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.
Ricardo Jaime Fernandes Vs. Vishnudas Alias Gurudas Khandolkar
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-20-2012
This Second Appeal arises out of Judgment and Decree dated 2/5/2003 passed by the learned District Judge, Panaji (first Appellate Court, for short), in Regular Civil Appeal No. 54/1996. 2. The said Regular Civil Appeal was filed by the defendant of Regular Civil Suit No. 31/91/D against the Judgment and Decree dated 11/9/1996 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Panaji (trial Court, for short), in the said suit. 3. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they appear in the cause title of the said Regular Civil Suit. 4. The plaintiff had filed the said suit for eviction and for recovery of mesne profits. The case of the plaintiff, in short, was as follows: The erstwhile Government during Portuguese regime had granted lease to late Lourencinho Fernandes, father of the plaintiff, in respect of a piece of land belonging to the Government of Goa, near old Ferry Wharf, St. Lawrence, Agacaim-Goa, by Alvara No. 466 dated 22/11/1957, on payment of yearl...
Shri. Pramod V. Kamble Vs. Sou. Jyoti P. Kamble and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 2. The applicant is the husband of respondent no.1. After marriage they had been residing at their matrimonial home at Palus. Later, matrimonial disputes between the petitioner and respondent no.1 arose, and that, the respondent no.1 has been staying separately from the petitioner i.e. at her parent's house, is not in dispute, though since when, and what circumstances, they came to be separated is in dispute. Respondent no.1, some time in October 2011, made an application before JMFC-Malshiras, purporting to be one under Section 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, alleging that the applicant (respondent before the Magistrate) had taken away Rahulson of the applicant and respondent no.1, from the house of respondent no.1's parents to his house at Palus. It was also alleged by respondent no.1 in the said application that the applicant was contacted by her on telephone repeatedly, but the appl...
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. 2. DB...
icici Home Finance Co. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 1 ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-2012
M.S. Sanklecha, J. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. At the instance of the Advocates for both the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges: a) Notice dated 24.03.2011 (hereinafter referred to as 'impugned notice') issued under Section 148 read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') seeking to reopen the assessment for the assessment year 2006-2007;and b) Order dated 07.12.2011 of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (hereinafter referred to as 'the Assessing Officer') rejecting the Petitioner's objection to initiations of reopening assessment for assessment year 20062007 under Section 148 of the Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned order'). 3. The facts leading to the present petition are as under: a) The Petitioner is engaged in the business of home finance. For the assessment year 2006-2007 (previous year ending on 31....
Shri. Pramod V. Kamble Vs. Sou. Jyoti P. Kamble and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 2. The applicant is the husband of respondent no.1. After marriage they had been residing at their matrimonial home at Palus. Later, matrimonial disputes between the petitioner and respondent no.1 arose, and that, the respondent no.1 has been staying separately from the petitioner i.e. at her parent's house, is not in dispute, though since when, and what circumstances, they came to be separated is in dispute. Respondent no.1, some time in October 2011, made an application before JMFC-Malshiras, purporting to be one under Section 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, alleging that the applicant (respondent before the Magistrate) had taken away Rahulson of the applicant and respondent no.1, from the house of respondent no.1's parents to his house at Palus. It was also alleged by respondent no.1 in the said application that the applicant was contacted by her on telephone repeatedly, but the appl...
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 consider...
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 of 30 x 4 feet...
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 ...
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...
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...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »