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.
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Tema India Limited and Anothe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-2012
Oral Judgment: The Petitioner, original Respondent, has challenged the Award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, “the Arbitration Act”) dated 2 March 2009 passed by the sole Arbitrator. The operative part of the Award is as under:- “(a) I direct the Respondent to release and pay to the Claimant the amount of Rs. 2,66,48,000/- withheld by the Respondent out of the bills payable to the Claimant. (b) Not many arguments were made for payment of interest. However, the rate claimed is too high as per today's standards. I, therefore, direct the Respondent to pay to the Claimant interest at the rate of 8% p.a from the date of the submission of the statement of claim i.e. 9th September, 2008 till payment of the awarded amount. (c) The arbitration proceedings were held at the premises of the Respondent. I am not awarding cost to either party in the arbitration and I am directing both the parties to pay their own costs. (d) I am not incline...
Tulshiram S/O Jairam Lahure and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-11-2012
1. The appeal is filed against the judgment and order of Sessions Case No. 158/1996 which was pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad. The appellants were charged for the offences punishable under section 147, 148, 307 of the Indian Penal Code. They are convicted of the offences punishable under section 147, 148 and 324 red with sec. 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sides are heard. This Court has perused original record. 2. In short, the facts leading to the institution of the appeal can be stated as follows. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are real brothers of accused No.1. Other accused are also relatives of accused No.1. Accused No.5 died during pendency of the case. Agricultural land of accused No.1 Tulshiram is situated in village Bolegaon Tq. Gangapur. Between lands of Tulshiram and of complainant Bankat there is bandh which is also Shiv of two villages viz. Bolegaon and Balapur. Land of Bankat is situated within limits of village Balapur. Though accused Nos. 2 ...
Anand Umashankar Gupta and Others Vs. Jayant Maniklal Lunawat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-2012
Oral Judgment: By this appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘Arbitration Act, 1996’), the appellants have challenged Order and Judgment dated 4th May, 2009 delivered by the learned District Court, Pune in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 809 of 2008 filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 thereby allowing the application filed by the respondent and setting aside the arbitral award declared by the sole arbitrator on 16th August, 2008 by which the arbitrator had allowed certain claims made by the appellants. 2. Some of the relevant facts for deciding the issue involved in this appeal are as under:- 3. By an agreement and Power of Attorney dated 12th March, 2004, M/s.Aman and Anand Associates, the partnership firm then consisting of the appellant and Mr.Anand and Shreya Mehkari acquired development rights in respect of the property bearing Survey No. 111, Hissa No. 11/1A admeasuring 21.5 R’ 11/1B admeasurin...
Mrs. Rosy Fernandes Vs. State of Goa, Through the Chief Secretary of T ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-11-2012
S.J. Vazifdar, J. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. Mr. P. Dangui, the learned Additional Government Advocate waives service on behalf of the respondents. 3. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 are the Department of Tourism, Government of Goa and Village Panchayat of Calangute. 4. The petition is filed purportedly as a public interest litigation. The main grievance however relates to the petitioner's personal interest. It is therefore strictly not a public interest litigation. 5. The petitioner contends that the clauses 2, 20, 25, 26 and 32 of the terms and conditions for the grant of permission for erection of temporary shacks/deck-beds/ umbrellas on the identified beaches of Goa for the tourist season of 2012-2013 (October, 2012 to 31st May, 2013) are unconstitutional. The petitioner also seeks an order directing respondent no.1 to implement her suggestions stated in the writ petition. 6. The petitioner has generally alleged that the terms and conditions are likely only to ...
Bramhanand M. Desai Vs. Chief Electrical Engineer, Government of Goa, ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-11-2012
Oral Judgment:- (S.J. Vazifdar, J.) 1. Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the State of Goa, Goa Public Service Commission and one U.L. Salunke, Executive Engineer (Civil), Electricity Department respectively. The petitioner has sought a writ to quash the impugned order dated 11th February, 2005, by which respondent No.4 was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) Electricity Department. The petitioner has also sought a writ directing respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to hold a fresh DPC and consider the petitioner for promotion to the said post in accordance with law with effect from 11th February, 2005. 2. It is not necessary to consider all the contentions raised by the petitioner. This petition can be disposed of on one ground alone. It is agreed that the said post is a promotional post; that prior to the appointment of respondent No.4 to the said post, the petitioner and respondent No.4 were Assistant Engineers and that the petitioner and respondent No.4 were entitled to be conside...
Apurva Ashok Gokhale Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-2012
Oral Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) The Petitioner has sought to challenge an order of the Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee dated 10 July 2012 by which the caste certificate issued to the Petitioner has been invalidated. The Petitioner was initially granted a caste certificate in a format prescribed for migrants which was referred to a Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee for verification. The Scrutiny Committee returned the caste certificate by a communication dated 14 September 2007. In a petition filed before this Court (Writ Petition 2166 of 2008)liberty was granted to the Petitioner to approach the Executive Magistrate afresh for the grant of a caste certificate. The Petitioner thereupon approached the Additional District Deputy Collector, Andheri on 17 July 2008 and the competent authority granted a caste certificate in the prescribed form to the Petitioner on 27 October 2008. The caste certificate was forwarded to the Divisional Caste Certificate ...
Smt. Anuradha Wd/O Kanthiram Wasnik Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-11-2012
1. Heard rival arguments on earlier dates on this criminal appeal preferred by the original accused (since deceased) challenging the judgment and order of conviction passed on 30/9/2005. Said impugned judgment and order was passed in Special Case No. 15 of 1995 in which, initially there were three accused including the present appellant (since deceased) being original accused No.1, however, accused Nos. 2 and 3 died during the pendency of the matter and as such case against them stood abated leaving behind only accused No.1 to face the trial. By the impugned judgment and order original accused No.1, present appellant (since deceased), was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 7 and also punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months. Being aggrieved by the sa...
Anand Umashankar Gupta and Others Vs. Jayant Maniklal Lunawat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-2012
Oral Judgment: By this appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short Arbitration Act, 1996), the appellants have challenged Order and Judgment dated 4th May, 2009 delivered by the learned District Court, Pune in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 809 of 2008 filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 thereby allowing the application filed by the respondent and setting aside the arbitral award declared by the sole arbitrator on 16th August, 2008 by which the arbitrator had allowed certain claims made by the appellants. 2. Some of the relevant facts for deciding the issue involved in this appeal are as under:- 3. By an agreement and Power of Attorney dated 12th March, 2004, M/s.Aman and Anand Associates, the partnership firm then consisting of the appellant and Mr.Anand and Shreya Mehkari acquired development rights in respect of the property bearing Survey No. 111, Hissa No. 11/1A admeasuring 21.5 R 11/1B admeasuring 21.5 R and Survey N...
Alok Agarwal and Others Vs. Punam Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-2012
Oral Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) This Appeal arises from a decision of a Learned Single Judge on three Notices of Motion taken out by the Sixth and Seventh Defendants: (i) A Notice of Motion questioning the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the suit and seeking to raise a preliminary issue under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the ground that the exclusive jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit would vest with the Co-operative Court by virtue of the provisions of Section 163 read with Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act 1960 (NM 1564 of 2012); (ii) A Notice of Motion seeking stay of the suit filed before this Court by the First Respondent (NM 471 of 2012); and (iii) A Notice of Motion seeking the rejection of the plaint under clauses (a) and (d) of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (NM 496 of 2012). 2. By the order impugned in these proceedings the Learned Single Judge has dismissed all the three Notices of Mot...
G.S. Oils Ltd. Through Its M.D. Shri Manoj Kumar Shrigovind Agrawal an ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-11-2012
Heard. 2. The petitioner no.2 in Writ Petition No. 396 of 2012 and applicant in Criminal Application No. 494 of 2012 claim to be the Directors of G.S. Oils Ltd. which is petitioner no.1 in writ petition. For the sake of convenience, the petitioners in writ petition are hereinafter referred to as the petitioners and the applicant in criminal application is referred to as the applicant. They have challenged the registration of FIR No. 139/2012 for the offences under Sections 406, 409, 420, 465, 471, 468, 120B, 34 of IPC and Section 74(1)(b)(c)(d)(e), 74(2), 74(3)(b)(o)(r), 74(4) of Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 at Police Station Wani. 3. Both the petitioner no.2 as well as the applicant claim to be the Directors of the G.S. Oils Ltd. and the applicant further claims that he is not entrusted with any functions in the day to day affairs of the company. 4. The First Information Report (FIR) is registered on the basis of the complaint made by Deputy Commissioner (Vigilance), Sales Ta...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »