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.
Soma Balkrushna Dadore Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-23-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dt.26.7.2004 passed in Sessions Trial No.348 of 1997 by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur whereby the appellant/accused was convicted of the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. The accused was also found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs.1000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. However, the accused was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Atrocities Act). 2. The facts, brie...
The Chairman the Sangli Salary Earners Cooperative Societies, Sangli V ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-2012
ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule, with the consent of the parties made, returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The above Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 20/2/2012 passed by the learned District Judge1, Sangli by which order the Appeal filed by the Respondent came to be allowed and the Petitioner herein, its agent, servants or any other person claiming through it were temporarily restrained from removing the sign board of “Chandan Steel Centre” admeasuring 30 ft. x 4 ft. which is displayed on the suit property without following the due process of law : 3. The facts in brief involved in the present Petition can be stated thus : The Petitioner Society has leased out ground floor premises admeasuring 2189.18 sq.ft. in the building owned by it in C.T.S. No.1104 at Sangli to the Respondent for carrying out business. The Petitioner society was constrained to issue notices dated 8/2/2010, 4/3/2010, 31/3/2010, 8/4/2010 for removal ...
Jayavanti Dawood Khalfe and Others Vs. Pushpa Ramdas and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-2012
ORAL JUDGMENT Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. This Appeal arises from an Order dated 30 August 2011 of a Learned Single Judge. The order has been passed when a report submitted by the Additional Registrar (O.S.) dated 9 March 2011 came up for hearing. In order to appreciate the nature of the controversy, it would be necessary to extract the order of the learned Single Judge as it stands and which reads as follows : “1. After hearing Counsels on both sides, it appears that the parties are disputing over the many orders which are sought by the Administrator. It appears that evidence will have to be recorded in order to have the distribution of the various items. This is being stated when I called upon the learned Advocate for the respondent nos.2 and 3 to hand over the ornaments to the Administrator, so that they can be distributed as per the desire of the Testator, he submitted that the items are already with the other side and not with them. If this is the position, matter requires c...
M/S. J. L. Baptista, Civil Contractor Vs. State of Goa, Rep. by Execut ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-20-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri Mascarenhas, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Ms. Kamat, learned Addl. Government Counsel appearing for the Respondent. 2. The above Petition challenges the Order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Quepem, dated 22.02.2000, whereby an application filed by the Petitioner under Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code to award interest in terms of Section 29 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, came to be rejected. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that in an Arbitration Proceedings, an Award came to be passed by the Arbitrator which was submitted to the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. Thereafter, it appears that the Respondents raised same objections to the said Award. In the meanwhile, the Petitioner also filed an application dated 06.11.1992 under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, inter alia, claiming that whilst making the Award the Rule of the Court, interest should be...
Shri Shaikh Abdul Razak and Others Vs. Shri Shaikh Kassam and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-20-2012
U.V. Bakre, J. The above Second Appeal No. 2/1998 arises out of Judgment and Decree dated 06/10/1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mapusa (first Appellate Court, for short) in Regular Civil Appeal No. 40 of 1993, which was filed by defendants no. 1, 2 and 3 of Regular Civil Suit No. 65 of 1990 against the judgment and decree dated 31/03/1993 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sattari at Valpoi (trial Court, for short), in the said suit. 2. The above First Appeal No. 11/2003 has been filed against the Judgment and Award dated 17/09/2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mapusa(reference Court, for short), in Land Acquisition Case No. 98 of 1989. 3. The subject matter of the Second Appeal No.2/98 is 1/3rd share of Shaikh Aziz Shaikh Hassan, in the property known as Moxichem Mol, bearing survey nos. 14/1, 14/2 and 24/1 of village Nanus in Sattari Taluka. The subject matter of the First Appeal No. 11/03 is land admeasuring 30,135 square me...
Hasmukh Narottam Malkan and Others Vs. Dr.Lalit Chokhani and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-2012
Oral Order: 1 At the out set, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners seeks deletion of the Respondent No.4. The Respondent No.4 is accordingly deleted at the risk of the Petitioners. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2 Rule, with the consent of the parties made returnable forwith and heard. 3 The above Petition takes exception to the order dated 2/3/2012 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai, by which order the application filed by the Petitioners for leave under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure came to be rejected. 4 It is not necessary to burden this order with unnecessary facts. Suffice it to say that the case of the Petitioners is that the transaction in respect of the sale of flat being Flat No.1302 took place between the parties. It was the case of the Petitioners that the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein had agreed to sell the said flat in the Jogani Apartments Co-operative Housing Society for which according to the Petitioners th...
Vitthal S/O. Dadarao Lokhande and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-20-2012
1. The appeal is filed against the judgment and order of Sessions Case No. 43/1994, which was pending in the Court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna. The Sessions Court has convicted and sentenced all the appellants for offence punishable under section 498-A r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code. Appellant No. 1 is convicted for the offence punishable under section 306 of I.P.C. also. Both the sides are heard. 2. In short, facts leading to the institution of the appeal, can be stated as follows:- The deceased was a sister of complainant Sudhakar. The deceased was given in marriage to accused No. 1 about 3 years prior to the date of incident. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are parents of accused No. 1, husband of the deceased and all the accused were living together, where the deceased cohabited with accused No. 1. 3. After one year of the marriage, the accused started saying that the deceased was infertile, she was black in complexion, she was suffering from tuberculosis (for short "T.B.") and she ...
United Spirits Limited Vs. Delta Distilleries Limited and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-2012
Oral Judgment: 1 An important question as to whether this Court can exercise its powers under Section 27 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for implementation of the Orders passed by the learned Arbitrators, which are not being complied with by the parties, arises for consideration before this Court. 2 The facts in brief necessary for adjudication of the present Petition are as under: i. It appears that there was an agreement between the Petitioner and the Respondent No.1 for bottling the product of the Plaintiff. However, there arose a dispute between the parties i.e. the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 and, as per the agreement between the parties the dispute was referred to the Arbitration. The arbitration proceedings commenced in the year 2002. There has been a change of the Arbitrators for some reasons, with respect to which there are allegations and counter allegations. However, for the purpose of adjudication of the present matter, the reference to those allegations woul...
Paper Prints (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Phoenix Arc Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-2012
Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. This Appeal arises from an order of the learned Single Judge dated 21 October 2010 by which a Company Petition for winding up has been admitted and is directed to be advertised. The Respondent, who instituted a proceeding for winding up before the Company Court, is a company registered as a Securitisation and Reconstruction company under Section 3 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. DBS Bank Limited had granted a factoring facility/overdraft facility in the amount of Rs. 2.50 Crores to the Applicant Company under a letter of offer dated 18 July 2007. Upon acceptance by the Company, financial facilities were extended by the bank. The bank had issued a notice of demand on 15 September 2008 inspite of which the Company failed to pay its dues. The Bank has moved the Debt Recovery Tribunal for recovery of an amount of Rs. 2.46 Crores due as on 31 January 2009 together with interest. ...
itm Trust and Others Vs. Educate India Society
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-2012
1. The plaintiff No.1, which is a registered public trust engaged in educational activities and plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 who are the trustees of plaintiff No.1 Trust, have filed the present suit for infringement of their trademark, namely, “Institute of Technology and Management” and “ITM”. The plaintiffs have prayed for perpetual injunction against the defendants from using the impugned marks “ITM” and “Institute of Technology and Management” and/or “ITM University”. The plaintiffs have along with the suit filed notice of motion praying for order of injunction restraining the defendants from using the aforesaid marks. 2. It is the case of the plaintiffs that plaintiff No.1 was registered with the Charity Commissioner on 8th October 1993. It is their further case that after registration the plaintiffs have established various educational institutions in association with Southern New Hampshire College. It is their case that the pl...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »