Mumbai Court December 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.
Board of Control for Cricket in India Vs. Punjab National Bank and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
1. The Plaintiff has filed the above three Summary Suits for recovery of sums of (i) Rs. 597,98,37,329/-, (ii) Rs. 406,47,26,027/- and (iii) Rs. 597,98,37,329/- with interest thereon at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the suits until payment and/or realisation. In the above three Summary Suits, the Plaintiff has taken out the above three Summonses for Judgment praying that judgment be entered for the Plaintiff in the above suits against the Defendants for the sums set out hereinabove along with interest. 2. All the above three Summonses for Judgment are taken up for hearing and disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The facts in the matter are briefly set out hereunder: 4. By a Media Rights License Agreement dated 15th October 2009 (the said Agreement), entered into between the PlaintiffThe Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and one Nimbus Communications Limited (Nimbus), BCCI granted Nimbus license of certain rights in respect of cricket matches...
M/S.Gharda Chemicals Limited and Others Vs. Keki Hormusji Gharda of Mu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
Oral Judgment : 1. Admit. 2. By consent of the parties, the present appeal was heard finally at the admission stage and is disposed of finally by this judgment. 3. This appeal filed under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 is directed against the order dated 13th August, 2012 passed by the Company Law Board, Western Region Bench, Mumbai in Company Application No. 73 of 2012 in Company Petition No. 87 of 2010 which was filed by respondent nos. 1 and 2 for seeking amendment to CLB Company Petition No. 87 of 2010. By the said impugned order, the Company Law Board (hereinafter referred to as CLB) allowed the amendment application filed by respondent nos. 1 and 2. 4. The appellants have formulated following questions of law in the Memorandum of Appeal which arise for consideration of this Court :- 1. Whether a company petition under section 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956 which has become infructuous/does not survive/is dead, since the only alleged act complained of has come to an en...
Waman Laxman Mirka Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.R. Joshi, J.) 1. Heard rival arguments on this criminal Appeal preferred by the Appellant-Accused challenging the Judgment and order of conviction dated 10th May, 2005, passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in Sessions Case No.244 of 2004. 2. By the impugned Judgment and order, the Appellant-Accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/in default to suffer further R.I. for thirty days. 3. The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is as under : The Appellant-Accused and his wife victim Barkabai were residing at village Kambagaon, Taluka Bhiwandi, District Thane. They were residing in a hut like structure having two rooms. Both were addicted to consume liquor and there were frequent quarrels between them on various counts. At times they used to go to the village Police Patil one Arun Gaikar P.W.1 for consultation etc. The incident o...
Antonio S. Coutinho Pereira Vs. the State of Goa (Through the Chief Se ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
A.P. Lavande, J. Heard Mr. Bhobe, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General for respondents no.1, 4, 7 and 8. None appears on behalf of the other respondents. 2. By this petition, the petitioner had sought the following reliefs : (a) a writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India commanding respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 to give adequate protection to the petitioner, his caretakers, property Boroda Molios and the buildings situate within the compound, namely the house, chapel, residence meant for the priest, outhouses, garages, etc. and the fish pond in the property Hortabhat/ Batio next to Boroda Molios by Police other than Bicholim Police. (b) an order directing the CBI to investigate into the offences complained of by the petitioner in various complaints lodged by the petitioner to the Goa Police and referred to in the petition. (c) for an order dir...
Dattaram Gawas Vs. State of Goa and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Ms. Asha Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. M. Amonkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. 3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents waives service. 4. The above petition challenges the conditions imposed by the respondent no.2 while disposing of the application for furlough on 10.09.2012 whereby in condition no.1 of the said order, the applicant has been directed to furnish a personal bond in Form II for Rs.1,00,000/- and produce one surety in like amount. 5. It is the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the applicant is not in a position to furnish such security. The learned Counsel points out in the facts and circumstances of the case that the security amount be accordingly reduced. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents points out that the inves...
Kashinath Jairam Shetye Vs. Ramakant Mahadev Sawant and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
ORAL JUDGMENT: Heard Ms. Mathkar for the applicant, Mr. Pangam for respondent No.1 and Mr. adkarni, learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3. 2. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 3. By this application, the applicant seeks cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.1 by the Sessions Judge, North Goa, Panaji by order dated 23rd August, 2012. The applicant has also sought further relief to the extent of holding an inquiry against the learned Sessions Judge for not disposing of the matter expeditiously. 4. Since the issue regarding delay in disposal of the anticipatory bail was raised in the application, we deemed it appropriate to take up the matter although the application seeking only cancellation of bail or anticipatory bail would lie before learned Single Judge in terms of the Bombay High Court, Appellate Side Rules. Moreover, learned Single Judge before whom the matter was placed, ordered that the same be placed before Division Bench. Even Mr. Pangam...
Vaman Nakul Shetty Vs. Vasudev Tukaaram Sawant Amonkar
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Dessai, learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. By this Second Appeal, the appellant takes exception to judgment and decree dated 23/06/2004 passed by Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao in Regular Civil Appeal No.156/2003 by which the appeal preferred by the respondent against the judgment and decree dated 02/12/2003 passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Margao in Regular Civil Suit No.140/2001/C has been reversed. 3. The appellant is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff. 4. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the trial Court. 5. The original plaintiff filed the above suit for eviction of the defendant from the shop existing in the property 'Rimtolembata' situated at Acquem Alto, on the ground floor which according to the plaintiff, was given on leave and licence basis to the defendant in terms of agreement styled as Leave and Licence agreement...
Mahabanoo Contractor Vs. Brancha Manager, Bank of India and Another
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
S.R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member: (1) appeal takes an exception to an order dated 31.07.2010 passed in Consumer Complaint No.265/2009 , Mahabanoo Contractor V/s. Branch Manager, Bank of India, by District consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South Mumbai (the Forum in short). (2) It is a case of alleged deficiency in service against the Branch Mananger, Bank of India, Sewri, Mumbai, for honuring the cheques of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.30,000/- respectively, total amounting to Rs.50,000/-. It is alleged that the cheques which were honoured were fraudulent cheques and negligence is alleged on the part of the Bank Officials to honour those cheques. Bank took defense that their officials while honouring the cheques duly verified the signatures with their Specimen Signature. The Forum upheld the defense of the Bank and dismissed complaint. Feeling aggrieved thereby the original Complainant has preferred this appeal. (3) Heard both sides at length. (4) We find that in the instant case the Ap...
Vip Builders and Developers and Another Vs. Amol C. Naik and Others
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-2012
S.B. Mhase, President: Heard Adv. S. B. Prabhavalkar on behalf of the Applicants/Appellants and Adv. Digamber Thakre on behalf of the Non-Applicant/Respondent in MA/12/232 in A/12/760 and Adv. Smt. Panchashila Narawade on behalf of the Non-Applicants/Respondents in MA/12/239 in A/12/770 to MA/12/242 in A/12/773. [2] This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing an appeal. Surprisingly, in the prayer clause of the delay condonation application though there is a prayer for condonation of delay, the period of which the delay is being sought to be condoned is not stated. In prayer clause of the delay condonation application reference is made to paragraph (08) of the said application. Paragraph (08) of the said application points out that there is a delay of two years and ten months in filing the appeal. Delay is calculated from the date of order. It is further stated that if the delay is to be calculated from the date of knowledge, there is a delay of approximately sixty da...
M/S.Rahul Enterprises, a Proprietary Concern Through Its Sole Propriet ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-2012
1. By this petition, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-a proprietary concern engaged in business of development and construction has questioned the order dated 19th July 2012 passed by the Competent Authority and District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Pune allowing deemed conveyance to respondent No.1society under the provisions of section 11(3) of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963. The said Act hereinafter is referred to as 1963 Act. The petitioner has also challenged registration granted to respondent No.1 as Tenants Co-ownership C0operative Housing Society on 19th July 2009 by Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Pune City (4), Pune under section 12(1) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 1960 Act for short). The third Act with which this Court is concerned in the present matter is Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970 which is referred to as Apartment Act or 1970 Ac...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »