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.
The Bal Ganesh Mandir Association and Another Vs. State of Goa Through ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-09-2012
U.V. Bakre, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 2. By this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners have prayed for an order to quash and set aside the order dated 17/6/2011 passed by the Respondent no. 3 and to declare that the action of Respondent no. 2 is illegal, arbitrary and ultra vires the provisions of the Goa Land (Prohibition of Construction) Act, 1985 ('The Act', for short) and the Constitution of India and to direct the Respondent no. 2 to consider the representation for regularization of the structure on the terms and conditions as deemed fit by the Respondent no. 2. 3. By the said order dated 17/6/2011, the Respondent no. 3, in exercise of the powers conferred under sections 4 and 6 of the Act, has directed the opponents who are 194 in number, all residents of PDA Colony, Alto Porvorim, Bardez-Goa, whose names are mentioned below the impugned order and which includes the petitioner no. 2, t...
Gaurav Gupta Vs. Mrs. Radhika Gupta
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-09-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri Parag Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Shri Sudin Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent waives service. 3. The above Petition challenges an Order dated 09.04.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa, whereby an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking interim maintenance came to be disposed of directing the Petitioner to pay to the Respondent, inter alia, consolidated sum of Rs.3,00,000/- per month besides the amounts which have been awarded under the Domestic Violence Act. 4. Shri Parag Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, without going into the merits of the contentions raised by the parties, has pointed out that the learned Judge has not given any reasons nor consider the material adduced by both the parties to come to the conclusion that the Petitio...
PravIn Prakash Karnewar Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through Its Secr ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-06-2012
Oral Judgment (Per: Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Heard finally, by making rule returnable forthwith. 2. Short submission of Mr. Talekar is, the provision for direct recruitment to the post of Health Supervisor made in Appedix VA at serial No. 1 in the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1961 (hereinafter, referred to as “the recruitment rules”) restricting entitlement to holders of degree in science (B.Sc.) of recognized University, should not be construed narrowly to deny consideration of better qualified candidates, like the present petitioner who is holding B.A.M.S. Degree. He contends that looking to the nature of duties which a Health Supervisor has to perform, persons holding degrees like BAMS, MBBS, BDS, BHMS, BUMS etc. are more suitable and hence, persons holding those qualifications should not be deprived from becoming health supervisors. He has relied on a judgment of Division Bench of this Court dated 6.7.2007 in Writ Petition No. 5251 of ...
Chairman, Shad Adam Shaikh Trust and Another Vs. Director of Vocationa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard finally. 2 By this common judgment, all the above Writ Petitions are being disposed of since they arise out of a common impugned judgment passed by the School Tribunal, Nasik. 3 The Petitioner/management has challenged the impugned order passed by the School Tribunal, Nasik Region, Nasik dated 16.10.1995 whereby they have been directed to reinstate all these Appellants on their original posts and further directed to give benefits attached to it. This Court has stayed the order while admitting the Writ Petition Nos.1023/2000 and 1027/2000 on 11 September 2001. The same has been in force till this date. 4 Apart from going to the merits of the matter, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner pointed out paragraph 12 in Writ Petition No.6996/1996 and submits that they have not been heard when the order was passed. “12 Petitioners further state and submit that the aforesaid Appeal was fixed for hearing along with other Appeals bearing Appeal No.22 of 1993 ...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Bhaurao Daulat Yedama and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-06-2012
1. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 31/07/2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Katol in Summary Case no. 1547 of 1997 whereby the respondents/accused were acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 26 (i) (d),(f), (g) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 read with Rules 3, 17, 23 and 25 of the Bombay Transit of Forest Produce (Vidarbha Region, Saurashtra and Kutch Areas) Rules 1960. 2. The facts, stated briefly, are as under : AmrutbhaiPatel (Respondent no. 3 herein) has taken Dhavad Saw Mill, Katol on lease. Himmatbhai Patel (Respondent no. 4 herein) is a relative of Amrutbhai. Bhaurao Daulat Yedame (Respondent no.1 herein ) is their Diwanji. Deorao Kumbhare (Respondent no.2 herein), Vishwanath Yedame (Respondent no. 5 herein) and Harischandra Yedame (Respondent no. 6 herein) had loaded six logs in the Blue Colored Maroti Van No. Dl2CA3972 on 09/09/1997. The Logs were kept hidden at Tandulwani in the field of one Gangadhar Somkuwar...
The Maharashtra State Seeds Corporation Limited Vs. Nagorao Raghunath ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-06-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal is directed against the acquittal of respondents by the Judicial Magistrate, FC (Special Judge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act) for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, the “Act”) vide judgment and order dated 22nd December 2008 rendered in Criminal Complaint Case No. 4872 of 2005. 2. The facts are as under. Appellant-The Maharashtra State Seeds Corporation is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 while respondent no. 1 is Chairman of Kuhi Taluka Shetki Kharedi Vikri Sahakari Sanstha and respondent no. 2 is the Manager of said Sanstha. Parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their original status in the complaint. There were business transactions between the parties and according to the complainant as on 31.8.2004 an amount of Rs. 4,91,445/- stood outstanding against the accused and for payment of dues, they issued cheque bearing no. 110467 dated 17.11.200...
Sanjay Devram Bhoir, Thane and Another Vs. Mayor, Thane Municipal Corp ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-2012
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER S. A. BOBDE, J.): 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. The petitioners have approached this court for quashing the order dated 19.04. 2012 by which the respondent no.1 - Mayor of the Thane Municipal Corporation has recognized the respondent no.5 - Manoj Tukaram Shinde as Leader of the opposition in the House constituted in pursuance of the general elections held to the Corporation of the City of Thane. 3. The main contention of the petitioners is that the act of Mayor in recognizing the respondent no.5 as Leader of the opposition is contrary to Section 19-IAA of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, because a person from a party in opposition having the greatest numerical strength has not been recognized as the Leader of the opposition. In short, the submission on behalf of the petitioners is that the petitioner no.1, being Leader of the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) which had a strength o...
Sporting India Limited Vs. Hdfc Bank Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-2012
The Petitioner is under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, “Arbitration Act”). The Petitioner has challenged the Arbitral Award dated 30 September 2010 passed by the sole Arbitrator Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.M. Ahmadi (Retired Chief Justice of India). 2 The operative part of the Arbitral Award is as under:- “The Respondent do pay to the Claimant-HDFC the Principal sum of Rs.5,93,53,892 together with interest of Rs.1,23,37,967 and cost of Rs.2,31,364.58 (if not already paid) on or before 31st December 2010 failing which it will pay interest on the Principal sum of Rs.5,93,53,892 at the rate of 8% per annum from 21st July 2010 until payment/recovery. Having regard to the total number of sittings held I award the claimant cost of the arbitration at Rs.10,00,000 (ten lacs only). The Respondent is given three months time to satisfy the Award, failing which it will pay interest from 21st July 2010 until payment/recovery at the rate of 8% p.a. A...
Orbit Corporate Limited a Public Limited Company, Incorporated, Mumbai ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-2012
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 of the order dated 922012 passed by the Learned Judge of City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai, by which order, the Application being Chamber Summons No.123 of 2012 filed by the Petitioner for impleadment, came to be rejected. 3. The facts in brief necessary to be cited for adjudication of the above Petition can be stated thus: The suit in question being S.C.Suit (L)No.273 of 2012 has been filed by the Respondent Nos.1 to 7 herein challenging the notice issued under Section 95A of the Maharashtra Housing Area Development Act, 1976 (for sake of convenience referred to as the said Act). The said notice has been issued as the Respondents are not vacating the suit site wherein the redevelopment project is to be implemented by the Petitioner herein. 4. The said provision i.e. Section 95A can be invoked in a case w...
Sah Petroleums Ltd. in the Matter Between Seven Islands Shipping Limit ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-2012
1. Mr. Madan has strongly objected for entertaining motion on the ground that it is not lodged and that a copy thereof has been served at 11.23 a.m. He however submits that he is willing to go ahead with the preliminary objection of the defendant on the basis of denial of the averment made in the application. 2. Though I find some substance in the submissions made by Mr. Madan, I am inclined to entertain the notice of motion as taken out by defendants in the interest of justice. 3. The Notice of motion has been taken out by the defendant raising an objection that in view of the Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (hereinafter referred to as the “Said Act”) the present dispute between the parties needs to be referred to the arbitration as provided in Clause 24 of the Contract between the parties. 4. Heard Mr. Pratap, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants in support of the objection. Mr. Pratap submitted that Section 45 of the said Act pr...
- ‹ Prev
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- Next ›
- Last »