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.
Ramesh Sippy Vs. Suresh Gopaldas Sippy and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-2012
Chief Justice This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18 April 2012 of the learned single Judge of this Court, in Notice of Motion No.577 of 2012 in Suit No.552 of 2012 filed by the appellant / plaintiff for obtaining possession of the Flat No.5/B situated on the 5th floor (the suit premises ) in a building known as “Shree Vijayaa Bhavan” in Mumbai. The suit is filed on the basis that the appellant is the owner of the said flat by virtue of holding shares in the Unique Enterprise Co-operative Housing Society. The appellant filed the above numbered Notice of Motion for appointment of Court receiver and for a direction to the respondents / defendants to deposit interim compensation during pendency of the suit. 2. At the first ad-interim hearing on 15 March 2012, the trial Court recorded the statement made on behalf of the defendants that until further orders, they will not dispose of, alienate, encumber, part with possession or create any third party righ...
M/S. Kamud Drugs Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Government ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-2012
Oral Judgment: [A.M. Khanwilkar, J.] 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. The petitioner has filed this writ petition to direct respondent No.2 to provide test reports in respect of the samples collected from the petitioner company. This relief is founded on the provisions of Section 25(2) and (3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short, hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1940”) 2. In the petition, it is no where stated that the collection of subject samples was by the “Inspector” from the petitioner company in exercise of powers under the provisions of the Act of 1940. It is common ground that the petitioner is facing prosecution for the offence punishable under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, hereinafter referred to as “the NDPS Act, 1985”). The subject samples were collected in connection with the said offence and the complaint has already been registered after due enquiry before the appropriate Court...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Suryabhan Ukarda Rokade
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-04-2012
1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 27/07/2000, passed by Judicial Magistrate First class, Balapur, District Akola in Regular Criminal Case No. 34 of 1999 whereby the the respondent/accused was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 7(1) read with Section 2(ia)(a) punishable under Section 16(1)(ii) and under Section 7(i) read with Section 2(ia) punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act , 1954. 2. Facts briefly stated are : - ShriG. D Kamble, Food Inspector visited the firm M/s Ukhrda Ramchandra Kirana Shop on 26/10/1989 at about 10.20 a.m. at Balapur along with a Pancha Abdul Rauf. The Respondent accused was present in the shop doing the business. Shri Kamble after disclosing his identity inspected the shop and found the accused selling palm oil from a loose and unlabeled barrel of about 180 kg capacity, containing about 90 kg palm oil in it. Shri Kamble took sample from the said oil barrel for test and analys...
Engineering Workers' Union, A Trade Union Registered Under the Trade U ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-2012
ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. The Petitioners Union, have challenged the impugned award dated 26 May 1996, thereby, their complaint was dismissed mainly on the ground of no relationship of employer employee based upon the evidence and material available on record. 2. Heard both the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners has pointed out that the learned Judge, though recorded the submissions of both the parties, not dealt with all the issues so framed and in para 28 and 29 dealt with only issue of employer employee relationship. This goes to the root of the matter. 4. The complaint so filed by the Petitioners Union covering the grievance of 25 workers, but according to the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1, it is only of 6 to 7 workers. The complaint was filed in the year 1996. The Petitioners, thereafter, joined Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, respectively the Manager and the proprietor of M/s. Sabah Fabricators. The positive case again...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Laxman Narsinhrao Ganti and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-2012
ShrihariP. Davare, J. 1. Heard respective learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Challenge in this Appeal is to the judgment and order of acquittal dated 30th June, 1992 rendered by the learned VIII Addl. Sessions Judge, Thane, in Sessions Case No.271 of 1991 thereby acquitting the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (original accused Nos. 1 to 3) (hereinafter referred to as per the original status as “accused”) for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B and 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case, in nutshell, is as follows:- The marriage between the victim Lalita with accused No.1 Laxman was solemnized at Tirupati on 10.12.1990 and the accused No.2 Narsinhrao and accused No.3 Rajlaxmi are the parents of accused No.1. After the marriage, Lalita went to reside at her matrimonial home with accused Nos. 1 to 3. The marriage between the deceased Lalita and the accused No.1 took place out of the friendship of their fathers and since they were residing ...
Gangubai W/O Bhagwanrao Pawatekar, (Deceased Through L.R.) and Others ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-04-2012
This writ petition is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 24th October, 1991 passed by the learned Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad in Revision Petition No. 101/B/90/Beed declaring the respondent No. 1 Kishanrao, i.e. petitioner in Writ Petition Nos. 1822 of 1992 and 1035 of 1992, as tenant of the suit land. 2. The background facts for filing this writ petition as disclosed in the writ petition are as under: The petitioner herein is a daughter of late Gangubai wife of Bhagwanrao, who was the land owner of Survey No. 122 and 142 to the extent of 3 Acre and 5 Gunthas, situated at village Tarfa Balgujzar, District Beed. From the said land, one Sahebrao Ranuji was the protected tenant. The mother of the petitioner Gangubai did file an application under Section 44 read with Section 32 subsection (2) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (For short, “said Act”) on 7the January, 1961 in the office of Tahsildar, Beed alleging that the ...
Sou. Shardatai Vishwas Pawar Vs. M/S. Cholamandalam Investment and Fin ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-2012
(Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member) (1) Adv.Nanavati files authority letter signed by Mr.Mannadiar, advocate on record. It is taken on record. Notice sent by the Commission has been served on the appellant. Today, appellant is absent. It appears that the appellant is not interested to prosecute the appeal. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal in default....
M/S Aniket Enterprises Through Its Proprietor Vs. Deepak R. Shah and C ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-2012
Honble Mr. S.R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member Heard Mr.V.N.Bolinjkar-Advocate for the appellant. Mr.U.B.Wavikar-Advocate for the respondent. This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 25/11/2010 passed in consumer complaint no.320/2009, Aniket Enterprises through its proprietor Mr.Sanjay Ganesh Malpathak v/s. Mr.Deepak R. Shah and Co. through Mr.Bhadresh Deepak Shah; passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nasik. The consumer complaint stood dismissed and feeling aggrieved thereby, original complainant preferred this appeal. The consumer complaint pertains to non supply of the machinery in spite of receiving the price for the same by respondent/original opponent. Initial transaction is not in dispute but it is a case of respondent that it had refunded entire price received from the complainant. It came with a specific case that towards the price it had actually refunded in cash `62,438/-. This stand was taken by the respondent not only in written version but a...
Hemant S/O Wasudeorao Kalmegh and Others Vs. Mohd. Shakil S/O Abdul Az ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-03-2012
1. Admit. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties. 2. This appeal is preferred by the original plaintiffs challenging the order dated 15-11-2011 passed below application Exhibit 5 by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, to the extent it rejects the prayers of the appellants-plaintiffs, viz. (i) for grant of temporary injunction restraining the respondent-defendant from continuing with the hotel business from the suit premises and making any construction activity over the suit premises, and (ii) for directing the respondent-defendant to deposit a sum of Rs.75,000/- per month in the Court with effect from 1-5-2011 till the date of delivery of possession. 3. The Trial Court has partly allowed the application for injunction, directing the respondent-defendant to deposit an amount of Rs.29,040/- per month from 1-7-2010 till the decision of the suit, and to deposit an amount of arrears as per the said rate for the period fr...
Mrs. Clara Baracho Pinto and Another Vs. Vishnu Andrade and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-03-2012
Oral Judgment: Both the above appeals are taken together for final hearing considering that both the appeals challenge the same judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mapusa, dated 09.03.2007 in Claim Petition No. 66/2000. The parties shall be referred to in the manner they so appear in the cause title of the impugned judgment. 2. The claimant filed a claim petition claiming inter-alia that an accident took place on 05.07.2000 at Alto Porvorim near Nova Goa Complex when the husband of the claimant Mario Jose Vaz Ataide e Pinto was crossing the road and at that time a mini truck bearing no. GA-01-T-3710 suddenly came from Mapusa side and in a fast speed. The said truck driven in a rash and negligent manner and from the right hand side of the road and it gave a dash to the husband of the claimant and dashed against his scooter. It is further the case of the claimant that on account of the said impact, her husband was flung towards the other side of the road and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 40
- 41
- Next ›
- Last »