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.
Vrandawani W/O Sambhaji Dalvi Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-17-2012
Oral Judgment: - 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 2] By the present petition filed by the petitioner (original complainant) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, she prayed that the order, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Majalgaon in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 12 of 2011 on 6.2.2012, thereby rejecting the said application of the petitioner for condonation of delay, be quashed and set aside. 3] The factual matrix, which can be summarised, is as under:- The petitioner herein is the original complainant and respondent nos. 2 to 6 are the original accused in R.C.C. No. 123 of 2008 (Exh.’A’ to the petition) filed by the petitioner before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dharur, which was lodged by the complainant alleging that her daughter, namely Jayshree married with accused no.1 i.e. Deepak who is respondent ...
Sunanda Bhimrao Chaware and Others Vs. the High Court of Judicature at ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-2012
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. The reference to the Full Bench and the Petitions: The reference to the Full Bench has been made on 16 June 2011 by a Division Bench of this Court. The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, Sunanda w/o Bhimrao Chaware and Ors. vs. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, W.P. 1916 of 2011 (Original Writ Petition 1537 of 2011 transferred from Aurangabad Bench)out of which the reference arises, has been instituted by six Assistant Public Prosecutors, who are on full time salaried employment with the Government of Maharashtra. They assert that they are eligible to be appointed as District Judges under Article 233(2) of the Constitution. 2. The Petitioners were appointed as Assistant Public Prosecutors on diverse dates between 26 February 2002 and 23 March 2009. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay issued an advertisement by which applications were invited from eligible candidates for seventeen vacancies in the post of District Judges in the judicial ser...
Swapnil Sanjay Tahsildar Vs. District Magistrate and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Oka, J.) By this Petition for seeking a writ of habeas corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has taken an exception to the order dated 26th April, 2012 passed by the first Respondent in exercise of powers under Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 ( hereinafter referred to as the "Said Act"). By the said order, the first Respondent directed that the Petitioner shall be detained by way of prevention in exercise of powers under the said Act. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has urged two grounds. The first ground is that the detaining authority has taken into consideration two in-camera statements of the witnesses "A" and "B". It is contended that the two in-camera statements are not verified by any senior officer to ensure that the statements are true and genuine. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner pointed o...
Sunanda Bhimrao Chaware and Others Vs. the High Court of Judicature at ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-2012
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. The reference to the Full Bench and the Petitions: The reference to the Full Bench has been made on 16 June 2011 by a Division Bench of this Court. The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, Sunanda w/o Bhimrao Chaware and Ors. vs. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, W.P. 1916 of 2011 (Original Writ Petition 1537 of 2011 transferred from Aurangabad Bench)out of which the reference arises, has been instituted by six Assistant Public Prosecutors, who are on full time salaried employment with the Government of Maharashtra. They assert that they are eligible to be appointed as District Judges under Article 233(2) of the Constitution. 2. The Petitioners were appointed as Assistant Public Prosecutors on diverse dates between 26 February 2002 and 23 March 2009. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay issued an advertisement by which applications were invited from eligible candidates for seventeen vacancies in the post of District Judges in the judicial ser...
Ramesh Balaji Ekhande Vs. Namdeo Ganpat Gite and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr.Thorat learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr.Nighot for Respondent No.1. 2. A short contention of Advocate Thorat on behalf of the Appellant (Original Plaintiff No.5) is that the impugned Judgment dated 17.3.2008 passed by the District Judge 3 Nasik in Civil Appeal No. 125 of 1996 remitting the controversy back to the trial Court is perverse and shows total non-application of mind. He submits that the Appeal arises out Special Civil Suit No.57 of 1990 which has been disposed of finally on 1.2.1996 after recording of compromise. Thus, against the compromise decree Regular Civil Appeal was not maintainable. He has taken the Court through the relevant provisions to substantiate his contentions. In alternative and only to demonstrate that the controversy is now rendered infructuous and remand is only an empty formality, he has also invited attention of the Court to necessary facts. 3. Learned counsel Nighot has submitted that Respondent No.1 is one of the Plai...
Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika and Another Vs. the Secretary, Bar Counci ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-2012
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 49(1)(ah) of the Advocates Act, 1961, the Bar Council of India framed Rule 49 under which there is a prohibition on an Advocate being a full time salaried employee of any person, government, firm, corporation or concern, so long as he or she continues to practise. Upon taking such employment, an Advocate is required to intimate that fact to the Bar Council on whose rolls the name appears. Thereupon, such a person would cease to practise as an Advocate so long as he continues in employment. An exception was engrafted into Rule 49 as it was originally framed in regard to a Law Officer of the Central Government or the Government of a State or of any public corporation or body constituted by the State who is entitled to be enrolled under the rules of the State Bar Council made under Section 28(2)(d) read with Section 24(1)(e) despite being a full time salaried employee. The Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa framed rul...
A to Z Retail Limited and Others Vs. Chirag Pittie and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard finally by consent. 2. The Appeal is under Section 10-F of the Companies Act, 1956 filed by the original Respondent, as the learned Member, Company Law Board, while adjourning the matter to file reply and rejoinder, directed the Respondent/company to maintain status-quo in immovable property and shareholding, without assigning any specific reason, which is impermissible. The matter was adjourned to 18.09.2012 for further arguments. It appears that the matter could not be heard. The order is dated 5.7.2012. The reasons are must, even while passing such interlocutory order which ultimately affects the rights of the Company to run its day to day affairs. 3. The Appeal so filed against such interlocutory order, in my view, is not maintainable. However, in view of above unreasoned order, I am inclined to dispose of the Appeal by observing that the Hon. Member, Company Law Board to hear the Application within two weeks and pass reasoned order, granting and/or rejecting t...
Gajanan Baburao Sankpal Vs. Avinash Bhauso Kamble and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-2012
1 Rule. The Respondents waive service. 2 By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 3 By this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune dated 06.05.2010 in an appeal. That appeal was challenging the order passed by the Additional Collector, District : Kolhapur dated 14.12.2009. 4 The relevant facts are that there is a Village Panchayat in Shirol, Taluka : Shirol, District : Kolhapur. That Village Panchayat has constituted a Committee called Pani Purvatha Ani Swachhata Samiti (Water Supply and Sanitation Committee). That Committee was constituted in the Gram Sabha dated 26.01.2006. The Petitioner was unanimously appointed as the Chairman of the said Committee. In the election of the Village Panchayat held in June-July, 2008, the Respondent No.1 was initially elected as a member and later on as Sarpanch of this Village Panchayat on 09.07.2008. It is the case of the Pet...
Anil Chintaman Khare Vs. President, Vidarbha Cricket Association and O ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-17-2012
Oral Order: The Miscellaneous Civil Application is to seek recall/review of the order 09.08.2012 passed in Writ Petition No.4440 of 2011. (Present respondent is hereinafter referred to as 'original petitioner' and present applicant as 'applicant' or 'VCA' or 'the Society' or 'original respondent'). 2. The applicant contends, primarily, there are certain errors which would be apparent, for the order has been influenced and impressed and has been carried away by minority view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Zee Telefilms Ltd. vs. Union of India reported in (2005) 4 Supreme Court Cases 649 overlooking the majority view of three judges' which in terms segregates and separates the activities of the bodies like the applicant-original respondent holding not to be under any statutory or constitutional obligation or right and bodies like BCCI being not a State or its instrumentality under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Since the majority view under its functional a...
Meghraj Capital Advisors Private Limited Vs. Samira Constructions Limi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard finally. 2 The Petitioner has filed this winding up petition under Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 for winding up the Respondent Company. 3 On March 24, 2007 the Financial Advisor Agreement was entered into between the parties for the project on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. This was a consultancy agreement. It was modified on 22.10.2007. Monthly invoices were raised regularly. The part payments were made, lastly on March 2, 2009. The balance remained to be unpaid. The statutory notice was accordingly issued for Rs.32,78,443/-. The Company simply denied the liability in all respects. There is nothing on record that at any point of time, the Company has admitted the liability. 4 The clauses of the agreement were read and referred by both the counsel. The Agreement itself shows that both the parties are required to comply with their respective obligations. The Consultancy Agreement itself means the reciprocal obligation and the performan...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »