Mumbai Court October 2012 Judgments
Nazir Ahamad Mansoor Ahamad Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
P.V. Hardas, J. Criminal Appeal No.306 of 2012 has been filed by original accused no.2, Nazir Ahamad Mansoor Ahamad, while Criminal Appeal No.280 of 2012 has been filed by original accused no.1, Uttam Ramdas Chavan, who stand convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 330 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and are sentenced to imprisonment for life and each to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, rigorous imprisonment for three years and each to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of which, to undergo further R.I. for one month, rigorous imprisonment for three years and each to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of which to undergo further R.I. for one month, with a direction that all the substantive sentences shall run concurrently by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad, by judgment dated 6th of July, 2012 in Sessions Trial No.103 of 2003, by these appeals, question the correctness of their conviction and sentence. Since both these appeals arise from the same judgment of the Tria...
Tag this Judgment!Pranlal D. Shah and Others Vs. Lok Housing and Construction Ltd. Thru. ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
S.R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member: These two consumer complaints since involves identical facts and common question of law are disposed of by this common order. Opponent -Lok Housing and Construction Ltd. is a builder/ developer (herein after referred as builder) and was developing a residential project at Mulund (West), Mumbai. Said project was known as Lok Everest situated at Jata Shankar Road, Mulund (West), Mumbai 400 082. In the said project, complainants from complaint no.65/2008 viz.Mr.Pranlal D. Shah and his son Mr.Harshad P. Shah booked a flat bearing no.601 situated in building C-1 and having area of about 793.95 sq.ft. carpet. The price fixed was Rs.11,57,000/-. The price was entirely paid and, accordingly, allotment letter dated 03/04/1996 was issued in favour of the flat purchasers viz. complainants. In addition to it for a parking space Rs.50,000/- were paid on 17/08/1996. By its communication dated 12/10/2000, the builder communicated expected date of possession a...
Tag this Judgment!Vrajlal Talakshi Gala Vs. Orient Realtors Private Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
P.C.: The Applicant has taken out this Application for the following reliefs in pending Appeal (Lodging) No. 27 of 2012 under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956. 2 The basic prayers are as under:- “(a) that without prejudice to the earlier ad-interim and interim orders passed herein, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant leave to the Applicant/Appellant to amend the Company Appeal and all pending Company Applications therein in terms of Schedule-I annexed hereto; (b) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Appeal, Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay or some other fit and proper person be appointed as a Receiver of the property known as “Kemps Shoppe” situated at Kemps Corner with all powers under Order 40 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with further directions to forthwith take possession including by taking forcible possession and lock and seal the said property; (c) that the pending the hearing and final disposal of the Company Appeal,...
Tag this Judgment!Subhash S/O Girdharlal Nawandar Vs. Dinesh S/O Subhash Nawandar
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
Oral Judgment : 1] Heard respective learned counsel for the parties. 2] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself. 3] This is an application preferred by the applicant (original accused) under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requesting that S.C.C. No. 1487 of 2012, pending before the learned 7th Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad, be transferred to the court of competent jurisdiction at Latur. 4] The applicant herein is the father of the respondent. It is the contention of the applicant that R.C.S. No. 61 of 2008 was filed by the elder son of the present applicant for partition and separate possession before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chakur, Distict Latur. Accordingly, the said suit was compromised inter se between the parties, to which present applicant and the respondent were parties. A copy of R.C.S. No. 61 of 2008 and the copy of the compromi...
Tag this Judgment!Vrajlal Talakshi Gala Vs. Orient Realtors Private Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
P.C.: The Applicant has taken out this Application for the following reliefs in pending Appeal (Lodging) No. 27 of 2012 under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956. 2 The basic prayers are as under:- (a) that without prejudice to the earlier ad-interim and interim orders passed herein, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant leave to the Applicant/Appellant to amend the Company Appeal and all pending Company Applications therein in terms of Schedule-I annexed hereto; (b) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Appeal, Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay or some other fit and proper person be appointed as a Receiver of the property known as Kemps Shoppe situated at Kemps Corner with all powers under Order 40 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with further directions to forthwith take possession including by taking forcible possession and lock and seal the said property; (c) that the pending the hearing and final disposal of the Company Appeal, the Respondent Nos.1...
Tag this Judgment!Lakh Enterprises and Another Vs. Agar Distributors (India) and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioners, original respondent nos.2 and 3, have filed this Review Petition against order dated 29th April 2011 passed in Writ Petition No.364 of 2011 by which, after hearing both the parties finally, the petition was allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). The Writ Petition was filed against order dated 16th July 2010 passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (for short "the Board") under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (for short "the Act"). 3. By this Review Petition dated 15th October 2012 prayer is made to set aside the judgment. Notice of Motion No.364 of 2012 is also filed along with the Review Petition, as there is a delay of about 474 days. The assignment and the Advocate's certificate: 4. It is relevant to note Rule 636 of the Bombay High Court Original Side Rules, 1980 which reads as under: "R.636. Application for Writ, etc., under Article 226 of the Constitution.- (1)(a) Application under Article 226 of the...
Tag this Judgment!Central Warehousing Corporation Vs. Jaybharat Automobiles Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
Both the parties have challenged Award dated 6 August 2009 passed by the sole Arbitrator appointed pursuance to the agreement between the parties. The summary of the Award is as under : "26 The claimants should vacate the Shed No.TW-1 at Cottongreen in Mumbai Port Trust area with immediate effect and hand-over the peaceful possession to the Respondent-Corporation. The claimants should pay storage charges to the Respondent-Corporation at the enhanced rate of Rs. 695/- per sq.mt per month for an area of 1580 sq.mt from 01.08.2008 to 31.05.2009 as per judgment of the Supreme Court dated 13.01.2004." "28 The above payment, in the first instance, will be made by the Respondent-Corporation, which will thereafter be recoverable, by them from the Claimant-Contractor, as per ratio given above." 2. The learned counsel appearing for the original claimant (Petitioner) in Arbitration Petition (Lodging) No.14789/2009 makes statement that subsequent to the Award, the Shed TW1 of Cottongreen in Mumbai...
Tag this Judgment!Vishal Waman Mhatre Vs. Commissioner of Police and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
A.S. Oka, J. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner who is the brother of the detenue is seeking a writ of habeas corpus for challenging the order dated 24th April, 2012 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Thane under Section 3 of the The Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, [Drug-offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates] Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). By the said order, the detenue was directed to be detained with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has us taken through the grounds supplied to the detenue in accordance with Section 8 of the said Act. He invited our attention to the various grounds of challenge in the Petition. He pointed out that the first ground of challenge has been set out in Ground (a). He submitted that crucial parts of the grounds which are in...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Krishna Ganpat Karekar and Another Vs. Pradip Janardan Mangaonkar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
The Petitioning creditor has invoked the provisions of The Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 (for short, the Insolvency Act). 2 The basic facts are as under: On 31 March, 2003, The Care Cooperative Bank Ltd. (Care Bank) granted loan to The Debtor, being The Director of the Care Bank, of Rs.800 LAC @ 18% against The Equitable Mortgage, by depositing The Title Deeds in respect of the Shop No. B7, situated at Neel Ratna Chs Ltd., 107, Mapkhan Nagar, Marol Naka, Andhri (East), Mumbai 400 005, with Sixty Monthly installments of Rs. 13,33300, with last Installment due on 11 April, 2008. The Debtor was also Guarantor for M/s. Swami Samarth Textile, Prop. Shri Sunil Kumar Kanodia. The Debtor created The Equitable Mortgage of the shop, in favour of Care Bank. The Title Deeds of the Shop are still in possession of the Petitioning Creditors. 3 On 12 June, 2003, the Respondent (Pradip) has purchased the property/shop by a registered agreement for sale and the possession of the same was taken f...
Tag this Judgment!Subhash S/O Girdharlal Nawandar Vs. Dinesh S/O Subhash Nawandar
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
Oral Judgment : 1] Heard respective learned counsel for the parties. 2] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself. 3] This is an application preferred by the applicant (original accused) under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requesting that S.C.C. No. 1487 of 2012, pending before the learned 7th Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad, be transferred to the court of competent jurisdiction at Latur. 4] The applicant herein is the father of the respondent. It is the contention of the applicant that R.C.S. No. 61 of 2008 was filed by the elder son of the present applicant for partition and separate possession before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chakur, Distict Latur. Accordingly, the said suit was compromised inter se between the parties, to which present applicant and the respondent were parties. A copy of R.C.S. No. 61 of 2008 and the copy of the compromi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »