Mumbai Court July 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.
Arvind Rajpal Yadav Vs. Charudatta Vasantrao Tulkarpurkar and Others
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
S. B. Mhase, President [1] Heard Adv. Anand Kulkarni on behalf of the Appellant/Opponent No.2. [2] This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 25/5/2012 passed by the District Forum, Solapur in Consumer Complaint No.27 of 2011. By this order the complaint was partly allowed by the District Forum and the Appellant/Opponent No.2 alongwith Respondent No.2/Opponent No.3 and the Respondent No.3/Opponent No.1 are directed to execute registered sale deed as per agreement to sale dated 5/6/2008. It is further directed that normally the expenses should be borne by the Respondent No.1/Complainant but the conveyance has not been executed since the year 2008 by the Appellant and the Respondents Nos.2 and 3 and, therefore, expenses required for registration of such documents have increased thrice and, therefore, the Appellant and the Respondents Nos.2 and 3 are directed to bear the 50% expenses. For mental agony suffered by the Respondent No.1/Complainant there is a direction to pay Rs.30,000...
The State of Maharashtra, Through Anti-corruption Bureau Vs. Khudaram ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-24-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 12.1.2001 passed by the Special Judge, Nagpur in Special Case No. 4 of 1991 whereby respondent/accused has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13 (i) (d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the State of Maharashtra has preferred the present appeal. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The facts, in brief, are as under: According to first informant Gunwant, he wanted to cut branches of trees standing on the boundary of his field. He went to the house of respondent/accused on 6.1.1990 who was, at the relevant time, working as Forest Guard. He gave oral permission to the complainant. Complainant engaged his cousin brother Vikram as a labour and after cutting, loaded the branches in a bullock cart. According to complainant, respondent-accused accosted the bullock cart on way and asked the complainant to take it to check post. At check-post, respondent/accus...
Ajay Gupta and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-2012
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.) : 1. Rule, by consent made returnable forthwith. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents waive service on behalf of the respective Respondents. By consent, the Petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. Air India, during the period when a proposal to set up an airport at Navi Mumbai was under consideration, had submitted a proposal to CIDCO for the allotment of land on which it would construct staff quarters for its employees. Initially a plot of land (Plot No.24 admeasuring 1,00,021.60 sq. mtrs. in Sector 27 of Nerul) was allotted to Air India. On 30 January 1992 an agreement to lease was executed by CIDCO in favour of Air India. The land was allotted on a concessional lease premium of Rs.750/- per sq. mtr. amounting to Rs.7.50 Crores. Air India being an organisation of the Central Government, such an allotment was permissible under the policy of CIDCO as approved by the State Government. The lease agreement en...
Surendrakumar Madhusudan Mor Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through the ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-24-2012
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent Rule made returnable forthwith. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in so far as it provides for limitation of three months for filing of an application thereunder on the ground that it deprives the land holders from getting rightful amount of compensation. 2} The petitioner has also prayed that a communication dated 9th May 2011 from the Collector, Yavatmal, be set aside. 3} The petitioner submits that he owns the land bearing Gat No.128 admeasuring 5.27 hectares situated at mouza Pimpri (Hatgaon), Taluka and District Yavatmal. The respondent No.1 by the Notification dated 18th January 2003 issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”), proposed to acquire 33.95 hectares land of mouza Pimpri for minor irrigation project, including 2.27 he...
Avalon Investment Private Limited Vs. Mukesh Brokerage and Financial L ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-2012
Oral Judgment: (R.D. Dhanuka, J.) 1. The appellant challenges an order of a learned Single Judge dated 9 June 2011 dismissing a Petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Petition challenged an arbitral award which rejected the counter claim of the appellant. 2. The respondent is a share broker registered with the National Stock Exchange. The appellant was a client of the respondent. On 30 March 2002 the appellant and the respondent executed a Member Client agreement and a client code was allotted to the appellant. The appellant commenced dealings in the NSE/BSE cash segment. The case of the appellant is that since 20 September 2007, it commenced dealings in the Futures and Options segment (FandO) of N.S.E. with the respondent. It is the case of the respondent that till 18 September 2007, settlement of accounts was done by payment of cheques against specific deals or bills. However, since the respondent started transactions in the FandO segment from 20...
Smt. Gangabai W/O Krishnarao Mandalik Vs. Lrs. of R Sole., 1A. Smt. Ja ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-24-2012
1. This is an appeal directed against the judgment and decree dated 24/1/1995 passed by Additional District Judge, Nagpur in Regular Civil Appeal No.107/1990 thereby conforming the judgment and decree dated 21/2/1990 passed by Civil Judge Junior Division, Saoner in Regular Civil Suit No.58/1986 thereby suit filed by the plaintiff respondent herein for declaration and delivery of possession of the suit land came to be decreed. 2. One Eknath who is the original owner of the agricultural land area 0.67 H.R. and the house No.38 situated at Bramhani, Tq. Kalmeshwar, Distt. Nagpur (for short “suit property”) which is the subject matter of instant appeal who died in the year 1953 leaving behind him a widow Salubai and two daughters namely Chindhabai original plaintiff and Gangabai original defendant. Salubai mother of the plaintiff and defendant died in the year 1983. Before her death, on 19th October 1982 she executed the sale deed of the suit properties in favour of the plaintif...
Smt. Hushna Bano Mohamed Shakir Shaikh Vs. the State of Maharashtra Th ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-2012
Oral Judgment: (R.D. Dhanuka, J.) Rule; with the consent of counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith. With the consent of counsel and at their request, the petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. This Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeks a declaration that an ex-parte order dated 9 December 2004 passed by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority and an order dated 15 October 2009 passed by the High Power Committee are unlawful and seeks a declaration that the Petitioner is entitled to one permanent residential tenement under the redevelopment scheme of Respondent No.6 Society and possession of the tenement. 3. Prior to 1993, the Petitioner was residing in Room No.541 admeasuring 10 X 10 sq.ft. at Indira Nagar Chawl, Indira Gandhi Rahiwashi Co-operative Housing Society (Proposed) situate at CTS No. 608/2 (Part), Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051. The property bearing CTS No. 608/2 (Part) was declared and was notified as a Slum under the provision...
Avalon Investment Private Limited Vs. Mukesh Brokerage and Financial L ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-2012
Oral Judgment: (R.D. Dhanuka, J.) 1. The appellant challenges an order of a learned Single Judge dated 9 June 2011 dismissing a Petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Petition challenged an arbitral award which rejected the counter claim of the appellant. 2. The respondent is a share broker registered with the National Stock Exchange. The appellant was a client of the respondent. On 30 March 2002 the appellant and the respondent executed a Member Client agreement and a client code was allotted to the appellant. The appellant commenced dealings in the NSE/BSE cash segment. The case of the appellant is that since 20 September 2007, it commenced dealings in the Futures and Options segment (FandO) of N.S.E. with the respondent. It is the case of the respondent that till 18 September 2007, settlement of accounts was done by payment of cheques against specific deals or bills. However, since the respondent started transactions in the FandO segment from 20...
Ajay Gupta and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-2012
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.) : 1. Rule, by consent made returnable forthwith. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents waive service on behalf of the respective Respondents. By consent, the Petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. Air India, during the period when a proposal to set up an airport at Navi Mumbai was under consideration, had submitted a proposal to CIDCO for the allotment of land on which it would construct staff quarters for its employees. Initially a plot of land (Plot No.24 admeasuring 1,00,021.60 sq. mtrs. in Sector 27 of Nerul) was allotted to Air India. On 30 January 1992 an agreement to lease was executed by CIDCO in favour of Air India. The land was allotted on a concessional lease premium of Rs.750/- per sq. mtr. amounting to Rs.7.50 Crores. Air India being an organisation of the Central Government, such an allotment was permissible under the policy of CIDCO as approved by the State Government. The lease agreement en...
Sanjay Devram Bhoir Vs. Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Bhavan, Navi M ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-2012
Oral Judgment: (S.A. Bobde, J.) The petitioner - Sanjay Devram Bhoir has approached this court, inter alia, for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent nos.1 to 4 i.e. Divisional Commissioner, Navi Mumbai, the Thane Municipal Corporation through its Municipal Commissioner, Mayor - Thane Municipal Corporation along with the Municipal Secretary to recognize and consider Lokshahi Aghadi as one unit for the purpose of nominating members to various committees mentioned in Section 31A of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. The petitioner has also made a prayer directing the respondent no.1 - Divisional Commissioner not to recognize Indian National Congress as a separate group in Thane Municipal Corporation for the remainder of the tenure i.e. 2012 - 2017. 2. The only question that arises is whether, in fact, an Aghadi known as "Lokshahi Agadhi" has been formed as a post-poll alliance within the meaning of Section 31A of the Act. 3. Section 31A reads as follows: "31A. A...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »