Mumbai Court November 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 Malti Vijaysingh Kapadia and Others Vs. Pratap Gordhandas Kapaida ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-2012
Oral Judgment: These Three appeals from order under order 43 rule 1(R) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.) challenge common order/judgment dated 7th February 2005 passed by the City Civil Court, Greater Bombay on three different notices of motion. 2. By the impugned order the said Court has found it not proper or desirable to set aside order passed by it earlier appointing Court Receiver and asking him to take possession from anybody found in possession. The appellant-Malti in Notice of Motion No.3494 of 2003 is appellant in Appeal from Order No.270/2005. Appellant-Hemant in Appeal from Order No.272/2005 is the applicant in Notice of Motion No.3493/2003 while Vijay Singh, the appellant in Appeal from Order No.273/2005 is the applicant in Notice of Motion No.3495/2003. 3. Parties before this Court are closely related and, very briefly stated, two of them filed civil proceedings in which a decree has been passed by their consent. An order appointing Court Receiver to take possessio...
Mana Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Firdous Park Co- ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-2012
1. The above suit is filed by the Plaintiffs inter alia for an order and decree against the Defendants to specifically perform the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 10th March 2008 (Exhibit-H to the Plaint), Development Agreement dated 24th March 2008 (Exhibit-J to the Plaint) and also to execute all necessary documents/writings so as to effectually sell, transfer and convey the right, title and interest of the Defendants property bearing Survey No. 20, Hissa No. 4, corresponding C.T.S. Nos. 112, 112/1 to 112/7 admeasuring 5335.35 sq. meters situate at Village Bandivali, Tal. Andheri, Mumbai Suburban District (the suit property) to the name of the Plaintiffs. 2. The Plaintiffs have taken out the above Notice of Motion in the suit seeking interim reliefs i.e. appointment of a Court Receiver in respect of the suit property and an injunction restraining the Defendants from in any manner dealing with, and/or disposing off and/or creating any third party rights in respect of the suit ...
irfan Ibrahim Qadri Vs. Medha Gadgil and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-2012
A.S. Oka, J. 1. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of habeas corpus, the Petitioner is praying for quashing and setting aside the order dated 17th April, 2012 passed by the first Respondent in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "COFEPOSA Act"). The Petitioner's brother has been ordered to be detained with a view to prevent him in future from smuggling goods. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the detinue was arrested for the offence under Section 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act on 18th May, 2011 and was ordered to be released on bail by the learned Magistrate on the same day. He submitted that apart from directing the detinue to furnish PR bond and solvent surety (one or two) in the sum of Rs.2 lakhs, he was directed to attend the concerned department/Investigating Officer on...
Charu K. Mehta and Others Vs. Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-2012
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. These appeals arise from a decision of a Learned Single Judge dated 5 March 2012 on an Originating Summons filed under Rule 238 of the Rules framed by this Court for the Original Side. 2. The Plaintiff, Charu K.Mehta, is a permanent trustee for life time of the First Defendant which is a public trust by the name of Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust. By an Indenture of Trust dated 5 July 1978, the Settlor, Kirtilal Manilal Mehta, established a Trust inter alia to afford medical relief and for the spread of medical science, including by the establishment, maintenance and support of hospitals. Under the Deed of Trust, the Plaintiff and the Second and Third Defendants were named as permanent trustees for life. The Plaintiff is the wife of the Second Defendant. The Second Defendant is one of the sons of the Settlor. The Third Defendant is the daughter of the Settlor. 3. The Second Defendant filed an application on 6 July 1978 before the Charity Commissioner for ...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Police Inspector and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-2012
A.S. Oka, J. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a prayer is made for quashing and setting aside a First Information Report bearing C.R. No.227 of 2011 registered with Mohol Police Station, Mohol, District - Solapur, for offences under Sections 465, 467, 468, 472, 420 and 199 of the Indian Penal Code. A prayer is made for quashing the said First Information Report as against one Shri Arvind Gajanan More, who is a Judicial Officer who was working at the relevant time as the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Osmanabad. At the relevant time, he was holding additional charge of the post of Assistant Charity Commissioner, Solapur. By an order dated 1st February, 2012, this Petition was fixed for final hearing. The office noting shows that the notice has been duly served to the second Respondent who is the first informant. 2. The learned APP invited our attention to the complaint of the second Respondent on the basis of which First Information Report was registered...
Yash Tejpal Shah and Others Vs. Shree Ashtavinayak Cine Vision Ltd. an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-2012
P.C. Under order dated 18th September, 2012 Respondent Nos.1 and 2 as the Judgment Debtors (JD) were directed to disclose on affidavit the particulars of their assets and properties under the provisions of Order 21 Rule 41 reads thus :- "Attachment of property 41. Examination of judgment-debtor as to his property. 21(2) Where a decree for the payment of money has remained unsatisfied for a period of thirty days, the Court may, on the application of the decree-holder and without prejudice to its power under sub-rule (1), by order require the judgment-debtor or where the judgment-debtor is a corporation, any officer thereof, to make an affidavit stating the particulars of the assets of the judgment-debtor." 2. Respondent No.2 on behalf of himself and Respondent No.1 has filed an affidavit on 1st November, 2012 upon the said order. The Respondent contends that he has given the necessary particulars of assets. The Petitioners contend that the particulars are not sufficient and are not deli...
Mamta Dinesh Vakil Vs. Bansi S. Wadhwa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-2012
1. Both the aforesaid suits relate to the letters of administration and probate of the Will of a deceased Hindu who 2 TS.86/2000-TP.917/2000 and TS.48/2005-P.104/2005 died leaving distant heirs. The deceased in Suit No.48 of 2005 is a male Hindu. The deceased in Suit No.86 of 2000 is a female Hindu. The Plaintiff in Suit No.48 of 2005 claims to be the paternal aunt of the deceased. Her claim of relationship is not admitted. The defendant/Caveatrix in Suit No.48 of 2005 is the maternal aunt of the deceased. Her relationship is not challenged. The Plaintiff in Suit No. 48 of 2005 claims to be an heir nearer in the line of succession to the deceased than the Defendant/Caveatrix who is the maternal aunt of the deceased. She claims to fall in Item VII of Class II of the Schedule to Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. She claims to exclude the maternal aunt who is shown to fall under Item IX of Class II of the Schedule to Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act (HSA). 2. The Defendant filed...
Masusmi Sa Investment Llc Vs. Keystone Realtors Pvt. Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-2012
Oral Judgment: 1.By consent of parties, all the aforesaid company appeals were heard together on the preliminary issue raised by the respondents about the maintainability of appeal and are being disposed off by a common order. FACTS IN COMPANY APPEAL (L) NO. 47 OF 2012: 2. By this appeal under section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956, the appellant challenges the order dated 12th October, 2012 passed by the Company Law Board (For short CLB) by which the CLB allowed the company application filed by respondent No. 2 under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (For short the Arbitration Act, 1996) and referred the parties to arbitration as contemplated under Article 58 of the Articles of Association and clause 20.4 contained in the agreement and as per the provisions contained in the Arbitration Act, 1996. Respondent no. 2 had filed application under section 8 in Company Petition No. 57 of 2012 filed by the appellant under section 397 and 398 read with section 402 of Comp...
Bg Strategic Advisors Vs. Arshiya International Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-2012
Oral Judgment: By this petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short `Arbitration Act, 1996), the petitioner seeks an order and direction against the respondent to deposit in this court an amount of US $ 442,666.84 and for various interim measures. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection about maintainability of this petition in this court. In view of such preliminary objection, though both the learned counsel have addressed on several other issues raised in the petition, I will decide the preliminary issue raised by the respondent. Some of the relevant facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding the said issues are as under:- 2. It is the case of the petitioner that in or about May, 2008, the respondent approached the petitioner to provide their expertise in advising them in financial aspects of identifying potential companies as targets for making investments, acquisitions, mergers or other...
Valji Shamji Chheda and Others Vs. Bhuderbhai Bajidas Patel and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-2012
1. In the above Notice of Motion, the Plaintiffs have moved this Court for Ad-interim reliefs. However, the Defendants have raised the contention that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit since the Partnership Firm i.e. Laxmi Developers is not registered under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (the Act). In view thereof, by consent of the parties, the following issue is framed as a preliminary issue and decided hereunder: Whether in view of non-registration of the Partnership Firm Laxmi Developers, the present suit is barred under Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. 2. According to the Plaintiffs, a Partnership Deed was executed on 11th August 1986, between the Plaintiffs and Defendant Nos. 1 to 3. By the said Partnership Deed, the Partnership Firm was constituted under the name and style of Laxmi Developers for conducting the business of investment in properties, development of the same and also for sale of shops, flats, commercial premises...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »