Mumbai Court October 2012 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.
Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation, Through Its Executive Eng ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-18-2012
Oral Judgment 1. These nine appeals are arising out of the judgments and awards passed on the dates between 2/5/2009 to 23/2/2011 by the learned reference Court in various references sought by the land owners, whose lands situated at village Pahur, Tq. Babhulgaon, Distt. Yavatmal, were compulsorily acquired for the public purpose i.e. Bembla Irrigation Project vide notification dated 11/5/2000. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short “S.L.A.O.”) declared the award on 23/4/2004. The necessary details of the lands acquired like area, gat number, name of owners, compensation granted by the S.L.A.O. and thereafter enhanced by the learned reference Court are reproduced below in a tabular form : Date of Notification:- 11/05/2000 Name of Project :Bembla Project, Village - Pahur, Dist. Yavatmal. Date of award by S.L.A.O.:- 23/4/2004. Sr. NoCase No.Survey No./ Gat No.Total areaArea acquiredName of ownerCompensation Awarded by S.L.A.O.LAC No.Date of DecisionCompensation...
Dr. Madhavrao S/O Bhujangrao Kinhalkar Vs. Ashok S/O Shankarrao Chavan ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-18-2012
1 The petitioner is challenging the election of Respondent No.1 who is a returned candidate from 85-Bhokar Legislative Assembly Constituency. 2 The general elections to the Legislative Assembly of the State of Maharashtra were held and results came to be declared on 22.10.2009. The petitioner was also one of the contesting candidates at the election. The petitioner contested election as an independent candidate, whereas Respondent No.1 was set up as a candidate by Indian National Congress Party. Respondent No.1 got elected by a margin of more than one lac votes. He polled 79.65% of the votes, whereas, petitioner could secure 8.79% of the votes polled. The challenge raised by petitioner to the election of Respondent No.1 is mainly based on corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123 of the Representation of People Act, 1951. 3 Respondent No.1 has presented written statement and has controverted the contentions raised by petitioner in the election petition. In the written statemen...
Board of Control for Cricket in India Vs. Deccan Chronicle Holdings Li ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal is filed under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”) challenging the order dated 12th October, 2012 passed by the arbitral tribunal under section 17 of the Act continuing status quo order passed by this court. Some of the relevant facts are: 2. On 10th April, 2008 the franchise agreement was entered into between the parties whereby the respondent was granted a right to own and operate a team in the league subject to the terms and conditions set out therein. On 14th September, 2012 the appellant terminated the said Franchise agreement. The respondent filed Arbitration Petition (L) No. 1238 of 2012 in this court under section 9 of the Act for interim measures. After hearing both the parties, this court passed an order on 1st October, 2012 disposing off the said Arbitration Petition (L) No. 1238 of 2012. The said order was a conditional order granting stay of termination on respondent complying...
Board of Control for Cricket in India Vs. Deccan Chronicle Holdings Li ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal is filed under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as Act) challenging the order dated 12th October, 2012 passed by the arbitral tribunal under section 17 of the Act continuing status quo order passed by this court. Some of the relevant facts are: 2. On 10th April, 2008 the franchise agreement was entered into between the parties whereby the respondent was granted a right to own and operate a team in the league subject to the terms and conditions set out therein. On 14th September, 2012 the appellant terminated the said Franchise agreement. The respondent filed Arbitration Petition (L) No. 1238 of 2012 in this court under section 9 of the Act for interim measures. After hearing both the parties, this court passed an order on 1st October, 2012 disposing off the said Arbitration Petition (L) No. 1238 of 2012. The said order was a conditional order granting stay of termination on respondent complying with various ...
Deccan Chronicle Holdings Limited Vs. Board of Control for Cricket in ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. By this Petition under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as Act), the petitioner seeks stay of the termination of Franchise agreement by letter dated 14th September, 2012 and the subsequent decision of the Working Committee of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (hereinafter referred to as BCCI) dated 15th September, 2012 confirming the same. The Petitioner also seeks status quo order against the parties and injunction against BCCI from acting upon the tender notice issued on 14th October, 2012 and or providing any party with the invitation to tender in respect of the franchise for the City of Hyderabad. 2. The relevant facts in the matter are briefly set out hereunder: In and around 2007, the BCCI conceptualised a tournament to be called Indian Premier League which would involve competition between various teams of Twenty-20 format of cricket. A sub committee of the respondent known as Indian Premier League managed...
Raunak Corporation and Others Vs. Sanjay Manohar Kastur and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-2012
N.M. Jamdar, J. These Letters Patent Appeals arise from Writ petitions which were heard together and disposed of by a common judgment and order by the learned Single Judge on 29 March 2012. 2. The subject matter of the dispute is the property of a public trust. On an application made by the trustees under section 36 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, the Charity Commissioner granted sanction for development-cum-sale of the trust property to a developer. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order found that the sanction was not properly granted, and as there was no advertisement issued the matter needs to be remanded to the Charity Commissioner and an advertisement needs to be issued. The developer and trustees have filed these appeals challenging the judgment and order of the Single Judge. 3. The trust is called 'Late Rao Bahadur Anant Shivaji Desai Topiwala Charity'. It is in existence since the year 1926. The Trust was registered as a public Trust on 20 March 1956, after the Bombay ...
G.S. Arora @ Tony Arora and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-2012
Smt. Sadhana S. Jadhav, J. Rule. Learned APP waives service for respondent No.1. Learned Counsel appearing for 2nd respondent waives service. Taken up for hearing forthwith. 2. By this Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants herein are seeking the relief of quashing of FIR on the basis of which Crime No.275/2012 is registered against them at Kalwa Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 341 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 171 of Motor Vehicles Act. 3. On 22nd August, 2012, the Police Head Constable Balu Dharma Rathod attached to Thane City Police Station, was on patrolling duty at Kharegaon Toll Naka at about 9.00 a.m. He was informed by a motorist that a Trailer had broken down on the Kharregaon Bridge due to which there was a traffic jam. Upon receipt of the said information, the Police Head Constable reached the said spot and noticed a container bearing Registration No.HR-55-N-1429 was at a standstill on the Brid...
Appellate Authority and Chairman, Shikshan Prasarak Mandali Vs. State ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-2012
Oral Order: Rule in each of the writ petitions. Respondents waive service. Rule made returnable by consent. By these petitions under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the orders passed under Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act for short) and particularly holding that they are amenable to that Act and obliged to give information in relation to the affairs of the Educational Institutions, which are managed, administered and controlled by a Public Charitable Trust. The facts and arguments are common. They are taken from Writ Petition No.26 of 2011 for convenience. The respondent No.2 in these petitions sought information with regard to some complaints made to the President of the Institution in March or April 2008. The applicants requested for supply of copies of the complaints and some other documents, particulars of which have been given in the appeal memos. The documents demanded are 18 in number, however, the petitioners in reply to ...
Messers Laljee Godhoo and Co. and Others Vs. Veena NalIn Merchant and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-2012
Oral Judgment: This Notice of Motion has been taken out by the Petitioners for seeking injunction restraining the Respondents from in any manner enforcing or acting or acting in furtherance of the impugned interim award, including for the purpose of valuation by the valuers appointed by the arbitral tribunal by an order dated 18th April, 2012 pursuant to impugned award dated 17th April, 2012. It is not in dispute that by interim award declared by the arbitral tribunal dated 17th April, 2012, it is declared that the petitioners and respondents are entitled to 50% shares in the goodwill, trademarks, tradenames and labels. It is also common ground that the petitioners as well as respondents have filed two separate arbitration proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 impugning part of the said interim award. Both these petitions were filed within time prescribed under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation, Act, 1996. Both these petitions are ad...
Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation, Through Its Executive Eng ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-18-2012
Oral Judgment 1. These nine appeals are arising out of the judgments and awards passed on the dates between 2/5/2009 to 23/2/2011 by the learned reference Court in various references sought by the land owners, whose lands situated at village Pahur, Tq. Babhulgaon, Distt. Yavatmal, were compulsorily acquired for the public purpose i.e. Bembla Irrigation Project vide notification dated 11/5/2000. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short S.L.A.O.) declared the award on 23/4/2004. The necessary details of the lands acquired like area, gat number, name of owners, compensation granted by the S.L.A.O. and thereafter enhanced by the learned reference Court are reproduced below in a tabular form : Date of Notification:- 11/05/2000 Name of Project :Bembla Project, Village Pahur, Dist. Yavatmal. Date of award by S.L.A.O.:- 23/4/2004.Sr. NoCase No.SurveyNo./Gat No.TotalareaArea acquiredName of ownerCompensation Awarded by S.L.A.O.LAC No.Date of DecisionCompensation by Reference court1863/1...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »