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.
Dr. Namrata Anil Ghorpade Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
Oral Judgment: (Chief Justice) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for direction to the respondent authorities to take fresh selection process of PGA-CET 2012 for the admission to M.D./M.S. (Ayurvedic) Post Graduate Courses particularly in physically handicapped quota. 2. The petitioner passed her H.S.C. Examination in February, 2004 with 58% marks and thereafter secured admission for BAMS degree course in CSMSS Ayurved College, Aurangabad. The said admission was secured as a general candidate and not as a physically handicapped candidate. The petitioner got BAMS degree in November 2009 with 56.45% marks and after completing her internship in the year 2010-2011, the petitioner appeared at the PGA-CET 2012 Examination for the M.D/M.S. (Ayurvedic) Post Graduate Course. The petitioner secured 10th position amongst students of the Physically Handicapped category. Four seats for admission to the M.D/M.S. (Ayurved) are available for the current a...
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. That th...
Sanjeev Bhagwanrao Kokil Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 4.5.2012 in Original Application No.174 of 2011. The Tribunal rejected the Original Application preferred by the petitioner challenging the letter dated 7.2.2011 issued by Respondent No.2 and consequential order of Respondent No.1 published on 5.4.2011. The factual matrix as reproduced by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment is not disputed. The same reads thus: 2. The Applicant was posted as a Senior Police Inspector at M.R.A. Marg Police Station, Mumbai. By a letter dated 24th January, 2011, Respondent No.2 conveyed to Respondent No.1 the approval of the State Government to a proposal to transfer the Applicant for posting in Amravati City and to replace him at M.R.A. Marg Police Station, Mumbai by Respondent No.3. Accordingly, Respondent No.1 published an order in the Police Notice dated 25th Janu...
M/S. Actal Vs. M/S. India Infoline Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
Oral Judgment: By consent of parties, heard finally at the admission stage. 2. By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short Act), the petitioner seeks to challenge the award declared by the appellate Bench of the Bombay Stock exchange Limited. By the said award dated 16th December, 2011 declared by the appellate bench of the Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd., appeal filed by the petitioner is dismissed and the appeal filed by the respondent is partly allowed. Both the parties had filed appeals before the appellate Bench challenging the award dated 14th March, 2011 declared by the arbitral tribunal. Petitioner had challenged the award rejecting the claim made by the petitioner and allowing the counter claim made by the respondent partly. Respondent has challenged the award rejecting part of its counter claim. 3. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding the issues raised in the present proceedings are as under: The Petitioner is ...
Aditya Birla Chemicals (India) Ltd. Vs. Tata Motors Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
By this Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short Arbitration Act, 1996) the Petitioner (Original Respondent) seeks to challenge the award dated 9th August, 2011 made by the Learned Arbitrator by which claims made by the Respondent is allowed. Though both the parties have argued at length, all the issues raised in the petition, in view of the fact that I have decided to set aside the impugned award on the plea of limitation raised by the Petitioner decided by the Learned Arbitrator, I am not dealing with all other submissions advanced by the parties except submissions on issue of limitation. 2. Some of the relevant facts relating to the issue of limitation are as under:- 3. By a Sanction Letter dated 5th May, 2000, the Respondent granted in principle permission to extend the lease finance assistance to the Petitioner for plant and machinery for an amount not exceeding Rs.80,00,000/- on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. 4. By an Agreemen...
Dr. Namrata Anil Ghorpade Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
Oral Judgment: (Chief Justice) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for direction to the respondent authorities to take fresh selection process of PGA-CET 2012 for the admission to M.D./M.S. (Ayurvedic) Post Graduate Courses particularly in physically handicapped quota. 2. The petitioner passed her H.S.C. Examination in February, 2004 with 58% marks and thereafter secured admission for BAMS degree course in CSMSS Ayurved College, Aurangabad. The said admission was secured as a general candidate and not as a physically handicapped candidate. The petitioner got BAMS degree in November 2009 with 56.45% marks and after completing her internship in the year 2010-2011, the petitioner appeared at the PGA-CET 2012 Examination for the M.D/M.S. (Ayurvedic) Post Graduate Course. The petitioner secured 10th position amongst students of the Physically Handicapped category. Four seats for admission to the M.D/M.S. (Ayurved) are available for the current a...
Prabhakar S/O Rushi Nandanwar and Others Vs. Joint Commissioner and Vi ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the parties. 2. Since the factual and legal position in all the three petitions are identical, we have heard all these matters together and are disposing of the same by this common judgment and order. 3. Though all the petitioners who have entered into their services on the basis of their claim of belonging to Scheduled Tribe. have approached this Court being aggrieved by the orders of the Scrutiny Committee, they have given up the challenge to the order of the Scrutiny Committee and have restricted their claim in the petition only to protection of their services. 4. The facts are not in dispute. All the petitioners claimed to be belonging to Halba Scheduled Tribe. Their entry in the service is on the basis of their belonging to the Scheduled Tribe. Their claims came to be referred to the Caste Scrutiny Committee which have been invalidated. The petitioners have now restricted their claim to pr...
Khushnuma Ibrahim Khan and Another Vs. Asadullah Khan Alias Sameer Kha ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
Chief Justice This appeal is directed against the order dated 13 April 2012 of the learned trial Judge of this Court declining to grant the appellant-plaintiffs prayer for appointment of Court Receiver with a direction to put the appellant-plaintiffs back in possession of the suit premises and the suit office and by which the learned trial Judge has vacated the ad-interim order of appointment of the Court Receiver, passed on 14 and 16 December 2011. During pendency of the appeal, the said ad-interim order of appointment of Court Receiver was continued from time to time. 2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeal was taken up for final disposal. 3. Appellant No.1 Khushnuma Khan, aged 40 years is the wife (third wife) of deceased Ibrahim Khan and appellant No.2 Raghib Ibrahim Khan, aged 16 years is the son of Ibrahim Khan through appellant No.1. Ibrahim Khan married appellant No.1 on 18 December 1993. In the present suit filed on 12 December 2011, the appellan...
Sadashiv S/O. Hari Kodape Vs. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
Oral Judgment: RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner impugns an order passed by the Industrial Court, Chandrapur on 27/09/2012 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner under Section 30(2) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. 2. The petitioner was working as an attendant (class-IV cadre) in the Agricultural Department of Zilla Parishad Gadchiroli. In the seven posts of attendants in Zilla Parishad Gadchiroli, the petitioner is placed at Sr.No.3 in the seniority list. By an order dated 01/08/2012, the petitioner was asked to join as an attendant at Primary Health Center at Amirza as the petitioner was declared surplus due to the reduction of four posts of attendants. The petitioner challenged the order dated 01/08/2012 in a complaint before the Industrial Court. Along with the complaint an applicatio...
Shankar Panditrao Tokalwad Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
Oral Judgment: 1] Heard respective learned counsel for the parties. Leave to correct affidavit in reply granted. 2] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties taken up for final hearing. 3] By the present application preferred by the applicant (husband) i.e. original accused no.1 against respondent no.2 (wife) i.e. original complainant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant prayed that permission be granted to the parties i.e. applicant and respondent no.2 to compound the matter and they be permitted to settle the dispute as per compromise i.e. Exh.11 in Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 2007 pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhar, and also prayed to quash and set aside the order, dated 21.7.2012 passed below Exh.11 in the said appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhar, as well as prayed that criminal proceedings (Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 2007) pertaining to Crime No. 68 of 2005 f...
- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- Next ›
- Last »