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.
National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development Vs. M/S. Shah Tha ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
1. This suit has been filed for declaration of validity of an agreement entered into by and between the parties and for specific performance thereof and other incidental reliefs. The agreement was essentially for construction 532 flats in 19 buildings by the Defendants for the Plaintiff. 2. The flats have been constructed. The possession of the flats have been handed over by the Plaintiff to the Defendants; 380 flats were handed over in July 1990 and the remaining 152 flats on 22nd January, 1991. Upon such possession being given to the Plaintiff nothing would survive in the suit for adjudication by the Court. 3. The parties would no longer be at issue. Under the provisions of Order XV Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Court will be required to pronounce the Judgment. Order XV Rule 1 reads thus: “Parties not at issue. Where at the first hearing of a suit it appears that the parties are not at issue on any question of law or of fact, the Court may at once pronounce j...
Sangli Miraj Kupwad Cities Municipal Corporation, Sangli, Through Its ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
Heard finally by consent of the parties at admission stage. 2 The Petitioner is a Local Body/Authority/Corporation and it's challenge is to the Award dated 28 February 2011 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Tribunal, Sangli, thereby allowed the Reference in respect of Demand Nos. 8 and 11 raised by the Respondent/Mahapalika Kamgar Sabha (Sabha) and partly allowed the Demand No.8. 3 On 9 February 1998, the Petitioner is constituted by the Government of Maharashtra as a Municipal Corporation for the Cities of Sangli, Miraj and Kupwad. 4 Prior to the constitution of Petitioner Miraj Municipal Council was functioning as a Municipal Council for the City of Miraj under Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayat and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (“The M. Council Act”). After 9/2/1998, petitioner governed and functions under the provisions of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (for short, “BPMC Act”). 5 On 17.10.1996, Miraj Kamgar Union clai...
Steel Co Gujarat Limited, a Public Limited Company Having Its Regd Off ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) 1) Rule. Rule, returnable forthwith. 2) By consent, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3) Although various reliefs are claimed by the petitioner in this Writ Petition, counsel for the petitioner has restricted his argument only to challenge the office memorandum issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (‘CBEC’ for short) on 22nd February, 2011. 4) By the said office memorandum dated 22nd February, 2011, the CBEC has held that where the Cenvat credit is availed in respect of the goods exported under the Duty Free Import Authorisation (‘DFIA’ for short), it shall be treated that the assessee has availed the credit even if the credit is reversed or paid back along with interest after clearance of the goods. 5) The relevant facts are that on obtaining the DFIA dated 29th October, 2009, the petitioner became entitled to import various inputs required in the manufacture of the “cold rolled full hard CRCA...
Baban Prakash Ranware Vs. Commissioner of Police, Pune and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.M. Khanwilkar, J.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition takes exception to the detention order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Pune dated 14.2.2012 in exercise of powers under M.P.D.A. Act, 1981. For the nature of order that we propose to pass, it is not necessary to elaborate on the factual matrix of the case which necessitated passing of the said detention order. Although the petition raises several points, we are inclined to allow this petition on the sole ground which has been articulated by way of amendment. In the amended ground, it is stated that the petitioner was granted bail at least in three criminal cases. Each of the bail order was a detailed speaking order. The bail was granted to the petitioner by imposing strict conditions. Copies of the bail applications in those criminal cases and the bail orders passed thereon have been appended to this writ petition. 3. In substance, the grievance is that these bail applications and the...
Sangli Miraj Kupwad Cities Municipal Corporation, Sangli, Through Its ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
Heard finally by consent of the parties at admission stage. 2 The Petitioner is a Local Body/Authority/Corporation and it's challenge is to the Award dated 28 February 2011 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Tribunal, Sangli, thereby allowed the Reference in respect of Demand Nos. 8 and 11 raised by the Respondent/Mahapalika Kamgar Sabha (Sabha) and partly allowed the Demand No.8. 3 On 9 February 1998, the Petitioner is constituted by the Government of Maharashtra as a Municipal Corporation for the Cities of Sangli, Miraj and Kupwad. 4 Prior to the constitution of Petitioner Miraj Municipal Council was functioning as a Municipal Council for the City of Miraj under Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayat and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (The M. Council Act). After 9/2/1998, petitioner governed and functions under the provisions of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (for short, BPMC Act). 5 On 17.10.1996, Miraj Kamgar Union claimed to be a recognized union...
Shashi Leekha S/O. Shubhash Chander Leekha S/O. Shubhash Chander Leekh ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
A.M. Khanwilkar, J. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the Family Court, Mumbai, at Bandra, in Interim Application No. 343 of 2008 in Petition No. A-2052 of 2008 dated 25th March, 2009. By that order, the Family Court dismissed the application preferred by the Appellant for rejecting the above noted petition in exercise of powers under Order VII, Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 2. Briefly stated, the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 5th December, 1993 as per the Hindu Vedic rites at Jammu. The parties last resided together as husband and wife in Jammu from December, 1993 till June, 2008. Two sons were born out of the said wedlock at Jammu. First son, Karam Veer, was born on 18th December, 1994, and younger son, Hirday Veer, on 9th February, 1998. The respondent filed petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and for permanent custody of the minor children, permanent alimony of `2 cro...
Deepak Satyanarayan Sharma Vs. Kanchan
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J) 1] Admit. The appeal is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2] By this appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment of the Family Court No.4, Nagpur dated 11th April, 2011 dismissing the petition filed by the appellant under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 seeking custody of his two minor sons from the respondent. 3] Few facts giving rise to the appeal are stated thus:- The marriage of the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 9th May, 2004 at Mangwadi, Tahsil Risod, District Washim, as per Hindu rites and customs. The parties stayed together till 31st August,2009. It is the case of the appellant that the respondent had started quarrelling with the appellant just after 15 days from the date of marriage. It is pleaded that the respondent and her parents went to Imamwada Police Station and lodged a false report against the appellant and his family members. The police had called the app...
Ayaz Ahamed Khan Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
P.C. Heard both the learned Counsel extensively. 2. The applicant- an Advocate and Notary seeks quashing and setting aside of the criminal proceedings no.1355/PW/2009 pending on the file of Learned Metropolitan Magistrate's 32nd Court at Bandra, Mumbai, and order dated 4.8.2011 thereby rejecting the discharge application filed by the petitioner. 3. The petitioner as a Notary-Advocate notarised the document in respect of the owner of the plot-Smt.Vinita Deshpande concerning MHADA allotment. It subsequently revealed that Smt.Vinita Dehapande was abroad at the material time when the document was purportedly notarised, and consequently, the petitioner as a notary has been prosecuted. 4. The Investigator has not prosecuted the advocate who has identified the said person before execution of the document or notarising the same. The act of the petitioner as a Notary has no other reason to travel beyond the scope of notarising the document, without there being any personal involvement, to know ...
Sou. Pramila Shankar Ghante Vs. Shri Shankar Vishwanath Ghante
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.R. Joshi, J.) 1. The appellant/wife challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Family Court, Pune allowing the M.J. Petition No.565/1992 of the respondent/husband. The appellant/wife is the earlier respondent in the said M.J. Petition and present respondent/husband was the original petitioner who filed the petition for nullity of the marriage and alternatively for a decree of divorce on various grounds. For the sake of clarity, the parties are being referred to as the wife and husband while deciding the present Family Court Appeal preferred by the wife. 2. Heard rival arguments canvassed on the earlier dates. Perused the record and proceedings including the depositions of the witnesses examined by the rival parties. This is an appeal filed by the wife challenging: - the judgment and decree of nullity under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of impotency under Section 12(1)(a), - and also the judgment and decree of divorce on the ground of cruelt...
Rajesh Mahadeo Pakhare Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
Oral Judgment : (M.L. Tahaliyani, J.) 1. The appellant Rajesh Mahadeo Pakhare was tried for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code along with original accused Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 namely Mahadeo Punjaji Pakhare, Ramdas Shalikram Kanoje, Smt. Manjulabai Punjaji Pakhare and Smt. Pramilabai Mahadeo Pakhare. The original accused Nos. 2 to 5 have been acquitted of both the charges and the appellant has been convicted of both the charges. The learned trial Court has imposed a punishment of life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months for the former offence and jail sentence of ten years and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months for the latter offence. 2. The appellant has impugned the said judgment and order of the learned 3rd Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati dated 13rd February, 2008. 3. The appellant ...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »