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.
Mahesh S/O Kishor Saran Vs. Hasnate Taheriyyah Fiddayyiah (Charitable ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-15-2012
Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the judgment passed by the first appellate court on 10.1.2012, upholding the findings recorded by the trial court and granting a decree for possession in favour of the respondent under Section 16(1)(g) and 16(1)(n) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 2000. 3. The respondent is the original plaintiff. A suit was filed by the respondent for ejectment, possession and mesne profit. It was the case of the respondent that the suit premises were not used by the petitioner and the respondent was entitled to possession under Section 16(1)(n) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. The respondent also sought possession under Section 16(1)(g) on the ground of bonafide need. The respondent had pleaded that the petitioner was in arrears of rent and was liable to be evicted under Section 15 of the Act. The trial court, o...
M/S Alcon Constructions Represented by Its Partner Victor Albuquerque ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-15-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri V. Palekar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mrs. A. Agni, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. By consent, an additional substantial question of law is framed: Whether the findings of the ESI Court to club the employees of the appellant with M/s Alcon Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., was justified as the parties do not agree with any issue on that count before the learned Tribunal? 3. With regard to the first substantial question of law framed by this Court relying upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court reported in 2004(5) Bom.C.R. 537 in the case of GauriMohan Pohoomul V/s Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation and another, and for the reasons stated therein, it is held that for the purpose of deciding the coverage the employees who were working in the head office of the construction company can be included. 4. With regard to the second substantial question of law, during the course of the hearing of th...
Spice Digital Ltd. Vs. Vistaas Digital Media Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-2012
1. By this appeal filed under Section 37(2)(b) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short Arbitration Act, 1996) though lodged as petition, the appellant (original claimant/applicant before the arbitral tribunal) seeks to challenge the order dated 16th August, 2012 passed by the learned arbitrator rejecting the application for interim relief sought by the appellant under section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1996. Some of the relevant facts which emerge from the pleadings and documents filed by both the parties are: 2. The company carries on business of telecom value added services. The respondent is carrying on business of telecom content aggregation. It is the case of the appellant that the respondent approached the appellant in the month of September, 2009 with a proposal for providing “Live Aarti” feed from Shree Shirdi Saibaba Shrine, Shree Siddhivinayak Temple, Mumbai and Shree Kashivishwanath Temple, Varanasi and certain other shrines and sought the appellant'...
Nandini J. Shah and Another Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-2012
N.M. Jamdar, J. This appeal takes exception to the order passed by the learned Single Judge confirming the order of eviction passed against the appellants by the Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 in favour of the Respondents-Life Corporation of India. 2. The Respondent - Life Insurance Corporation has sought eviction of the appellants on the ground that the recorded tenant-Smt.Vilasben Shah who was the mother of appellant No.1 had sublet the premises in favour of three private limited companies and the appellant No.2 partnership firm. 3. The premises in question is an office admeasuring 258 sq.ft. The building in which it is situated is almost 100 years old. The building belongs to Respondent-Corporation. The premises have been in the use of the family of the appellants as a tenant for last several decades. Since prior to 1937, P.T.Shah, the grand-father of appellant No.1 was the tenant of the premises. P.T.Shah was practising...
State Vs. Romil Chaudhary and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-12-2012
Oral Judgment : Heard Mr. Rivonkar, learned Public Prosecutor for the petitioner and Mr. De Sa, learned Counsel for respondent no.2. 2. By this revision application, the petitioner takes exception to order dated 17/09/2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-2, South Goa, Margao in Sessions Case No.30/2010 discharging respondents no.1 and 2 who are the accused nos.1 and 2 in Sessions Case No.30/2010. 3. Revision Petition against respondent no.1 stands dismissed in view of the order dated 13/07/2011 passed by this Court. 4. Chargesheet under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. was filed against the respondents no.1 to 3 and absconding accused no.4 alleging that prior to 18/05/2010, four accused conspired to kill deceased Bilma Colaco on account of broken love affair between the deceased and the accused no.4 and that an illegal weapon of gun (Katta) was arranged by the accused nos. 1 to 3 and that on 18/05/2010 at about 8 p.m. at Cuncolim, the accused no.4 used the said weapon to cause death of t...
Waman Ramchandra Bhayde and Others Vs. Kanta Narayan Patel and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. The Plaintiff/Landlord has filed this Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC challenging the Order passed below Exhibit 49 in Civil Appeal No.113 of 1997 preferred by the Respondents-Tenants granting his Review Application and permitting him to amend his Written Statement subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- before the Appellate Court. 2. It appears that initially the challenge was presented as a Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The same was registered as Writ Petition No.6994 of 2003. This Court admitted it and granted interim relief on 14.11.2003 and later permitted the same to be converted into Appeal against Order in view of the provisions of Order 43 Rule 1 (w) of C.P .C. vide its order dated 13.4.2010. 3. Learned Counsel for the Appellants/ Landlord points out that R.C.S. No.20 of 1995 was filed by the Landlords pointing out that the tenant had discontinued payment of rent form April 1990 and was a defaulter. The tenant filed his ...
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. M/S. Dinamic Corporation
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-2012
Oral Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) The present Motion is for condoning a delay of sixty days in filing an Appeal against an order of a learned Single Judge arising out of a Petition for setting aside an arbitral Award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. When the Motion came up on Board for hearing, Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant relied on a judgment of a Single Judge of this Court in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs. Jagson International Ltd. (2005(3) Mh.L.J. 1141)and urged that since the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has not prescribed any limitation for filing an appeal under Section 37(1)(b) against an order setting aside or refusing to set aside an arbitral Award under Section 34, such an appeal would not be governed by the Limitation Act, 1963. On the basis of the judgment of the learned Single Judge in ONGC vs. Jagson International Ltd. it was sought to be urged that an appeal could be filed within a reasonable peri...
Sahajanand Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Goa, Through Its Public ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-12-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. R. Bras De Sa, learned Advocate for petitioner, Ms. M. Pinto, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent no.1 and Mr. Shivan Dessai, learned Advocate for the respondent no.2 in all the petitions. 2. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 3. By these Writ Petitions, the petitioner takes exception to the part of the orders dated 22.5.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa in Anticipatory Bail Application Nos. 156/2012, 157/2012, 158/2012 and 159/2012 by which the respondent no.1 herein has been directed to give notice of 48 hours in case crime is registered against respondent no.2. 4. On 18.4.2012, the petitioner herein lodged report at Panaji Police Station alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. against respondent no.2 in all the Writ Petitions. Apprehending arrest, respondent no.2 in each of these Writ Petitions filed Anticipatory Bail Applications No.156/2012, 157/2012, 158/2012 and 159/2012 bef...
Sou.Kanchan Shivaji Atigre Vs. Mahadev Baban Ranjagane and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-2012
Rule. This writ petition under Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune in Gram Panchayat Appeal/Kolhapur/185 of 2011. 2} That appeal was directed against the order passed by the Additional Collector, Kolhapur in dispute/complaint bearing No.8 of 2011 decided on 25th October 2011. 3} The Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune while allowing the appeal has held that the petitioner is disqualified under section 14(1)(j-3) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 (for short “the Act”). This is a disqualification incurred on account of encroachment made upon government land or public property. 4} A complaint was made by the respondent No.1 that Gram Panchayat Padwalwadi is the Gram Panchayat in question. Its elections were notified and the complainant is a voter/elector for the said elections. That election was held on 27th June 2010. The petitioner contested the said...
Spice Digital Ltd. Vs. Vistaas Digital Media Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-2012
1. By this appeal filed under Section 37(2)(b) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short Arbitration Act, 1996) though lodged as petition, the appellant (original claimant/applicant before the arbitral tribunal) seeks to challenge the order dated 16th August, 2012 passed by the learned arbitrator rejecting the application for interim relief sought by the appellant under section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1996. Some of the relevant facts which emerge from the pleadings and documents filed by both the parties are: 2. The company carries on business of telecom value added services. The respondent is carrying on business of telecom content aggregation. It is the case of the appellant that the respondent approached the appellant in the month of September, 2009 with a proposal for providing Live Aarti feed from Shree Shirdi Saibaba Shrine, Shree Siddhivinayak Temple, Mumbai and Shree Kashivishwanath Temple, Varanasi and certain other shrines and sought the appellant's support and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »