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.
Narendra Nagindas Rathod Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Oka, J.) The prayer in this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the third Respondent to register the First Information Report (FIR) and record the statement of the Petitioner and other Bank account holders. Further, a direction is sought for carrying out investigation and filing charge sheet on the basis of the complaint made by the Petitioner dated 1st October, 2009. We may state here that there is a communication on record addressed to the Petitioner dated 10th August, 2012, by the Senior Inspector of Police, Gamdevi Police Station, in which it is stated that an enquiry on Application/Complaint of the Petitioner has been made as regards allegations made therein that Shri Ramesh S. Thakkar and Mrs. Chherra R. Thakkar had misappropriated a sum of Rs.2,49,52,193/- held by the parents of the Petitioner. It is stated therein that the Petitioner's father had executed a power of attorney in favour of the sa...
M/S. Abg Ports Limited and Another Vs. M/S. Psa International Pte Limi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
The above Suit is filed by the Plaintiff inter alia seeking a declaration that the Joint Bidding Agreement (“JBA”), the Counter Guarantee, and its invocation by Defendant No.1, vide its letter dated 21st September, 2012 (Exhibit-J to the Plaint), is illegal, wrongful and vitiated by fraud and is therefore, null and void, non-est and of no effect whatsoever. 2. The facts as narrated by the Plaintiff are briefly set out hereunder: 3. On 2nd March, 2009, Defendant No. 4 issued a Global Invitation of Request for Qualification vide Tender No. PPD/M1/4th CT/T60/2009 (“RFQ”) inviting applications for the development of 4th Container Terminal Project on Design, Build, Finance, Operate and Transfer (“DBFOT”) basis (“the said Project”). 4. By and under the JBA dated 21st August, 2009, entered into between the Plaintiff and Defendant No.2 (“Consortium”) for the purpose of bidding for the Project, Defendant No.2 was to be the Lead Member,...
Smt. Jankibai Jaiswal Bahu Udhesiya Sanstha Vs. Nagpur Improvement Tru ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
Oral Judgment: 1] The appellant is the society registered under the Societies Registration Act and it had filed Regular Civil Suit No.604/1986, challenging the resolution passed by the Nagpur Improvement Trust on 20.01.1985 for allotment of the suit plot to the Nagpur Municipal Corporation. The case of the plaintiff in the suit was that on 20.02.1985, the Nagpur Improvement Trust passed a Resolution No. 3(b), deciding to allot the plot in question to the plaintiff and the proposal in respect of the same was sent to the State Government for sanction on 03.05.1985. However, without cancelling the said allotment, the plot was allotted to the Nagpur Municipal Corporation on 15.03.1986, which is arbitrary and illegal. 2] The trial Court by its judgment and order dated 8th September, 1989, dismissed the said suit holding that the plaintiff has failed to establish that the resolution passed by the Nagpur Improvement Trust on 15.03.1986 allotting the plot to the Nagpur Municipal Corporation wa...
Pratap S/O. Laxman Dhole Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
1. The appeal is filed against judgment and order of Sessions Case No. 10/1997, which was pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded. The Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant for offence punishable under section 306, 498-A of Indian Penal Code. This Court has heard both the sides and has perused the original record. 2. In short the facts leading to the institution of the appeal can be stated as follows:- The deceased Gangasagar was a daughter of Govindrao Chibhade. She was given in marriage to appellant/accused on 5.6.1995. Immediately after the marriage, the accused started expressing that the deceased had become pregnant even prior to the marriage. For the satisfaction of the accused, the parents of the deceased took the deceased to the hospital of Dr. Smt. Bhalerao for medical examination. After medical examination, Dr. Bhalerao gave report that the deceased had not become pregnant. The accused was, however, not satisfied. The accused got examined the...
Shakil @ Golu Shakur Mewati and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
1. Both the appeals are filed against the judgment and order of Sessions Case No. 194/2009, which was pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon. The Sessions Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants from both the appeals for offences punishable under section 394 and 397 of Indian Penal Code. Both the sides are heard. This Court has perused the original record of the case. 2. In short, the facts leading to the institution of the present proceedings can be stated as follows:- The complainant Ashok Kamble works as a taxi driver. The incident took place on 21.7.2009. On that day, the complainant was returning from Dhule to Jalgaon in his taxi bearing No. MH-19/AE-4409. When the taxi reached at Dhule Parola Chaufula, accused No. 1, who was present there, gave signal to stop the taxi. Ashok stopped the taxi. Accused No. 1 informed that he wanted to go to Jalgaon. After negotiations, the fair was decided. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were present near a pan stall at this spot...
Menino Pereira Vs. Pramod Naik and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Timble, learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr. T. Pereira, learned Counsel for respondent no.1 and Mr. Lawande, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent no.2. 2. By this appeal, the appellant takes exception to the judgment and order dated 08/12/2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vasco-da-Gama in Criminal Case No.1779/OA/NIA/06/B by which respondent no.1/accused has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the Act' for short). The appellant herein filed the above case against respondent no.1 for dishonour of cheque dated 25/09/2006 alleged to have been issued by respondent no.1/accused for an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees four lakhs fifty thousand only). 3. In Criminal Case No.1779/OA/NIA/06/B, the complainant examined three witnesses namely PW1-Revard Pereira- brother and the constituted attorney holder of the complainant, PW2-Kishor Pednekar and PW3-Somappa Kollar. Ther...
M/S. Gandhi Adhivitiya Combine Vs. Chandravadan Bharat Myatra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
1. This petition is filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Petitioner seeks an order of appointment of Court Receiver and mandatory injunction against the respondents to forthwith hand over possession of existing tenement/structure occupied by the respondent to the petitioner. 2. The Petitioner is a developer. By an agreement dated 1st February, 1996 entered into between Smt. Kusumben Gandhi and Ors. and four others as owners, petitioner herein and the respondent. Recital (c) of the said agreement provides that the tenant/occupant is the only Tenant/Occupant of a shop on the ground floor structure admeasuring 18.30 sq. mtr. Recital (d) provides that the owners of the said property proposed to develop the said property and has executed development agreement with the petitioner. The Petitioner has accordingly approached the tenant/occupant and offered to provide a permanent alternative accommodation in lieu of present occupied structures and for releasin...
Pandurang Dharma Gaikwad Adult Vs. Mahamudmuya Ahmadsaheb Patil Adult
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
Oral Judgment: 1 Second Appeal No.504 of 1991 is arising out of proceeding in Regular Civil Suit no.96 of 1984. Respondent-Mohamuddin is the plaintiff in civil suit no.96/1984. The suit was filed for mandatory injunction i.e. for removal of encroachment and the possession. The suit was dismissed with costs by judgment dated 29th July 1987, against which the respondent/original plaintiff preferred first appeal no.119/1987 which was allowed on 21st August 1991 and the judgment and decree passed by the lower court was set aside. The said judgment and order of the appellate court is challenged by the appellant-original defendant in second appeal no.504/1991. 2 Second Appeal No. 620/2010 is filed against the judgment and order of the concurrent finding of the courts below. Regular Civil Suit No.30/1995 was filed for perpetual injunction against the appellant from interfering the possession of the respondent over the suit land i.e. 7.4 M X 3.3. M., which was decreed on 16.2.1998 by the trial...
Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
Oral Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) : The First Petitioner, Aditya Birla Nuvo Limited, is stated to have merged with a company by the name of Birla Global Finance Limited pursuant to a scheme of amalgamation dated 27 January 2006 sanctioned by this Court. The case of the Petitioners is that on 18 June 1997 a leave and licence agreement was entered into between the Seventh Respondent, Exon Securities (India) Limited, and the predecessor-in-interest of the First Petitioner in respect of a residential flat being flat No.1 on the 7th floor, B Wing of a building known as Lloyds Garden, Prabhadevi, Mumbai. The licence agreement was for an initial term of 11 months commencing on 1 July 1997 and ending on 31 May 1998 on a monthly licence fee of Rs.15,000/- in respect of the premises and Rs.2,000/- for two car packing spaces. A refundable security deposit was, according to the Petitioners, paid on the execution of the licence. Under clause 4 of the licence agreement the deposit was to be ...
Enercon (India) Ltd. and Others Vs. Enercon Gmbh and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-2012
1. The above Writ Petitions have been filed invoking the Writ Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 27th August 2009 passed by the learned District Judge, Daman by which order the Appeals being Misc. Civil Appeal Nos.1/2009, 2/2009, 3/2009 and 4/2009 came to be allowed and resultantly the order passed by the Trial Court dated 9th January 2009 came to be set aside, resulting in the Application filed under Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 being allowed in terms of prayer clause 28(a) thereof, and the Injunction Application of the Petitioners above-named, who are the original Plaintiffs, came to be rejected. 2. The issue that arises in the above Petitions is therefore in two parts viz. Whether the parties are to be referred to arbitration, and Whether the Petitioners are entitled to an anti-suit injunction in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The impugned order is therefore also in two p...
- ‹ Prev
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- Next ›
- Last »