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.
Bernardo Silveira Vs. State of Goa, Through the Chief Secretary, Gover ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
Oral Judgment: (S.J. Vazifdar, J.) 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable and heard forthwith. 2. Respondents No.2 and 3 are the Secretary of Tourism and the Director of Tourism, Government of Goa, respectively. 3. The petitioner seeks a declaration that Clause 26 of the terms and conditions for erection of temporary shacks/decks/umbrellas on the identified beaches of Goa for the tourist season 2011-12 is ultra vires the Constitution. The petitioner invites the Court to read down Clause 26 of the said policy to interpret the words “criminal record” as conviction of a criminal offence. Lastly, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to quash an order dated 5th April, 2012, passed by respondent No.3, the Director of Tourism. 4. The petitioner had made an application dated 22nd September, 2011 for erection of a temporary shack for the tourist season 2011-12 (upto 31st May, 2012). The application was made in terms of the said policy. Clause 26 and the concluding portion thereof read ...
Tata Yazaki Autocomp Ltd. Vs. Tata Yazaki Employees Union and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
Oral Judgment: The Petitioner (original Respondent) has challenged the impugned Order dated 23rd January 2012 passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Pune on the complaint under Section 28 read with Item 9 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTYU and PULP Act). The operative of the Order is as under: “1) The Complaint (U.L.P) No.12/2007 is allowed. 2) It is hereby declared that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labour practice within the meaning of item 9 of Schedule IV of the MERTU and PULP Act and the Respondent is directed to cease and desist from unfair labour practice. 3) The Respondent is directed to implement the terms of an Award in Reference (I.T.) No. 24/2002 as well as settlement Dt. 30/9/2004 in respect of the employees involved in the complaint with further direction to the Respondent to extend them the benefits of said Award and settlement to which they are entitled under law. 4) No ord...
Eastern Star Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Indranath Bagkar and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri Shivan Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri D. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for respondents no.1 and 14 and Shri P. Shahapurkar, learned Counsel appearing for respondents no.3 to 13. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waive service. 3. The above petition challenges an order passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Pernem dated 26/07/2012 whereby an application filed by the petitioner for police protection at Exhibit D-35 came to be rejected. 4. Shri Shivan Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has pointed out that the petitioner was forced to file the said application as the respondents have committed breach of the order of temporary injunction which has forced the petitioner to file contempt application and take other remedy in law to enforce the order of temporary injunction operating against the respondents. The learned Counsel furt...
Vitthalrao S/O Dattarao Kale and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
1. Heard learned respective counsel for the parties. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant nos. 1 and 2 (original accused nos. 1 and 3) (hereinafter referred to as per their original status i.e. accused) by way of judgment and order dated 14.12.2004, rendered by learned 3rd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded in S.C.No.86/2004, thereby convicting the accused no.1 Vitthal Dattarao Kale for the offence p/u/s 498-A of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer R.I. for one month and also convicting accused No.3 Kausalya Kale for the offence p/u/s 498-A of Indian Penal Code and sentenced her to undergo S.I. for ten days and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer S.I. for ten days. In fact the accused nos. 1 and 3 faced trial in the said sessions case alongwith co-accused i.e. accused no.2 for the charges under section 498-A, 304-B r/w 34 of Indian Penal Cod...
M/S. Arun Kumar Engineer and Contractors Vs. Finolex Cables Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Finally. 2. The Petitioner has invoked under section 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, based upon the invoice so raised in the Petition for Rs. 33,79,914 and 76 paise. 3. The Petitioner was assigned the work of land development (filling of ground) at Rooree, by work order dated 11th August 2006. The time was the essence of the work. The agreed date was 15th September 2006. The Petitioner proceeded accordingly. The bills were raised from time to time. The Petitioner also received part payment. 4. The work could not be completed in time. Therefore, on same terms and conditions, revised work order dated 13th October 2006 was issued. The work ultimately completed by 26th December 2006. The Petitioner accordingly forwarded its bill on 14th March 2007. The Petitioner received payment of Rs. 26,10,411/- on 6th April 2007. The balance was Rs. 25,87,895/-. The Respondent Company after due negotiations and discussion, admitted the liability to the tune of Rs. 13,05,654...
Chairman/Secretary, Deep Apartment Chs Ltd. Vs. the State of Maharasht ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
1. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. This writ petition challenges the orders of the Registering Authority and the Appellate Authority refusing to register a conveyance executed by and between a private limited company which was the builders of the building and the co-operative housing society of flat purchasers which has been registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The order of refusal sets out various provisions of various legislations which are claimed not to have been complied. These are inter alia Sections 7 and 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act and Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act as also Section 34 of the Indian Registration Act. The order further refers to Section 72(3) of the Maharashtra Registration Manual, Part II which requires compliance with Sections 19 to 26 and 33 to 35(b) of the Indian Registration Act. 3. The Registering Authority is required to register the document executed by the parties to present ...
The State of Maharashtra and Another Vs. Motiram Sampat Kale and Other ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
Oral Judgment: These appeals are from the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court - Buldhana in the references sought by the land owners, whose lands were compulsorily acquired for Minor Irrigation Tank, village Sawangi Mali, taluka Mehkar, district : Buldhana. 2] The particulars of the survey number, land area acquired, compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and compensation enhanced by the learned Reference Court Buldhana are reproduced below: F.A. NoSurvey noArea acquiredCompensation by SLAOLACDate of decisionCompensation by reference court808/07710.41Rs. 17,000/- P.H.50/9216/02/05Rs.35,000/- P.H.810/07700.43Rs. 17,000/- P.H.49/9216/02/05Rs. 52,619/- P.H.816/07723.78 0.10 P.K.Rs. 17,000/- P.H. Rs. 200/- P.H. for P.K.48/9216/02/05Rs. 52,619/- P.H.831/07690.39Rs. 17,000/- P.H.52/9216/02/05Rs. 35,000/- P.H.852/07733.93 0.10 P.K.Rs. 17,000/- P.H. Rs. 200/- P.H. for P.K.51/9216/02/05Rs. 52,619/- P.H.853/07671.45Rs. 20,000/- P.H.47/9216/02/05Rs. 52,619...
Preeti Gopalrao Kamble and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Throu ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
R.M. Borde, J. 1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. 2 Petitioners, in both the petitions, are challenging the orders passed by Respondent No.2-Committee invalidating their caste claim on the ground that parents of petitioners are originally residents of District Bider, which forms part of Karnataka State and that they have migrated to the State of Maharashtra after 10.08.1950 i.e. after enforcement of Constitution Scheduled Castes Order, 1950. 3 It is not disputed that parents and forefathers of petitioners are original residents of District Bider, the geographical area, which was forming part of erstwhile State of Hyderabad, before States Re-Organization. The part of District Bider, after re-organization of States in 1956, has become part of State of Karnataka. It is also not disputed that petitioners originally belong to an area which is pre-dominantly a Marathi speaking area, which presently forms part of Stat...
Dhiraj Vijaykant Kudale Vs. Anita Ramchandra Raskar and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
Oral Order: 1 Rule, with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2 The Writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked against the order dated 23.08.2007 passed below Exhibit-34, order dated 04.03.2008 passed below Exhibit-46 and another order of the same date i.e. 04.03.2008 passed below Exhibit-47. By the said orders, the applications for setting aside the 'no Written Statement' order, as also the application for being permitted to file the Written Statement on behalf of the Respondent No.8 came to be rejected. The issue in the Petition is, therefore, as to whether, the Respondent No.8 should be allowed to file his Written Statement. The facts germane to the said issue can in brief be stated thus:- The Suit in question has been filed by the Respondent No.1 herein for declaration and injunction. The declaration sought is in respect of the decrees passed in Special Civil Suit No. 544 of 2004 and Special Civil Suit No.547...
Dhanaji Ramchandra Surwase Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Oka, J.) The present Appeal is preferred by the Accused Nos.1 and 2 for challenging the judgment and order dated 15th September, 2004 under which the Appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 324 read with Section 34 and Section 341 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The second Appellant (second Accused) filed Criminal Application No.1224 of 2012 raising a contention that he was a juvenile in conflict with law as defined under Section 2(l) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). The contention raised in the Application on the basis of the School Leaving Certificate is that the date of birth of the second Appellant is 4th August, 1986. The learned counsel appearing for the Applicant relied upon the record of the school such as General Register, School Leaving Certificate, etc. We may note here that under the orde...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »