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.
Smt. Seema Savale Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-2012
P.C. : 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. Rule. Mr.V.S.Gokhale, waives notice for respondent Nos.1. Mr. More waives notice for respondent nos.2 and 3 and Mr. Ganbavale waives notice for respondent no.4. By consent, heard forthwith. 2. This petition takes exception to the resolution No.987 dated 20.8.2010 passed by the General Body of the respondent no.2 Corporation. On the basis of the said resolution, notice dated 6.10.2010 bearing No. 179, came to be issued by the respondent no.3, which was published in the local newspaper on 9.10.2010. The petitioner prays that the respondent nos.2 and 3 be directed to forthwith cancel and/or withdraw the said publication. The incidental relief claimed by the petitioner is to direct the respondent no.1 not to consider the proposal published and submitted by the respondent no.2 - Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation, for further minor modification under Section 37(1) of the MRTP Act, 1966 on the basis of or on the strength of the impugned advertisem...
Dr. Rajendra S/O. Narayanrao Dhakne Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-19-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Adv. Mr. R.G. Hange for the applicant, and learned APP Mr. B.J. Sonwane for the respondent. 2. At the request of learned Counsel for the applicant, leave granted to delete the provision of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, from the present Application. 3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing. 4. This is an application preferred by the applicant (original accused) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying that the order 17-7-2012, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Beed, in Criminal Revision Application No. 21/2012, be quashed and set aside, and the applicant be allowed to withdraw the said Criminal Revision Application No. 21/2012, pending before the said court. 5. The respondent herein, through Dr. Gauri Raghunath Rathod, Civil Surgeon, District Hospital, Beed, i.e. original complainant, had filed criminal case being R.C.C. No. 898/2011 agai...
Subhash Gopal Pandurkar Vs. the District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Co ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-2012
A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1) Heard counsel for the parties. 2) The argument of the petitioner that the petitioner belongs to Sonar community, in our opinion, has been rightly negatived by the Caste Scrutiny Committee on the finding that the petitioner was not able to establish the fact that he belonged to Sonar caste. On the other hand, the evidence adduced by the petitioner, at best, indicated that he belonged to Daivadnya Brahmin caste. In the context of that finding, the argument proceeds that Daivadnya Brahmin and Sonar is synonym; and for which reason, the caste certificate of the petitioner ought to have been validated. This argument cannot be entertained considering the fact that the petitioner is not in a position to place any notification issued by the Competent Authority specifying that Daivadnya Brahmin and Sonar castes are synonyms. In the absence of such notification, it is not open to the Court to assume that these two are synonymous. This position is well established and no mo...
Dinesh B. Chokshi and Others Vs. Rahul Vasudeo Bhatt and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-2012
A.S. Oka, J. 1. On the basis of Judgment and Order dated 23rd December, 2008 passed by learned Single Judge, the Hon’ble the Chief Justice passed an order on the Administrative Side directing that these matters should be placed before a Division Bench. Accordingly, these Applications have been placed before this Court. 2. The reference to Division Bench is for deciding the two questions formulated by the learned Single Judge under his Judgment and Order dated 23rd December, 2008. The said two questions are:- “(i) Does the issuance of a cheque in repayment of a time barred debt amounts to a written promise to pay the said debt within the meaning of Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872? (ii) If it amounts to such a promise, does such a promise, by itself, create any legally enforceable debt or other liability as contemplated by Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881? 3. We have heard Shri A.P. Mundargi, learned Senior Counsel who was appointed as Amicus...
Kantilal Vasanji Chheda Vs. Vrajesh Kantilal Patel and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-2012
1. The Plaintiff has sued for a declaration that the agreement dated 10th April, 1981 is valid, subsisting and binding on the defendants and that the conveyance Exh. H to the Plaint is subject to the Plaintiff's right and for specific performance of the agreement dated 10th April, 1981 as also for recovery of Rs.21,42,827/- and declaration of the statutory charge for repayment of that amount. 2. The Plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 7 agreed to purchase the suit property which is an open plot of land called Irani property at village Nagargaon, Lonavla from the owners, the predecessor-in-title of defendant Nos.31,32 and 33 on 10th April, 1981. Though the agreement is not produced by any party, its execution is not denied. The Plaintiff claims a 15% share in the suit property which is also not denied. The Plaintiff claims to have contributed Rs.34006.64 towards purchase price being 15% of the total consideration which is stated to have been paid by the Plaintiff after the agreement was ex...
Kantilal Vasanji Chheda Vs. Vrajesh Kantilal Patel and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-2012
1. The Plaintiff has sued for a declaration that the agreement dated 10th April, 1981 is valid, subsisting and binding on the defendants and that the conveyance Exh. H to the Plaint is subject to the Plaintiff's right and for specific performance of the agreement dated 10th April, 1981 as also for recovery of Rs.21,42,827/- and declaration of the statutory charge for repayment of that amount. 2. The Plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 7 agreed to purchase the suit property which is an open plot of land called Irani property at village Nagargaon, Lonavla from the owners, the predecessor-in-title of defendant Nos.31,32 and 33 on 10th April, 1981. Though the agreement is not produced by any party, its execution is not denied. The Plaintiff claims a 15% share in the suit property which is also not denied. The Plaintiff claims to have contributed Rs.34006.64 towards purchase price being 15% of the total consideration which is stated to have been paid by the Plaintiff after the agreement was ex...
Dinesh B. Chokshi and Others Vs. Rahul Vasudeo Bhatt and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-2012
A.S. Oka, J. 1. On the basis of Judgment and Order dated 23rd December, 2008 passed by learned Single Judge, the Honble the Chief Justice passed an order on the Administrative Side directing that these matters should be placed before a Division Bench. Accordingly, these Applications have been placed before this Court. 2. The reference to Division Bench is for deciding the two questions formulated by the learned Single Judge under his Judgment and Order dated 23rd December, 2008. The said two questions are:- (i) Does the issuance of a cheque in repayment of a time barred debt amounts to a written promise to pay the said debt within the meaning of Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872? (ii) If it amounts to such a promise, does such a promise, by itself, create any legally enforceable debt or other liability as contemplated by Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881? 3. We have heard Shri A.P. Mundargi, learned Senior Counsel who was appointed as Amicus Curiae to ass...
Smt. Seema Savale Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-2012
P.C. : 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. Rule. Mr.V.S.Gokhale, waives notice for respondent Nos.1. Mr. More waives notice for respondent nos.2 and 3 and Mr. Ganbavale waives notice for respondent no.4. By consent, heard forthwith. 2. This petition takes exception to the resolution No.987 dated 20.8.2010 passed by the General Body of the respondent no.2 Corporation. On the basis of the said resolution, notice dated 6.10.2010 bearing No. 179, came to be issued by the respondent no.3, which was published in the local newspaper on 9.10.2010. The petitioner prays that the respondent nos.2 and 3 be directed to forthwith cancel and/or withdraw the said publication. The incidental relief claimed by the petitioner is to direct the respondent no.1 not to consider the proposal published and submitted by the respondent no.2 - Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation, for further minor modification under Section 37(1) of the MRTP Act, 1966 on the basis of or on the strength of the impugned advertisem...
Union of India Through Dy. Chief Engineer (Const), Central Railway Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-2012
Oral Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) : Admit. With the consent of the learned counsel, the Appeal is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. This Appeal arises from a decision of a Learned Single Judge dated 10 March 2011 rejecting a petition for setting aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. A contract was awarded by the Central Railway to the Respondent for the construction of 100 units of Type I (M/S) quarters at Kalwa at a tendered cost of Rs.1.02 Crores. The period for the completion of work was 24 months commencing from the date of the award of the contract. The period for completion was extended from time to time. A major portion of the work was completed by 31 March 1996 barring minor deficiencies and physical possession of the quarters was taken over on 27 October 1997. On 16 September 2003, the General Manager of the Central Railways constituted an arbitral Tribunal under Clause 64 of the General Conditions of Contract...
Mumbai District Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Co-operative Bank Employees ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-2012
This Petition impugns an interlocutory order dated 23-11-2011 passed by the Labour Court, which has been affirmed by the Industrial Court in Revision by order dated 17-12-2011. The operative part of the impugned order of the Labour Court reads as under: "(I) Application stands allowed as under:- (1) The respondents shall withdraw the illegal change(s). (whereunder it has outsourced several services from M/s Synergy Safe Climber and Property Solution Pvt. Ltd.) from 1-02-2011. (2) The respondents are hereby further restrained from making any change without following due process of law till final disposal of the main application. (3) Costs-in-cause." 2. The impugned order of the Labour Court was passed on an Interim Application under Section 119 (D) of Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as "BIR Act") filed by the Respondent-Union seeking an order to restrain Respondent-Bank from hiring the services of one M/s Synergy Safe Climber and Property Solution Pvt. Ltd...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »