Mumbai Court June 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.
Mr. Mahadev Parsekar, (since deceased) through his legal heirs. and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri J. Godinho, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri Sudin Usgaonkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of the learned counsels. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents waives service. 4. The above petition challenges the orders passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Ponda dated 02.01.2012 and 12.03.2012 whereby the cross of the petitioners in respect of PW1 and PW2 came to be closed. Shri J. Godinho, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has assailed the impugned orders essentially on the ground that the petitioners have never sought any adjournment during the course of the evidence of the respondents but however for the first time on 02.01.2012 when the petitioners sought an adjournment to continue the cross examination of PW1, the learned Judge dismissed the application. The learned counsel further points out that thereafter the petitioners filed an application t...
Mangesh P. Wadkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
Oral Judgment: (Per Chief Justice) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has essentially prayed for a direction to disband the Committee constituted by this Court as per order dated 16 March 2001 in Writ Petition Nos.2197 of 1998 and 1963 of 2000. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to frame guidelines for working of the Committee for beautification of the Girgaum Chowpatty Beach and define the scope of work of the Committee. 2. In the year 2000, writ petitions in the nature of public interest litigation were filed before this Court making a grievance against the state of affairs of the Girgaum Chowpatty Beach. There were stalls selling eatables and the location of the stalls was not only haphazard but also obstructed the view of the sea from the road and did not permit optimum use of the beach for the public. The petitioner had also prayed before the Court that the steps be taken for beautification of the Chowpatty Beach. The parties assiste...
M/S.Good Earth Minerals Private Limited Vs. Gannon Dunkerley and Co. L ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
Oral Judgment: The Plaintiffs have filed this suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.18,08,463.02 with further interest on Rs.10,19,097/- at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of the suit till payment. 2. The Defendants were carrying out construction work for a construction company known as Raymond Zambaiti Pvt. Ltd. at Kolhapur. On 21st December, 2005, the Defendants placed a Work Order upon the Plaintiffs for providing and fixing acid resistant tiles at the factory premises of Raymond Zambaiti Pvt. Ltd. situate at Kolhapur. The said work order dated 21st December, 2005 was subsequently modified with two separate Work Orders, both dated 20th March, 2006. 3. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that the Plaintiffs supplied the requisite material and executed the works as per the said Work Order and raised running bills upon the Defendants from time to time. There is no dispute in respect of the payment for the work done prior to the Invoices dated 21st January, 2007 and 25th January, 2007. ...
Smt. Fatima Braganza, retd. (since deceased) and Others Vs. the Hon'bl ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
U.V. Bakre, J. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. the petitioner has prayed as follows: i. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to pay to the Petitioner interests on the arrears of pension benefit right from the date of their becoming due as worked out in Exhibit 'A' hereto; ii. A writ of mandamus, or direction or order in the nature or mandamus, directing the Respondents to pay further interests from 17/05/2004 till the date of actual payment; iii. A writ of mandamus, or order, direction in the nature of mandamus to make the said payment within a stipulated time which this Hon'ble Court deems proper and convenient. iv. Any other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem proper and necessary. v. Costs of this Petition.” 2. The case of the petitioner is as follows: She was an Ex- Section Officer from the establishment of High Court of Bombay at Go...
Joaquim L. Dias, S/O. Jose Dias and Another Vs. Baptist Coelho, S/O. M ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri Sudin M.S. Usgaonkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri S.D. Lotlikar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The above appeal challenges the order passed by the lower appellate Court dated 30/10/2010 in Regular Civil Appeal No.134/2009 whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent no.1 challenging the order passed by the learned trial Judge rejecting the plaint filed by the said respondent came to be allowed. 3. Shri Sudin M.S. Usgaonkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has vehemently argued that according to the appellants the plaint filed by the respondent no.1 is to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code on two counts. It is the contention of the learned Counsel that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and further the suit is barred by Section 41(j) of the Specific Relief Act. The learned Counsel further pointed out that respondent no.1 is merely a contracto...
Sanjog Sadanand Parab of Mumbai Vs. B.P. Gharda and Co. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
Oral Judgment: The Plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of security deposit, interest and for the cost of the suit. It is not in dispute that the Plaintiff had given interest free security deposit to the Defendants which was refundable upon the Plaintiff handing over the vacant possession of the premises given on leave and licence to the Plaintiff by the Defendants. 2. During the period between 9th September, 1995 and 9th February, 1998, the Plaintiff deposited a sum of Rs.1,83,000/- as security deposit for the use of the premises on leave and licence basis with the Defendants. The Defendants by their letter dated 31st March, 1998 addressed to the Plaintiff had acknowledged the same. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff vacated the premises and handed over the same to the Defendants on 12th October, 1999. It is the case of the Plaintiff that out of the said sum of Rs.1,83,000/- deposited by the Plaintiff as security deposit with the Defendants, an amount of Rs.30,00...
Smt. Premavati Basu Naik and Others Vs. Shri Suresh Basu Naik and Anot ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
Oral Judgment: The above appeal challenges the judgment and decree dated 10.03.2011 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 389/2010 whereby an appeal preferred by the respondents was allowed and deed of sale dated 21.12.1993 registered before the Sub-Registrar of Mormugao came to be declared as null, void and ineffective and without any legal effect. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents filed a suit on the ground that there exists a property known as “Piturlem” situated at Sancoale, which is described in the Land Registration Office of Salcete under No.3595, old series, and admeasuring an area of 1318 square metres and surveyed in the records of right under No. 276/2 of Village Sancoale. It is further their case that the suit property was purchased by the respondents' father on 24.12.1968. It is further the case of the respondents that the appellant nos.2, 4 and 6 misguided the appellant no.1 and ...
Mrs. Arcelina Furtado and Others Vs. M/S. Eastern International Hotels ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
Oral Order: Heard Shri V. Menezes, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants. 2. The above appeal challenges the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below whereby the suit filed by the respondent no.1 inter alia to declare the right of ownership over the suit property came to be decreed. 3. The respondent no.1 filed the suit on the ground that they are the owners in possession of the suit property surveyed under no.63/1 and 65/2 of Village of Majorda which according to the said respondent is a part and parcel of the property described in Land Registration Office under no.1944. The property was thereafter described by inscription no.11809 in favour of Joao Miguel Gomes and others. It is further their case that by Deed of Gift dated 12/03/1916, the suit property was gifted and partitioned. It is further their case that by Deed of Sale dated 30/09/1977, they purchased half share of Maria Fatima Filomena and Oliveira Vas of the suit property and as such they became owners in po...
Bhavana N. Shah and Another Vs. NitIn Chimanlal Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
Khanwilkar, J. 1. We propose to dispose of both these Appeals together by this common Judgment. 2. Appeal No.28/2012 is directed against the Judgment and Decree passed in Petition No.A-1082/2007 dated 1st December, 2011 passed by Family Court No.VII, Mumbai, whereby, the Family Court allowed the Petition filed by the respondent-husband for dissolution of marriage and divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 3. The other Appeal being Appeal No.29/2012 is also filed by the wife along with daughter challenging the common Judgment dated 1st December, 2011 passed by the Family Court No.VII, Mumbai in Petition No.C-136/06 praying for maintenance and separate residential accommodation for herself and minor daughter Palak Nitin Shah under Section 18(2)(a), (b), (g) and 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. 4. The Family Court by the common Judgment has dismissed the petition filed by the wife and minor daughter for maintenance and residential acc...
Anton Luis Piedade Fernandes Vs. State and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
A.P. Lavande, J. By this appeal, the appellant takes exception to the Judgment and Order dated 11th August, 2010, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-1, South Goa, at Margao in Sessions Case No.18/2008, convicting the appellant (hereinafter referred to as “the accused”) for the offence punishable under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentencing him to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine amount of Rs.10,000/-. The accused has been convicted for committing murder of one Caitan Inas Fernandes on 28th April, 2008 between 2.00 to 3.00 p.m. at Bamnabhat, Ambaulim, Quepem, Goa 2. Briefly, the facts leading to filing of the present appeal, are as under: PW.6 Shantaram Gaonkar, Deputy Sarpanch of Ambaulim Panchayat lodged a report (Exhibit 28) at Quepem Police Station on 28th April, 2008 at about 7.10 p.m., stating therein that a person was killed at Bamnabhat Ambaulim at about 15.00 hours, near the residence of one Anton Fernandes. Pursuant to the said r...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »