered under section 420 r/w/ 34 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Pathardi Police Station, District Ahmednagar, be quashed and set aside. After filing present application, interim relief was granted by this Court and the prosecution, the subject of the challenge, in crime No.I - 456/2010 dated 16.12.2010 was stayed by order of this court passed on 17.3.2011. 4. The complainant i.e. respondent No.2 herein namely Suresh Mahadev Andhale filed First Information Report on 16.12.2010 under section 420 r/w section 34 of Indian Penal Code, which was registered at Pathardi Police Station as Crime No.I-456/2010, wherein the compl...
Tag this Judgment!Upekshit Samaj Kalyan Samitee, Ballarpur and anr. Vs. Shivdas S/O Pati ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-12-2011
1. Rule, with the consent of the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The above writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India lays a challenge to three orders. First being the order dated 23/3/2004, by which order the Appeal was directed to be proceeded ex parte against both the respondents. The second being the order dated 22/1/2007 by which the preliminary issues were decided by the School Tribunal, and lastly the Judgment and order dated 15/7/2010 by which the Appeal filed by the respondent no.1 herein came to be allowed. 3. The principal ground of challenge is that the Judgment and order dated 15/7/2010 has been passed by the School Tribunal without affording an opportunity to the petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that in respect of the order dated 23/3/2004, the petitioners had filed an application dated 26/9/2007 for setting setting aside the said order. The said application was served on the respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »