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.
Deepak Ravikant Nagar and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-01-2012
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. By consent both the sides are heard for final disposal. 3. All the proceedings are filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for relief of quashing and setting aside the criminal proceeding filed for offences punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The private complaints are pending in the Court of 4th Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Dhule and they are as follows. 1) S.T.C.C. No.3470/2007. 2) S.T.C.C. No.3474/2007 3) S.T.C.C. No.3472/2007 4) S.T.C.C. No.3471/2007 5) S.T.C.C. No.3473/2007 6) S.T.C.C. No.3475/2007 The applicant company was doing its business at Indore (M.P.) and it had some business transactions with respondent No.2 firm, the complainant. It is contended that there was written agreement between the parties and under the memorandum of understanding (MOU) it was decided that all the disputes will be referred to Court from Khargone (M.P.). It is contended that in connection with the transaction some c...
Shree Ahuja Properties Private Ltd and Another Vs. Shewa Apartments Co ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-2012
P.N. Kashalkar, Judicial Member: 1. These two appeals are filed against the order passed by District Forum, Mumbai Suburban in consumer complaint No.560/2010 decided on 30/06/2011. The consumer complaint was allowed and opponent No.1-Mr.Khubchand Hemandas Setpal and opponent No.2-M/s.Ahuja Properties Pvt. Ltd. have been directed to execute Deed of Conveyance in favour of complainant-society within eight weeks and also directed to pay Rs. 15,000/- towards costs. Aggrieved by said award, org. opponent No.1- Mr.Khubchand Hemandas Setpal has filed appeal No.730/2011 and org. opponent No.2- M/s.Ahuja Properties Pvt. Ltd. has filed appeal No.693/2011 challenging the said order. As such both these appeals have to be disposed of by this common judgement and therefore, we are so disposing of these two appeals by common judgement. 2. The facts to the extent material may be stated as under:- In both these appeals respondent No.1 is Shewa Apartments Co-operative Housing Society, Khar (West), Mumba...
Mrs. Estefania Dias E Pereira and Others Vs. State of Goa, by the Secr ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Nov-01-2012
S.J. Vazifdar, J. 1. Rule in both the writ petitions. With the consent of the parties, the Rule in both the writ petitions is made returnable and heard forthwith. The parties agreed that the result in Writ Petition No.170/2011 follows the result in Writ Petition No.460/2011. 2. Respondent No.2 in both the writ petitions is the Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer. The other respondents in both the writ petitions are private parties. 3. The petitioners seek a declaration that the acquisition proceedings in respect of the properties have lapsed and cannot be proceeded with; a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to revoke/cancel the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; to refrain from acquiring the properties and a writ of certiorari, quashing the said notifications and a report dated 28th October, 2010 under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act. 4. We intend disposing of these writ petitions only on the ground that the report of...
Mohammad Ilyas S/O Sheikh Ismail Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Nov-01-2012
Oral Judgment: (P.V. Hardas, J.) Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of Mandamus for holding that the petitioner is innocent and has not done any "act" which attracts any penal provisions. The petitioner prays for restraining respondent no.3 from abusing her powers and from harassing the petitioner by seeking his personal presence at Police Station, Sakkardhara. The petitioner also prays for restraining respondent no.3 from calling the petitioner to the respondent no.1 police station daily. The petitioner further prays for protecting the life and liberty of the petitioner and to transfer the investigation to another Police Station or Police Authority so that a fair investigation may be conducted. The petitioner also prays for directing respondents 1 and 2 to investi...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›