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.
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...
Dinesh Shankarrao Deshmukh Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
Oral Judgment: One Krishnaji Parshuram Zunjarrao committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance on 9/2/1998. After his death, his son-in-law Dinesh Deshmukh - the present appellant - lodged a report with the police that the suicide by the said Krishnaji Zunjarrao was abetted by Respondent Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 herein, who were superiors of the said Krishnaji in his office. The said Krishnaji was working in the Agricultural Department of the Government. 2. Based on this report, Respondent Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 were apprehended and prosecuted on the allegation of having committed an offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 34 of the IPC. After holding a trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan found them 'not guilty' and passed an ordered of acquittal. 3. The present appellant, who, as aforesaid, is the son-in-law of the said Krishnaji Zunjarrao, claiming to be 'a victim', has filed the present appeal against the order of acquitta...
Sau. Chandraprabha Bhalchandra Joshi and Another Vs. Babu Ravaji GoThe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
Oral Judgment: This Second Appeal is filed against the order of the first appeal court dated 17.9.1990 by which the appeal was dismissed and the decree passed by the trial court was confirmed. The appellants are the unsuccessful plaintiffs who have filed a suit for specific performance of the suit land. The original defendant no.1 and the appellants/original plaintiffs have entered into an agreement for sale for the suit land on 6.6.1980. Some amount was paid by the appellants to respondent no.1. However, defendant no.1 by a sale deed dated 24.12.1984 sold the land to original defendant nos.2 and 3 i.e. respondent nos.2 and 3. The appellant issued notice to execute the sale deed on 11.2.1983. It was not responded, so he filed Regular Civil Suit No.13 of 1984 for specific performance. The suit was partly decreed though the prayer of specific performance was rejected. The trial court granted relief of repayment of the amount of Rs.2000/- which was paid by the appellant to defendant no.1....
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 order as t...
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...
Smt. Heena Kausar Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Kanade, J.) 1. By this Petition which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner is seeking appropriate writ order and direction for setting aside the order of detention dated 02/09/1994 passed by Respondent No.2 under section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988. 2. Brief facts are as under:- 3. On 02/09/1993, a jeep which was parked at Worli, Mumbai was seized and Mandrax Tablets were found in the said jeep. Petitioner's husband was made an accused in the said case. On 02/09/1994, an order of detention was passed by Respondent No.2. The said order of detention could not be served on Petitioner's husband, though, according to Respondent No.2, various steps were taken to serve him and, till today, the order of detention and grounds of detention have not been served on Petitioner's husband. Petitioner has challenged the said order of detention. In the meantime, a show-cause notice ...
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 bySLAOLACDate 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.816/07723.780.10 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.852/07733.930.10 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/- P.H.3] Mr....
Sharad S/O Prabhakar Kulkarni Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard respective learned counsel for the parties. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order, dated 4.11.2011, rendered by the learned Special Judge, Osmanabad, in Special Case (Atro.) No.1 of 2011, thereby convicting the appellant (original accused) (hereinafter referred to as per original status 'the accused'), for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer S.I. for one month; and also convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer S.I. for one month; and also convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 376 (f) of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to suffe...
Union of India, Represented by the Executive Engineer, Mumbai Central ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
Oral Judgment: The Petitioner/Union of India has challenged the Award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, Arbitration Act) basically Claim Nos. 4, 69 only. There is no specific challenge to the other claims. The Respondent/contractor has not challenged the rest of the Award. 2 The basic submissions of the learned counsel for the Petitioner revolve around Clause 12 of the Central Conditions of Contract for Central P.W.D. Works, 2008 which permits in case of deviation of extra items and substituted items, pricing part to be adjudicated by the concerned Engineer. This itself means, there is no bar that in case of deviation and/or substitution, the contractor, subject to the decision by the concerned Authority is entitled to claim for extra items. Admittedly, there was deviation in the work referring to design also. The decision so given by the Engineer, so far as the work as liable and the deviated and/or directed to be completed. There is no dispute...
Acc Concrete Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
PC: 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. No-one else appeared. 2. The sanction of the Court is sought to the Scheme of Amalgamation of ACC Concrete Limited, the Transferor Company with ACC Limited, the Transferee Company, under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956. 3. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner Company has stated that the Petitioner Company has complied with all requirements as per the directions of this Court and they have filed necessary Affidavits of compliance in the Court. The Petitioner Company also undertakes to comply with all statutory requirements, if any, as required under the Companies Act, 1956 and the Rules made thereunder. The said undertaking is accepted. 4. The Regional Director has filed an Affidavit dated 18th September, 2012, stating therein, that save and except as stated in para 6, it appears that the Scheme is not prejudicial to the interest of shareholders and public. In paragraph 6 of the Affidavit it is stated that: “6. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »