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.
Vivek Chandrakant Mayekar and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-2012
Oral Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) 1. The challenge in these proceedings is to an order passed by the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Tribunal, Mumbai upholding the validity of a notification dated 26 February 2010 declaring certain lands as a slum area. The land in question, bears Plot No.66, TPS-IV of Mahim Division of Dadar and admeasures 1929.78 sq.mtrs. Since the land belongs to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, the original notification dated 26 February 2010 under Section 4(1) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 was issued by the Assistant Commissioner, G-North Ward of the Municipal Corporation. The Petitioners are 29 occupants of the land who seek to question the legality of the order passed by the Tribunal. 2. The submissions which have been urged on behalf of the Petitioners are as follows: (i) There are 76 occupants on the land for whom 16 toilets have been provided together wi...
Subhash Krushnaji Jagtap Vs. Maruti Krushna Jagtap
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-2012
Oral Judgment: 1 The above Second Appeal arises out of the Judgment and Order dated 25/09/2012 passed by the learned District Judge2, Satara in Regular Civil Appeal No.181 of 2012 by which the Judgment and Decree dated 12/4/2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Phaltan in Regular Civil Suit No.44/2011 came to be confirmed. FACTUAL MATRIX 2 The Appellant herein is the original Defendant in the said Regular Civil Suit No.44/2011 which has been filed by the Plaintiff for declaration and injunction. The Suit property is Gat No.729 admeasuring 2 Hectors and 14 Ares situated at village Khamgaon, Tal. Phaltan, Dist.Satara. It was the case of the Plaintiff that he is the owner of the Suit property and since the date of purchase he has been in continuous possession of the same. 3 The Suit was resisted by the Defendant on the ground that the entire consideration for the purchase of the property in question was paid by the Defendant, however, on account of some technical diffic...
Pupul Son of Chandrakant Borkar and Others Vs. Rashtrasant Tukdoji Mah ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-19-2012
Oral Judgment B.R. Gavai, J. 1] Rule. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard the matter finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2] Since the questions of law and fact are common in all these petitions, the petitions are heard together and are disposed of by passing the common judgment. 3] All the petitioners are the students and they had appeared for the Summer 2012 examination conducted by the respondent-University. The results of the petitioners were declared in the months of June-July-2012. Since the petitioners felt that the results did not depict their real performance, the petitioners applied for supply of photostat copies as provided under Direction 9 issued by the University. The petitioners, after the receipt of the Photostat copies, challenged the valuation, as provided under Clause 9 of the said Directions. Since, in case of all the petitioners along with all other students, the result of challenge to valuation was declared as No change, the petition...
ise Securities and Services Ltd and Another Vs. Power Flow Securities ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard finally. 2. The Petitioner has invoked Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Petitioner challenges Award dated 3rd May, 2010 passed by the sole Arbitrator at Calcutta; because as per the agreement as well as the rules, byelaws and regulations of National Stock Exchange of India Limited Rules, the parties agreed to have their place of arbitration at Calcutta. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent has raised a preliminary objection that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain section 34 petition in view of the rules. 4. There is an agreement between trade member broker and sub-broker. There is a separate tripartite agreement also between trade member broker/stock-broker, sub-broker and client. Xerox copies of which are on record. There is no denial to the binding agreements where the jurisdiction of courts with regard to the all trades, transactions and contracts is subject to the clauses 60 and 61 which read as under : 60. J...
V. Selvapoathy S/O P.V. Venkataswamy Naidu and Another Vs. the State o ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-19-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.H. Joshi, J.) 1. In both these petitions, the challenge is common. 2. The prayer is for quashing first information report in C.R. No.98 of 2008, registered at M.I.D.C. Police Station, Latur, for offences punishable under sections 420, 406 read with sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and charge-sheet filed in furtherance thereto. 3. Both these petitions were heard at length. 4. The petitions had remained pending for admission hearing for a considerable period. Hence, by consent of parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith and is heard. 5. Though the petitions, as originally filed, consisted of challenge to the charge-sheet, due to the advice rendered to them, the petitioners they have amended the petitions and incorporated challenge to the first information report. In view of this development, the petitions were listed before us. 6. As we have seen, the first information report consists of disclosure that it is registered under sections 420, 406 and 434 of the Indian Pe...
Dr. Sheshrao S/O Shankarrao Shinde Vs. the State of Maharashtra Throug ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-19-2012
A.H. Joshi, J. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent, finally. 2. By this application, the applicant prays for quashing of Crime No. 91 of 2012 dated 05.10.2012, registered at Police Station, Nilanga District Latur for the offence punishable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The applicant's case and grievance in summary is as follows:- (i) Wife of respondent no. 2 died during treatment due to effect of the venom of scorpion bite. (ii) The Police have registered the offence in that regard against the applicant under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) While registering the offence, the procedure directed through two reported judgments of Supreme Court in the case of Jacob Mathew Vs. The State of Punjab and others reported in 2005 AIR SC W 3685 and Martin F. D'Souza Vs. Mohd Ishfaq reported in 2009 AIR SCW 1807 and guidelines as prescribed and laid down by the Government of Maharashtra through Government Resolution dated 26th March, 2010 are ...
Prof. Chitra Anant Salunkhe Vs. the Principal, Siddharth College of La ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-2012
Oral Judgment: (Per V.M. Kanade, J.) 1. By this appeal, the Appellant is challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 17/01/2012 whereby the learned Single Judge summarily dismissed the Writ Petition and confirmed the order of the Presiding Officer, College Tribunal who had dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant herein challenging her removal from service by order dated 21/05/2009 passed by the Management. For the sake of convenience, the Appellant shall be refereed to as Petitioner and the Respondents shall be referred to as Respondents. 2. The services of the Petitioner were terminated pursuant to the order of dismissal passed by the Management dated 21/05/2009 which accepted the report of the Inquiry Officer dated 23/03/2009 and dated 30/3/2009. 3. The grievance of the Petitioner in a nutshell is that charge Principal of the College one Mr. A.K. Inamdar and Mr. V.B. Tiwari who was also working as Professor in the said College felt threatened after...
Sada Vijay Kumar Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-2012
P.C: 1. Heard finally. 2. In proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act process is challenged by the Applicant. 3. Applicant had availed financial facilities from Respondents HDFC Bank Rs.1.95 crore on 15th September, 2006 and Rs.4.45 crore in 2007. Payment schedule was not adhere. Defence is, Bank had assured cash credit facility of Rs.50 crore. Under a letter, addressed by the Applicant to the Bank dated 14th September, 2008, Applicant had issued five cheques with different quoted amounts. On presentation of said cheques, they were dishonored owing to insufficiency of funds. It was followed by statutory notice and then 5 complaints under Sections 138, 141 of the Negotiable Instrument Act was filed. 4. Learned Counsel says, whether in a cheque of such type when drawer and drawee is the same, could it be a liability of the Applicant to answer the claim or to face the prosecution in terms of Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. 5. In al...
Anil Kumar Somani and Others Vs. Union of India by and Through the Joi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-2012
S.J. Vazifdar, J. The petitioners have challenged orders dated 26th May, 1997 and 8th October, 1997, passed by the DRT and DRAT respectively. Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 are the DRT and DRAT and the ICICI Bank Limited. 2. The DRT held that respondent No.4 was entitled to realise a sum of Rs.12,61,977.14 with costs from the petitioners. Mr. Bulchandani admitted that there was a typographical error in Exhibit-M to the petition, which is the order of the DRT. The error is in the operative part of the order. He produced a copy of the original order wherein the operative part of the order reads as under : "ORDER Plaintiff Bank is entitle to recover a sum of Rs.12,61,977.14 with cost of the suit from defendant No.2 to 6 Plaintiff Bank is also entitle to get interest @ 16-1/2 % per annum to be calculated quarterly from 28/1/88, to its realisation. Plaintiff Bank is not entitle to get any decree against defendant No.1." 3. The petitioners were the directors of a company M/s. Amrit Biscuits Priva...
V.M. Salgaocar and Brother Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. the Deputy Collec ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-18-2012
1. This common judgment shall dispose of both the above appeals as they are filed against the judgment and award dated 30/04/2007 passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge (2), Fast Track Court II, South Goa, Margao (Reference Court, for short) in Land Acquisition Case No. 52 of 2004. 2. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the manner in which they appear in the cause title of the Land Acquisition Case No. 52 of 2004. 3. Facts giving rise to both the appeals, in short, are as follows: Vide notification published under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), in the Official Gazette dated 02/03/2000, land at Margao was acquired for construction of proposed ring road from Damodar College to Railway Gate on NH-17. This included land admeasuring 320 square meters from Chalta no. 219 of P.T. sheet no. 237; 250 square meters from Chalta no. 220 (part) of P.T. Sheet no. 237; 120 square meters from Chalta no. 229 of PT Sheet no. 237; 75 ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »