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.
Sharad Vs. Sub-divisional Magistrate, Buldana and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-18-2012
Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally. 2. Heard Mr. N.B. Kalwaghe, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Nitin Rode, learned APP for respondents. Learned Addl.P.P. Mr. Nitin Rode prays for time to file reply. However, in my considered opinion, reply is not needed inasmuch as the issue raised by learned counsel for the petitioner can be decided on the basis of material available in the impugned order itself. 3. The order impugned by the petitioner in this petition has been passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) Buldana in exercise of his powers under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act. It is further stated in the impugned order that the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Buldana had earlier submitted two proposals dated 17th February, 2009 and 22nd April, 2011. It is stated in the impugned order that after having gone through the report submitted by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, the SDM had come to the conclusion that the proposal for externment of...
M/S Passive Active Tourism Vs. Indian Railways, Through their Senior S ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-18-2012
Oral Judgment : Heard Mr. A. R. Kantak along with Ms. Rajas Kantak, learned Advocates appearing for the appellant and Mr. I. Agha, learned Central Government Sanding Counsel appearing for the respondent no.4. None for the other respondents though served. 2. The above appeal challenges the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2007 in Civil Suit No. 138/2004 passed by the learned Ad-Hoc District Judge (2), FTC-II, South Goa, Margao, whereby the counter claim filed by the respondent no.4 was partly decreed and appellant were directed to shift/remove the temporary sheds situated in survey no.58/11 of Village Collem, which are situated within 30 metres of the Railway Land within two months or within the period further extended by the Railway Department unless the appellant obtains the permission from the Railway Department to construct/maintain the said sheds within 30 metres of the said land. The suit came to be filed by the appellant for permanent and mandatory injunction on the ground that th...
Indian Petro Chemicals Corporation Limited Vs. Air India Limited and O ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent rule made returnable forthwith. 2] By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are praying for a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records and proceedings of the case culminating in the eviction order of the appellate authority dated 31st January 2007 and to quash and set aside the (I) Notice of Termination dated 10th/14th February 1995, (ii) the Notice of Eviction dated 19th April 1999 (iii) Order of 2nd respondent and (iv) the order of appellate authority under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, dated 31st January 2007 in Misc.Appeal No.261 of 2001. 3] The proceedings are under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. (for short PPE Act). The petitioner states that it was a Government Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and continued to be so till the eviction ord...
Sampat Narayan Hake and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. The appellants were prosecuted on the allegation of having committed offences punishable under section 498A IPC, 306 IPC, 304 IPC, 201 IPC and section 176 of the IPC read with section 34 of the IPC. 2. The learned Sessions Judge, Baramati who tried them, held the appellant no.1 guilty of all the aforesaid offences and sentenced him as follows:-For Offence punishable u/s.306 IPCRI for five years and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer RI for three months.For Offence punishable u/s.498-A IPCRI for three years and fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer RI for three months.For Offence punishable u/s.201 IPC RI for one year and fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer RI for three months. 3. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted the appellant no.1 of the offence punishable under section 304-B of the IPC. The learned Addl.Sessions Judge also held the other appellants guilty of offences punishable under section 201 IPC read with section 34 of the IPC, section 176 of t...
M/S. Sahyadri Earthmovers and Others Vs. L and T Finance Ltd. and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. The Petitioners have challenged award dated 6 May 2011 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Arbitration Act). 2. Petitioner No.1 is a partnership firm, Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the partners of the firm. Respondent No.4 is a guarantor. (The borrower). All of them have challenged even the validity, including the existence of Loan-Cum-Hypothecation Agreement dated 7 June 2007 (for short, the loan agreement), deed of guarantee for the vehicle/equipment and all actions arising out of the same. The Respondent/claimant (the financer) has invoked Section 9 of the Arbitration Act for protective and injunctive reliefs. 3. The Vehicles/Equipments which have been in their possession since 2007, stated to have been purchased by them by their own funds. The submission is made on behalf of Respondent No. 4 that there exists no loan and Arbitration agreement and therefore there was no question of passing award against him. This was also on...
Sunil Shripal Sarde and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-2012
A.R. Joshi, J. 1. Heard rival submissions on both the appeals which are respectively preferred by original accused No.1 and original accused No.2 challenging the judgment and order of conviction dated 27th February, 2004 passed by III Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli in Sessions Case No.87 of 2003. Both the accused were convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and they were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- and Rs.500/- respectively, in default to undergo further sentence for six months each. 2. Initially Criminal Appeal No.1378 of 2004 was preferred by orig.accused No.1. When the said appeal was taken up for final hearing before this Bench and when it was partly heard, it was revealed that original accused No.2 who is in jail custody has also preferred separate appeal challenging the same judgment and order. She preferred appeal along with application for condonation of delay as her appeal was belated...
Abraaj Investment Management Ltd. Vs. Neville Tuli and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. The Judgment Debtor has taken out this Notice of Motion for the following reliefs: (a) that it be declared that Insolvency Notice No. N/28 of 2011 dated 1st November, 2011, which was served on the Judgment Debtor on 2nd November, 2011 is patently illegal, without jurisdiction and null and void ab initio; (b) that Insolvency Notice No. N/28 of 2011 dated 1st November, 2011 be annulled and/or set aside; (c) that pending the hearing and final disposal of this Notice of Motion, Insolvency Notice No. N/28 of 2011 and all proceedings and/or actions and/or steps pursuant thereto or in furtherance thereof or based/premised thereon be stayed; 2. The relevant events/ background in this case is as under: That on 05.10.2009, two Claim Forms [No. 2009 Folios 1304 and 1305 (the foreign proceedings)] were issued out of the Commercial Court in London (the foreign court), on separate actions brought by the Judgment Creditor (Abraaj) against one Bregawn Jersey Limited (Bregawn), a Chan...
Madathil Kayath Janardanan Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Anot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-2012
Oral Judgment: (R.D. Dhanuka, J.) This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks writ of mandamus to quash and set aside the order of dismissal dated 27th February, 2002 inflicted upon the petitioner as a measure of disciplinary action against the petitioner. 2. On 4th April, 1967 the petitioner was appointed as Operation Officer Grade II and was thereafter promoted to the Head Office as General Manager (Shipping) on 4th March, 1996. Some time in the year 1996, the respondent received a complaint with regard to the conduct of the petitioner and based on such complaint, conduct of the petitioner was under investigation. By letter dated 31st May, 1996, the respondent informed the petitioner that based on the complaint against petitioner for using river sand instead of sea sand for the land development and siding work, the committee was constituted for investigation which committee pointed out some lapses mentioned in the said letter. The Petitioner was called up...
Vinod Arlekar Vs. Yesh A. Arlekar and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-17-2012
Oral Order: Heard Shri J.J. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri A. Nachinolkar, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 and Ms. M. Pinto, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.2. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waive service. 3. The above petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeks to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 31/07/2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, South Goa, Margao in Criminal Revision Application No.77/2011 and the order dated 20/09/2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vasco in Maintenance Application No.4/2010/C. 4. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the respondent no.1 claiming to be the son of the petitioner filed proceedings for maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The fact that the respondent...
State (Vasco Police Station) and Others Vs. Ryan Fernandes and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-17-2012
The confirmation case and all the above criminal appeals are being disposed of by common judgment, since they arise out of the Judgment and Order dated 8.6.2007, passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao in Sessions Case No. 15/2005, convicting the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 365, 302, 201 read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and sentencing them as below :Accused No.Name of the accusedSentences imposed on the accused1.Ryan FernandesDeath penalty for the offence under Section 302 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-, and if recovered, the same shall be paid to PW.54 Sarika and PW.57 Jaimini and other daughter as compensation in accordance with Section 357, Cr.P.C.;Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo 15 days Simple Imprisonment, for the offence punishable under Section 365 of IPC; Death penalty for the offence under Section 120 B, IPC and to pay a fine...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »