Mumbai Court August 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.
Tata Capital Financial Services Limited Vs. J.B. Dyechem
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
Oral Judgment: By this Summons for Judgment, the Plaintiff seeks to recover a sum of Rs.3,39,852/- with interest. The suit is based on Bill of Exchange drawn by the Defendant and is dishonoured on presentation. 2. The Plaintiff had granted this discounting facility to M/s.Biotor Industries Ltd. (Biotor) to the tune of Rs.50 crores so as to facilitate the payment to its vendors towards its supply of raw material and the goods. The Defendant had sold goods to the said M/s. Biotor. The Defendant and M/s.Biotor had agreed that in respect of such goods supplied by the Defendant to M/s. Biotor, the Bill of Exchange would be drawn by the Defendant, would be accepted by the said M/s. Biotor and thereafter would be discounted with the Plaintiff. Accordingly Plaintiff drew the Bill of Exchange on 23rd March, 2009 in the sum of Rs.3,39,852/. The said Bill of Exchange was accepted by M/s. Biotor. It is not in dispute that the said Bill of Exchange was thereafter discounted by the Defendant with th...
Maya Ajit Satam Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary to ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. This Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the wife of the detenu Ajit Bapu Satam, who has been detained pursuant to the detention order passed by the Principal Secretary (Appeals and Security), Home Department, Government of Maharashtra, and Detaining Authority, dated 14th March, 2012, in exercise of powers under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA Act for short), with a view to prevent the detenu in future from smuggling goods. 2. The detenu was served with the grounds of detention, which advert to the continual criminal activities of the detenu necessitating issuance of detention order, with a view to prevent him from indulging into the smuggling activities in future. It is stated that on the basis of specific intelligence that a syndicate headed by the detenu along with Deepak Jare was engaged in smuggling of red sand...
Dena Bank Vs. Nilesh Karunakar Shetty and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
Oral Judgment: By this judgment, the plaintiff seeks to recover sum of Rs.4,65,768.94 with interest and cost. The suit has been filed on the basis of promissory note, loan agreement, letter of lien and letter of guarantee filed by the defendant nos. 1 to 3. The defendant no. 4 has been joined as formal party. No relief has been claimed against the 4th defendant. 2. According to plaintiff, defendant no. 1 who is son of defendant no. 2 wanted to secure admission for G.P. Rating Cadet Course 51 months with International Maritime Academy, Chennai and applied for a loan of Rs.3,51,000/-. Defendant no. 2 was co-borrower. Defendant no. 3 is sued as guarantor. Defendant no. 4 is training provider company. According to plaintiff on the defendant nos. 1 to 3 executing various documents in respect of education loan, the plaintiff sanctioned loan of Rs.3,51,000/- in favour of first defendant. According to plaintiff, fourth defendant by its letter dated 12th October, 2004 addressed to the plaintiff...
Hitesh Lakhamshi Shah Vs. Pradip Chinubhai Shah and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
Oral Judgment: By this Summons for Judgment, the Plaintiff seeks that Judgment be entered in the suit against the Defendants and they be ordered and decreed to pay to the Plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,92,113/- togetherwith further interest on the principal amount of Rs.1,60,000/-. 2. The suit is based on an invoice, delivery challan and dishonoured cheque. According to the Plaintiff, pursuant to the order placed by the Defendants, the Plaintiff had sold, supplied and delivered the Duplex Coated Board Sheets worth Rs.1,60,000/-. The Defendants accepted the delivery of the goods under invoice bearing No. 2113 dated 23rd September, 2008 and signed delivery challan. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the Defendants issued a cheque of Rs.10,000/- towards part payment in respect of the said goods. Upon deposit of the cheque of Rs. 10,000/-, the same was returned with the remark Insufficient Fund. The Plaintiff thereafter addressed a letter calling upon the Defendants to pay the amount as per Inv...
C. MohiddIn (Deceased Through L. Rs) and Another Vs. Hayad Sab Bepari ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri Sudin Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri J. Godinho, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This is a petition challenging the judgment passed by the Tribunal whereby an appeal preferred by the respondents was allowed and the petitioners were directed to be evicted form the suit premises. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that there exists a property surveyed under Chalta nos. 231 and 248 of P.T. Sheet no. 253 situated at Margao, which originally belonged to Eusebio Furtado and the same was subsequently sold to the respondents herein. It is further their case that there exists several structures in the said property, out of which house bearing no. 661 is occupied by the petitioners and the house bearing no. 660 is occupied by one Shri K. M. Alli. The eviction proceedings were initiated in the year 1980 against the petitioners as well as Shri Alli under Section 22(2)(a) and Section 30 of the Goa Daman and Diu Buildin...
E.M.U.Lines Private Limited Company Vs. M/S.Blue Ocean Lines Pvt. Ltd. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
Oral Judgment: By this Summons for Judgment, the Plaintiff seeks to recover a sum of Rs. 4,29,204/- with further interest thereon and cost. The suit is filed on the basis of invoice dated 6th October, 2008. 2. According to the Plaintiff, Defendant No.1 is carrying on business of exports and imports of goods. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are Directors of the Defendant No. 1. For one of the transaction of the first defendant relating to export to Taiwan, the Plaintiff provided services to the first Defendant by shipment of the goods and issued Bills of Lading dated 6th October, 2008 in the sum of Rs.4,29,204/-. It is a common ground that the said goods exported were not accepted by foreign buyer and were called back from Taiwan on 15th September, 2008. It is the case of the Plaintiff that on instructions of the first Defendant, such goods were re-shifted from Taiwan to India. 3. The Plaintiff filed this suit for recovery of demurrage and storage charges on the ground that the Defendants did no...
Pramod S. Priolkar and Another Vs. Deputy Collector and S.D.O and Anot ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
Oral Judgment: The above two appeals are taken up jointly for disposal as they pertain to the land adjacent to one another acquired under the same notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L.A. Act). 2. Land was acquired for construction of a road from Querim to Dyghode in Ponda Taluka. The Notification under section 4(1) of the L.A. Act was published in the Official Gazette dated 7/2/1989. This, inter alia, included land from survey nos. 101/1 and 105/1 of village Priol of Ponda Taluka. An area admeasuring 380 square metres was acquired from survey no. 101/1 (part) and an area of 1250 square metres was acquired from survey no. 105/1. The appellant of F. A. No. 323/2003 had laid claim for undivided 50% share in the said acquired land. The remaining 50% share belonged to Shri Sadanand G. S. Priolkar. The said acquisition, inter alia, also included land from survey nos. 101/3 and 102/1. An area of 310 square metres was acquired from survey no. 101/3 (part) wherea...
Hanumant Subhedar and Another Vs. Mrs. Farida Bi. Khalifa and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri J.P. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Shri S.D. Padiyar, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 and Shri A.D. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.2. 2. The above petition challenges an order passed by the lower appellate Court dated 4/11/2011 passed in Misc. Civil Application No.143/2010 whereby an appeal challenging the order dated 30/04/2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Mapusa was allowed and an application for temporary injunction filed by the respondent no.1 was allowed and the petitioner as well as the respondent no.2 were inter alia restrained from dispossessing the respondent no.1 from the suit flat. 3. During the course of the hearing of the above petition, Shri J.P. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has assailed the impugned order essentially on the ground that the learned Judge had no jurisdiction to pass the said order as according to him the proceedings un...
Farida Husainybhai and Others Vs. Dr Uday Ganpatrao Naik and Others
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
S.R.Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member (1) The above referred three appeals are disposed by this common order since they arise out of identical facts inter-connected with each are and out of one and same order dated 18/11/2008 passed in Consumer Complaint No.269/01, Dr.Uday Ganpatrao Naik and ors. (hereinafter referred as complainant) vs. Shehabiah Trading and Investment Co.Pvt.Ltd. (hereinafter referred as builder). (2) The consumer dispute pertains to alleged deficiency in service on the part of the builder by not handing over the flat and shop as agreed between the complainant and the builder as per development agreement dated 03/10/1998. The forum upholding the contention of the complainant, nullifed the transactions in favour of appellant, Farida Husainybhai/original opponent No.2 (hereinafter referred as opponent Farida) dated 23/03/2005 in respect of flat No.8 and trasaction with appellant Dimple Mahinder Singh Sahi/original opponent No.3 (hereinafter referred as opponent Dim...
Suresh S/O. Pandurang Tidke Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
Oral Judgment: (M.L. Tahaliyani, J.) 1. The appellant has been convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of rupees one thousand in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appellant was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon along with five others. The appellant was accused No.1 in Sessions Trial No.19 of 2000. The appellant and original accused Nos. 2 to 6 were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323 read with Section 149 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. At the conclusion of trial, all the accused, except the appellant, were acquitted of all the charges framed against them. The appellant was also acquitted of rest of the charges except the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Complainant Yashwant Ganuji Tidke was residing at village Shahapur, Tahsil : Khamgaon, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »