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.
The Goa Port and Dock Workers Organisation Through It's President Shri ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-17-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.P. Lavande, J.) Heard Mr. Gaonkar, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. H.D. Naik, learned Advocate for respondent no.1 and Mr. C.A. Ferreira, learned Assistant Solicitor General for respondent s no. 2, 3 and 4. 2. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the communication dated 22/6/2012 issued by respondent no.2 on behalf of respondent no.2 by which respondent No. 4 has refused to refer the dispute arisen between the parties for adjudication. 4. According to the petitioner, some of members of the petitioner's organization, were illegally terminated by respondent no.1 vide communication dated 09/02/2011. The petitioner raised dispute. Thereafter, Conciliation Proceedings were held between the petitioner and the respondent no.1 by Conciliation Officer under section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947('the Act', for short). The Conciliation Officer submitted failure report to respondent no.4 on 20/10/2011. By communicatio...
Narayan G. Gadekar S/O Late Shr Ganesh Gadekar Vs. State
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-17-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri S. Shet, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Shri Mahesh Amonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondent, waives service. 3. The above Petition challenges an Order dated 02.07.2012 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., at Pernem, in Criminal Case No.76/S/2010, whereby an application filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., came to dismissed. 4. It is the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that on account of inadvertence of the Advocate, who was appearing on behalf of the Petitioners, some contradictions which had to be put to two witnesses namely Pw.2, Usha Gadekar and Pw.5, Dattaram Raut, were not put to such witnesses. Learned Counsel further pointed out that without putting such contradictions, the case of the Petitioners would be gravely jeopardised. Learned Counsel further pointed out that ...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Subhash Waman Chavan and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-17-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard both sides. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 2. Aggrieved by rejection of application for permission to carry further investigation in the crime under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the State has preferred present Criminal Revision Application. 3. In sum and substance, the allegations in Sessions Case No.107 of 2008 pending on the file of Addl. Sessions Judge, Parbhani are that the present respondents - accused had cheated the son of complainant by issuing bogus appointment order due to which, son of complainant has committed suicide. 4. Initially, charge sheet was submitted only for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. The prosecution, upon committal of the case, filed application for addition of charge for the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code i.e. for cheating by taking amount of Rs.One lac for giving service to the son of complaina...
Brissa Owners Association and Others Vs. Egdar Daniel Monteiro and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-17-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri J. Godinho, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri A. Naik, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waives service. 3. The above petition challenges an order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, North Goa, Panaji in Civil Suit No.55/2010 under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code whereby the petitioners inter alia have been restrained from disrupting or disconnecting or in any way interfering with the water connection to the suit flat occupied by the respondents. 4. Upon hearing the learned Counsel, the records reveal that a suit came to be filed by the respondents before the learned Adhoc District Judge at Panaji being Civil Suit No.55/2010 inter alia for declaration, permanent injunction and recovery of money and consequential reliefs along with an application for temporary injunction. It is not in dispute that...
Chandanlal Ratanlal Lilhare (Through Legal Representatives) Vs. Khemra ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-17-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Sh. B.N. Mohta, the learned Advocate, appearing for the appellants. 2. Regular Civil Suit No.42 of 1989 filed by the respondent-plaintiff was decreed by the trial Court for refund of earnest money of Rs.5,175/- to the plaintiff with interest at the rate of Rs.12 per cent per annum from 11-6-1979 till its realization on 25-8-1993. Regular Civil Appeal No.75 of 1993 was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gondia by its Judgment and order dated 7-12-1994. Hence, this Second Appeal by the original defendant No.3. 3. On 6-3-1995 this Court admitted the appeal and passed an order framing the substantial question of law as under - "This second appeal raises the following substantial question of law : "Whether in the absence of any privity of contract between plffs. and defendant no.3, the Courts below were justified in directing deft. no.3 to refund amount of the consideration relating to agreement between plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2? Admit. Issue not...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Jaganath Shantaram Pawar Thane District
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. The appellant-State of Maharashtra has appealed against the Judgment and Order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Murbad on 29th January, 1996 in R.C.C. No. 107 of 1988 acquitting respondent-accused from the charge of commission of offence punishable under Section 394 of Indian Penal Code. 2. Such of the facts regarding said prosecution and necessary for deciding the present proceeding are as under:- 2.1. On 9th June, 1988 by S.T. Bus at 6.15 p.m., Baban Dagadu, first informant (PW-5) resident of village Malhed, alongwith one Raghunath Krishna Pawar (PW-2) and Tukaram Pawar had been to Village Tondli for replacing tiles on the house of one Shri Babaji Shankar. After finishing the said work, PW-5 alongwith his companion Bhaga Krishna (PW-3) returned to Murbad at about 6.50 p.m. by S.T. Bus. By another bus, from Murbad they went to Village Shivale. PW-5, while returning from the house of Babaji Shankar borrowed Rs.500/-. After reaching ...
Eco Valley Farms and Foods Limited Vs. the Commissioner of Central Exc ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
Oral Judgment: (J.P. Devadhar, J.) 1. Although the appellant assessee has raised several questions in this appeal, in our view, the question that really falls for consideration is this : Once the Commissioner of Central Excise (A) holds that if the excise duty payable on fresh mushrooms under Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 is Nil, then, the excise duty payable on DTA clearances of fresh mushrooms by a 100% EOU covered under the proviso to Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 shall also be Nil, then, is it open to the Assessing Officer to issue notice under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and confirm the demand of duty contrary to the decision of the Commissioner of Central Excise (A) ? 2. The appeal is admitted on the above question and taken up for hearing by consent of both the parties. 3. The facts relevant for the purposes of this appeal are that the assessee had established a 100% Expo...
Chandra Kanjappa Kuchchikurwe Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
Oral Order: 1. Heard Ms.Leela D. Malu, the learned counsel for the applicant, and Ms.R.M.Gadhavi, the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant is sought to be arrested in C.R.No.187 of 2012, of Shahu Nagar Police Station, which is in respect of offences punishable under Sections 324, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 34 thereof. The applicant, apprehending arrest, approached the court of Sessions for anticipatory bail, but the learned Sessions Judge rejected the said application observing that it would be necessary to have the custodial interrogation of the applicant. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that all the offences, with which the applicant is charged, are bailable. But still an application for anticipatory bail was made as the police and sometimes the subordinate courts also, treat the offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC, as non-bailable. The learned counsel submitted that, that the said offence is bailable was canvassed ...
Shalini Sumant Raut and Others Vs. Milind Sumant Raut and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
1. This suit is filed for declaration that the plaintiffs and the defendants are co-owners of the suit properties, for ascertaining of the share claimed by them, for partitioning the suit properties as per such shares and for possession of such partitioned share. Exhibit 'A' to the plaint shows 9 immovable and several movable properties belonging to the joint family of the parties which are sought to be partitioned. Exhibit 'B' to the plaint shows the family tree. 2. The parties claim through one Rajaram Balkrishna Raut (Rajaram) who died intestate on 23.11.1991 leaving behind 8 children and several grand children ancestral properties. The children and the grand children who are the children of the pre-deceased or the deceased children of Rajaram are the parties to the suit. The great grand-children of the Rajaram are not sought to be made parties, though the suit properties are claimed to be ancestral properties of Rajaram. 3. The son and the grandson of plaintiff No.4 have sought to ...
Tulsidas Nnarsinga Vhatkar Vs. Liquidator the Ravi Co-operative Bank L ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-2012
P.C. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. The grievance in this petition is about the inaction of the police department in extending assistance of protection to the Officers of Respondent No.1 to perform their statutory duties under the provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and the Rules framed thereunder. The Superintendent of Police, Respondent No.3 herein, relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rame Gowda (D) by L.Rs. vs. M.Varadappa Naidu (D) by L.Rs and anr., AIR 2004 SC 4609 has expressed inability of the police Department to extend any support to the District Magistrate, Kolhapur. This inaction is the subject matter of challenge in the present petition. 3. The petitioner is the auction purchaser, who is relying on the State Government Circular dated 14.1.2008 issuing directions to all concerned, in particular, to the police authorities to give assistance / protection to the officers of the Cooperative Department. In the present case, the pr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »