Mumbai Court August 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.
Radiological and Imaging Association Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-2011
Top of Form 1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner- Radiological & Imaging Association (State Chapter- Jalna) (hereafter referred to as "the petitioner" or "the Association") has challenged the circular dated 14 January 2011 of Collector and District Magistrate, Kolhapur (exhibit `F') requiring the Radiologists and Sonologists to submit on-line form F under the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques Rules, 2003. The Association has also challenged the circular dated 10 March 2010 (exhibit `A') issued by the Collector in which reference is made to the workshop of doctors, sonologists and radiologists of Kolhapur held on 8 March 2010 and to the discussion at the said workshop for installation of SIOB (silent observer) for all the sonography machines, as a part of `save the baby' campaign for improving sex ratio in the district. 2. The petitioner-association is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, formed for pr...
Raghunath Kishanrao Thigle Vs. Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-26-2011
1. In pursuance to the notice issued for final disposal, this matter is taken up for final hearing. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and by consent of the parties, taken up for hearing. 3. In this civil revision application, the judgment and order dated 28.10.2009passed by the Joint C.J.S.D., Osmanabad in Special Civil Suit No.117 of 1999 is under challenge. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that if at all the Court wanted to dismiss the suit for non presence of the plaintiff or his pleader, the suit ought to have been dismissed in default as contemplated under the provisions of Order IX, Rule 3 r/w Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Counsel for applicant invited my attention to the impugned judgment and submitted that it was also open for the trial Court to dispose of the suit on merits. However, from perusal of the reasons recorded by the trial Court, it does not appear that the trial Court has appreciated the documentary evidence p...
Vijaykumar Jagdishrai Chawla Vs. Reeta Vijaykumar Chawla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-2011
1. The former appeal is directed against the impugned Judgment and decree passed by the Family Court, Mumbai in Petition No. A-2320/2007 whereby the prayer of the appellant-husband for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been dismissed. 2. The other appeal is against the Judgment and decree passed by the Family Court, Mumbai in Petition No.C-87/2008 providing for maintenance to the respondent-wife at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per month including accommodation charges payable from the date of the order and direction to the appellant-husband to repay the loan amount to the daughter which she had taken for pilot training. The companion civil application is filed for interim relief of stay of operation of the impugned judgment and decree which is subject matter of challenge in the latter appeal. 3. Both the appeals were listed for admission. Before the appeals were heard for admission, the matters were kept in Chambers to explore the possibility of s...
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Lever Kamgar Sangh and anr.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-25-2011
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 15/04/2011 passed by the Industrial Court, Akola Bench, Akola ("Tribunal" for short), by which order the application Exhibit-9-B as amended by application Exhibit-25 was allowed and the respondent Company was directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,500/- per month as an interim relief to the TO. T-1, T-2, T-3, T-4 & T-5 grade of employees with effect from 01/06/2008 till the decision of the Reference. The Industrial Court also directed that the arrears of the interim relief with effect from 01/06/2008 to 31/03/2011 shall be paid by the respondent Company in three equal installments in the month of June, July and August, 2011 respectively. 3) The above petition therefore is directed against the interim order passed by the Industrial Court in the said Reference Proceedings ...
Ujwala W/O. Madhukamal Hiwale Vs. the State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-25-2011
1. Perused the investigation papers which were made available for inspection purpose, as well as, heard learned respective Counsel for the parties, finally. 2. This is an application preferred by the original complainant, namely, Ujwala w/o. Madhukamal Hiwale, for cancellation of bail granted to respondent no.2, namely, Hirabai w/o. Ramesh Ghodke, which was granted to her by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-6, Ahmednagar, by order dated 27th June 2011, passed below Exhibit 1 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 808/2011. 3. It was canvassed by learned Adv. Mr. A.K. Gawali, for the applicant (original complainant), that the incident of death of victim Smita took place on 16th June 2011, and thereafter, respondent no.2 was arrested under Crime No. 214/2011, registered at Kotwali Police Station, Ahmednagar, and she was enlarged on bail after 11 days i.e. on 27th June 2011 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-6, Ahmednagar, which is canvassed to be objectionable. Learned Coun...
Patel Engineering Ltd. Vs. United Estate and Builders Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-2011
1. The Appellant has filed this Appeal from the Order challenging the order allowing restoration of the Respondent's Suit earlier dismissed for default. The Respondent has claimed that the Appeal from Order is not maintainable as it is not an appealable order. The Appellant claims that it is appealable under Order 43 Rule 1(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Order 43 Rule 1 (d) relates to an order under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Order 9 Rule 13 relates to setting aside a decree ex parte against the Defendant. The order impugned is not a decree passed ex parte against the Defendant. It is an order rejecting an order of restoration of the Suit. A decree under Section 2(2) is a formal expression of adjudication which conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the Suit. An order rejecting an application allowing restoration of a Suit would, rather than determine the rights of the parties for any matters...
Shri Mahendra Uttamrao Kadam Vs. Ms.Kacchi Properties, SatarA.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-2011
JUDGMENT. : 1. Heard. Rule. By consent of the parties, petitions are taken up for final disposal at the admission stage. 2. The facts involved in all these petitions are common, the issue involved is identical, so all the petitions can be disposed of by this common judgment. However, for the sake of clarity the facts are taken from Writ Petition No.1870/2011. 3. The petitioners/ original defendants are taking exception to the order passed below Exh;51 in Special Civil Suit No.74/2010 by Second Joint Civil Judge, Satara decided on 12th January 2011. On consideration of application tendered by the plaintiff seeking withdrawal of the suit with a liberty to file fresh suit, the trial Court granted permission in favour of the plaintiff. 4. The respondent/ original plaintiff presented suit on behalf of the partnership firm claiming specific performance of the agreement dated 31st December 2009. An application seeking interim injunction at Exh.5 was presented by the plaintiff which came to be...
Tata Chemicals Ltd Vs. Ms. A.N. Chemicals and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-2011
JUDGMENT.: 1. The matter was on board on 29 July 2011. None appeared for the Defendants. As the summary suit is of 2004, the Plaintiff's counsel Ms.Shreevardhini Parchure submitted the case and argued accordingly. The matter was closed for judgment. 2 It was listed for pronouncement on 11 August 2011 in chamber. The learned counsel Mr. V . Shastri for Defendants 1 and 2 along with .P Defendant no.2-Mr.Nasrudin K. Jamagia, appeared and requested for time to settle the matter and not to pronounce the Judgment. It was accordingly adjourned to 18 August 2011. As the parties were exploring the possibility of settlement, it was again adjourned. The parties could not settle the matter. The matter is listed today under the caption "for pronouncement of judgment". 3 The learned counsel appearing for the Defendants submitted that the plaintiff has filed a rejoinder in which a specific case now made out with regard to the disposal of tonners, based on the events, after the filing of the basic aff...
Gajanan Son of Prabhakar Deshpande Vs. Smita Gajanan Deshpande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Admit. 2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this Appeal is taken up for final hearing, in view of the fact that the matter relates to the matrimonial discord. 3. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 22nd April, 2009 passed by the learned District Judge-1, Buldana dismissing the Special Marriage Petition No. 2/2005 filed by the appellant/ husband, the present First Appeal has been filed. 4. As this Appeal progressed for admission, on 27th September, 2010, this Court had made an order accepting the joint pursis filed by the parties to this Appeal to the effect that they as well as the minor child born to the respondent-wife shall undergo Deoxyribonucleic Acid Test ( henceforth referred to as the "DNA" test). Thereafter the respondent-wife retracted her consent that was given in this Court. But, again, she gave the consent for undergoing the said DNA test. Accordingly, reference was made to the Forensic Science Laboratory at Nagpur for...
Shri Mahendra Uttamrao Kadam Vs. Ms.Kacchi Properties, Satara
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-2011
JUDGMENT. : 1. Heard. Rule. By consent of the parties, petitions are taken up for final disposal at the admission stage. 2. The facts involved in all these petitions are common, the issue involved is identical, so all the petitions can be disposed of by this common judgment. However, for the sake of clarity the facts are taken from Writ Petition No.1870/2011. 3. The petitioners/ original defendants are taking exception to the order passed below Exh;51 in Special Civil Suit No.74/2010 by Second Joint Civil Judge, Satara decided on 12th January 2011. On consideration of application tendered by the plaintiff seeking withdrawal of the suit with a liberty to file fresh suit, the trial Court granted permission in favour of the plaintiff. 4. The respondent/ original plaintiff presented suit on behalf of the partnership firm claiming specific performance of the agreement dated 31st December 2009. An application seeking interim injunction at Exh.5 was presented by the plaintiff which came to be...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »