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.
Dr. U.A. Vinay Kumar Vs. His Excellency, the Chancellor, Goa Universit ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
A.P. LAVANDE, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Briefly, the case of the petitioner is as under: The Government of Goa issued notification dated 01/12/1984 in which The Goa University Act, 1984 ('The Act' for short) was published. Pursuant to the said Act, the Goa University- respondent no.2 was established in June 1985. The petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in Philosophy at respondent no.2 University on 25/09/1987. In the year 1988, respondent no.2 published several Statutes made by it from time to time. On 05/02/1992, the University published 1991 Regulations. Regulation 3B read with note 2 provides for further promotion from the post of Lecturer to Lecturer (Senior Scale) and relaxation for three years for Ph.D. According to the petitioner, he became eligible for the promotion to post of Lecturer (Senior Scale) with effect from 06/07/1992. On 27/06/1994, the petitioner was promoted as Lecturer (Senior Scale) with retrospective effect. On 19/06/1996, the petitione...
M/S. Puran Automobiles, Shahagunj Aurangabad, Through Its Partner, Aur ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 3. This writ petition takes exception to the order dated 29.11.2011 passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Pune. 4. The brief facts, as disclosed in the petition, are as under:- 5. The petitioner is a partnership firm. The petition is filed through one of the partners. The petitioner had applied for loan to the respondent Bank. The respondent Bank granted the loan. It is the case of the petitioner that on 5.7.2010, the respondent Bank obtained certificate under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act 1960 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as the “Societies Act”) for recovery of the amount. On 9.2.2011, on the basis of the sale certificate, the respondent Bank started recovery proceedings by publishing auction notices. Earlier to that also, on two occasions, notices were published. It it the case of the petitioner that as the said notices ha...
Sardarsinha S/O Gopalsinh Gour and Others Vs. Swarupsinh S/O Gopalsinh ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties heard finally. 2. This Civil Revision Application is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 28th June, 2011, passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mukhed, below Exhibit-49 in Regular Civil Suit No.69 of 2009. 3. The respondents herein, are the original plaintiffs, filed Regular Civil Suit No. 69 of 2009 for partition and separate possession to the extent of area mentioned in the plaint with further prayer to hold that, 9 sale deeds mentioned in the plaint, are not binding upon the original plaintiffs. In the said suit, the revision applicants herein, filed detailed written statement and raised points that, as per the Bombay Court Fees Act at the time of praying partition of house property, the price of the suit property should be considered on the date of filing the suit and not on the day of purchase of the suit house. The said property should be valued by the office of Sub-Registrar and the Court fe...
Ramesh K. Patel Vs. Prashant J. Patel of Mumbai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
The Petitioner, has invoked Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Arbitration Act) thereby challenged award dated 16 April 2009 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal of the National Stock Exchange of India Limited (for short, NSEIL) based upon its rules, byelaws and regulations. 2. The Petitioner appointed the Respondent as its share and stock broker to effect transactions in Securities at NSEIL. The Petitioner appointed M/s. JHP Securities Private Limited to effect transactions in Securities at Bombay Stock Exchange Limited (for short, BSEL) As alleged, M/s. JHP Securities Private Limited are associated with each other and also share common office. 3. The Petitioner got the I.D. Code. There arose dispute in relation to the transactions. The Respondent, therefore, invoked Arbitration and filed an application on 28 August 2008 for recovery of Rs.5,67,834.59 with 18% interest and costs. The last transaction as stated to be on the NSE was on 29 February 2008. ...
Dattatraya Hari Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Kanade, J.) 1. Heard. We have appointed Shri Arjun S. Pawar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant. He has taken us to the judgment and order of the Trial Court and the notes of evidence and other documentary evidence which is brought on record. 2. Prosecution case in brief is that the Appellant-Accused was suspecting his wife's chastity and used to harass her from time to time. She, therefore, came to her matrimonial house and her father had permitted the accused-Appellant and his wife to reside in one room of the house. According to the prosecution case, on 25.2.2005, when the wife of the accused went to sleep in the evening, the accused tried to strangulate her and she, therefore, rescued herself from the clutches of her husband and went to the house of neibour Mahadu Ghodwinde. She called the wife of Mahadu Ghodwinde and one more lady and asked them to persuade the accused to behave properly and not to suspect her chastity. According to the ...
Ramesh Shivji Upadhyay Vs. Central Government of India Through Nationa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
P.C. 1. Heard learned amicus curiae and the Special Counsel for the respondents. 2. Two reliefs have been claimed in this petition received through jail. The first relief is to direct the respondents to hand over the mobile set of the petitioner which was recovered from him. The second relief is to direct the respondents to supply copy of the Narco-Analysis test report pertaining to the petitioner. 3. As regards the first relief, we fail to understand as to how the Court can accede to that relief when the petitioner is in jail. It is not the case of the petitioner that the mobile set should be handed over to some relative of the petitioner to be carried outside the jail. In any case, since the mobile set has been recovered from the petitioner by the police and is subject matter of pending trial, it cannot be handed over to the petitioner till the conclusion of the trial or until an order for return of property is passed by the appropriate Court. We are, therefore, not inclined to acced...
Sharif HusaIn Hupale Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Kanade, J.) The Appellant who is the Original Accused No.1- Sharif, is challenging the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Judge, Solapur, who by his judgment and order dated 27.11.2006 was pleased to convict the Appellant for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. The other accused Nos.2 to 4 have been acquitted by the Sessions Judge. 2. Brief facts are as under. The Appellant-Sharif, his brother Majid-Accused No.2, Jamila Majid Hupale -Accused No.3-wife of Accused No.2 and Nurjahan Sharif Hupale -Accused No.4-wife of accused No.1 were charged for the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 302, 323,149 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. Prosecution case is that the accused and deceased and his family are the close relatives and the deceased Rashid Husain Hupale was the father of Ismail w...
Smt. Tulsabai Wd/O Motiramji Tidke, Dead Through Lrs. and Others Vs. S ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
1. This is an appeal under section 72 (4) of the Bombay Public Trust Act (for short Act of 1950) taking an exception to the judgment and order dated 12/8/1996 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nagpur in M.C.A. No.519/1990 thereby confirming the order dated 1/9/1990 passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner in Appeal No.72/1993. 2. The facts are thus: One Adkuji Palandurkar owned the house bearing No.866, Ward No.29, Circle No.17/23 at Nagpur. He died leaving behind him widow Manabai, son Shivram and two daughters namely Kasabai and Sarswatibai. Shivram died issue less in the year 1941. Manabai died in the year 1952. Kasabai died in the year 1959 and left behind her son Motiram who died in March 1972 and daughter Sakhubai. Tulsabai is the widow of Motiram. Saraswatibai died in the year 1972 leaving behind her son Rajaram who also died in the year 1972. For better appreciation, the concerned genealogical tree is reproduced below: TABLE 3. Controversy is in respect o...
Pradeep Shankar Walvekar and Others Vs. Anil Narsinha Annachhatre and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
Oral Judgment: (Oka, J.) The appellants who are the original defendants have taken an exception to the judgment and decree dated 7th April, 2011 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune. The respondents/plaintiffs who had admittedly paid a consideration of Rs.90,00,000/- out of the agreed consideration of Rs.1,10,00,000/- filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 18th October, 2007 which was styled as an agreement of development or a development agreement. The said agreement was executed by the present appellants in favour of the respondents. 2. The appellants were the owners of the property bearing Plot No.15 admeasuring 522 square meters together with a bungalow constructed thereon, more particularly described in paragraph 1 of the plaint. (The said property is hereinafter referred to as "the suit property"). It is alleged in the plaint, which is not disputed, that the 1st appellant has 10% undivided share in the suit property. The share of th...
Pratighat Kisan DidmuThe and Another Vs. M/S Neel Constructions and Ot ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-2012
S.R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member 1. This consumer complaint pertains to alleged deficiency in service on the part of developer/builder in respect of flat agreed to be purchased by the complainants. 2. Undisputed facts are that after seeing the flat in a building known as Neel Sankul situated in a township developed by opponent No.1-builder-M/s.Neel Constructions (hereinafter referred to as builder), the complainants agreed to purchase a flat No.2 situated in building No.5 on ground floor for total consideration of Rs.19,40,400/- and agreement dated 25/05/2009 was accordingly executed. It is also not disputed that out of total agreed consideration, the complainants had paid in all Rs.9,40,400/- as part consideration. 3. It is the contention of the complainants that when they inspected the flat intended to be purchased, one Mr.Porecha, an employee of the builder represented to them that area of the flat agreed to be purchased would be 882 sq.ft. and the flat would be sold to them...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »