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.
Ramdarsh Shardaprasad Mishra and Another Vs. Divisional Joint Registra ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-19-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.B. Chaudhari, J.) 1. A common judgment and order dated 25.6.2012 in Writ Petition Nos.2490/2012 and 2491/2012, passed by the learned Single Judge, is under challenge in these two letters patent appeals. 2. In support of the appeal, learned Counsel for the appellant in both the appeals made the following submissions. (A) The members of the Managing Committee of respondent no.4 - Co-operative Society are 13 from the elected category and 2 from the nominated category and thus, the strength of the Committee is 15. The motion of no confidence was passed against the appellants with 9 votes. According to Shri Patil, the learned Counsel for the appellant in both appeals, it is an admitted fact that the notice of motion of no confidence was given to only 13 elected members of the Committee and the 2 nominated members, namely one from a District Central Cooperative Bank and the other, namely the representative of District Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies were not at all ...
M/S. Delta Logistics Vs. Union of India, (Through the Secretary, Minis ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-2012
Oral Judgment: (J.P. Devadhar, J.) 1. A Division Bench of this Court finding it difficult to agree with the views expressed by another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (General) V/s. Rajan Virji and Company in Customs Appeal No.25 of 2006 decided on 27th January 2010 has by its order dated 14th September 2011 passed in the aforesaid Writ Petition referred two questions to the learned Chief Justice for being considered by a Larger Bench. Accordingly, the learned Chief Justice has constituted this larger Bench for considering the said two questions which read thus:- (i) Under the provisions of Regulation 22 of the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004, is the Commissioner of Customs entitled to differ with the findings which have been arrived at by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or, as the case may be, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs in the report submitted under clause (5) of the Regulation? (ii) Is it a correct proposition of law t...
Santos Maria Teresa Pinto Ferriers Dos Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-2012
Oral Order: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard forthwith. 2. Heard Mr.Ayaz Khan, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr.N. Natarajan, learned counsel for the Union of India - Respondent no.1 and Mr.A.S. Shitole, learned APP for the State. 3. The applicant is the accused in NDPS Special Case No.51 of 2011 pending before the Special Judge for NDPS, Greater Mumbai. The recording of the evidence commenced on 26 September 2011. However, the examination in chief of the first witness for the prosecution i.e. the complainant herself, could not be completed on that date. It was completed on 30 September 2011. After the examination in chief, the cross examination commenced. One question in cross examination, was put to the PW no.1. The matter was thereafter adjourned and further cross examination was deferred till 11 October 2011. The matter was then adjourned from time to time and on 7 March 2012, the prosecution filed an application “for permission to re-examine...
M/S. Delta Logistics Vs. Union of India, (Through the Secretary, Minis ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-2012
Oral Judgment: (J.P. Devadhar, J.) 1. A Division Bench of this Court finding it difficult to agree with the views expressed by another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (General) V/s. Rajan Virji and Company in Customs Appeal No.25 of 2006 decided on 27th January 2010 has by its order dated 14th September 2011 passed in the aforesaid Writ Petition referred two questions to the learned Chief Justice for being considered by a Larger Bench. Accordingly, the learned Chief Justice has constituted this larger Bench for considering the said two questions which read thus:- (i) Under the provisions of Regulation 22 of the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004, is the Commissioner of Customs entitled to differ with the findings which have been arrived at by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or, as the case may be, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs in the report submitted under clause (5) of the Regulation? (ii) Is it a correct proposition of law t...
Santos Maria Teresa Pinto Ferriers Dos Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-2012
Oral Order: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard forthwith. 2. Heard Mr.Ayaz Khan, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr.N. Natarajan, learned counsel for the Union of India Respondent no.1 and Mr.A.S. Shitole, learned APP for the State. 3. The applicant is the accused in NDPS Special Case No.51 of 2011 pending before the Special Judge for NDPS, Greater Mumbai. The recording of the evidence commenced on 26 September 2011. However, the examination in chief of the first witness for the prosecution i.e. the complainant herself, could not be completed on that date. It was completed on 30 September 2011. After the examination in chief, the cross examination commenced. One question in cross examination, was put to the PW no.1. The matter was thereafter adjourned and further cross examination was deferred till 11 October 2011. The matter was then adjourned from time to time and on 7 March 2012, the prosecution filed an application for permission to re-examine the prosecuti...
Padmashree Dr. D.Y.Patil Medical College, Navi Mumbai Vs. Union of Ind ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-2012
(PER DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.) 1. The Petitioner has challenged a decision of the Board of Governors of the Medical Council of India, rejecting an application seeking an increase in the seats for the M.B.B.S. degree course from 150 to 250 for Academic Year 201213. The Petitioner has been conferred with the status of a deemed University. On 23 November 2010, the Petitioner filed an application seeking an increase in the intake capacity from 150 to 250 for Academic Year 201112. The application was rejected by the Board of Governors of the Medical Council of India on the ground that the Petitioner had failed to enclose the Essentiality Certificate and affiliation with the application. 2. On 29 March 2011, the Petitioner received an Essentiality Certificate from the Government of Maharashtra recording that: (i) The institute has 1250 teaching beds; (ii) The average OPD strength per day is 1878; and that (iii) In case the applicant failed to create infrastructure for the course as per MCI nor...
Godrej Consumer Products Limited Vs. Initiative Media Advertising and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-2012
The plaintiffs have filed present suit for injuncting the defendants from telecasting or broadcasting or communicating to the public or publishing in any manner the impugned advertisements or any part thereof or any other advertisement of a similar nature. The plaintiffs have also filed notice of motion for temporary order of injunction in the aforesaid terms during the pendency of the suit. The plaintiffs have also moved for ad-interim orders. 2. The plaintiff is a public limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act 1966 and carries on business of manufacturing and selling of consumer products including mosquito repellents. The plaintiffs claim to be a market leaders in the field of mosquito repellent in India. The defendant No.2 is also a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act and carries on business of selling mosquito repellents and is competitor of the plaintiffs in the field of mosquito repellents. The plaintiffs are manufacturing mo...
Dr. Sau. Nilima Mahesh Muley Vs. Mahesh Madhavrao Muley
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-19-2012
Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties heard finally. 2. This Misc. Civil Application is filed for transfer of the Hindu Marriage Petition No.377 of 2011, initiated by the respondent-husband under the provisions of Section 12(1)(C) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, from the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar, to the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati. 3. The facts as disclosed in this application, by the applicant-wife, seeking transfer are as under : It is the case of the applicant that, the marriage between the applicant and the respondent is performed on 27th December, 2010. The terms of the applicant and the respondent were cordial for very short span, however, thereafter, the respondent started ill-treating the applicant on one or other pretext. The applicant tried to convince the respondent and other in-laws, however, there was no change in the conduct of the respondent, however, lastly, on 4th April, 20...
Nusli Neville Wadia Vs. Ferani Hotels Private Limited and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-2012
Oral Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) These Appeals arise from a judgment dated 19 July 2010 of a Learned Single Judge on a Motion for interim relief in a suit. When an application for ad interim relief came up for hearing before the Learned Single Judge, an objection to the maintainability of the suit was raised on behalf of the First Defendant on the ground that the claim was barred by limitation. The Learned Single Judge was requested to raise a preliminary issue under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Learned Judge accepted the contention that an issue under Section 9A would have to be raised. The Court held that no case for the grant of ad interim relief, within the meaning of Section 9A(2) was made out on the ground of delay. However, the Learned Single Judge proceeded to dispose of the Motion for interim relief on the ground that since affidavits have been filed and parties were heard at length, it would not be appropriate or proper to have a hearing conf...
Sadashiv Seena Salian Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-2012
P.D. Kode, J. The petitioner presently lodged at Kolhapur Central Prison is convicted by learned Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay on 27th November, 2002 in Sessions Case Nos.501 and 752 of 1996 for commission of offences under section 120-B read with 302 of Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) and in default to undergo further sentence of imprisonment for two years. 2. By the present petition sent through jail the petitioner has prayed for giving direction to concerned authority not to take the fine imposed upon him for prematurely releasing him in pursuant to Government Resolution No.MIS/4505/5/529/PRS-3/Mantralaya/ Bombay dated 10th January, 2006. 3. It is submitted that the respondent by exercising power under section 432(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure issued said Resolution for premature release of prisoners having ill health and above the age of 65 years. It is further submitted that for en...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »