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.
Sau. Laxmibai Shantaram Doke Samajvikas Prathisthan and Another Vs. th ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-17-2012
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 1. In W.P. 6136 of 2010, the Petitioner has commenced a Marathi medium primary school in 2008l. Arguments are advanced on the strength of this petition in remaining petitions. However, we find that in W.Ps.6153, 6155 and 6186 of 2010 the very same petitioner institution has started Marathi medium secondary schools. Permission was sought after the Schools were already established in 2008. Rejection of such permission vide communication dated 4.6.2010 in WPs. 6136,6153,6155 and 6186/10 by the State and letter of Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Ahmadnagar dated 28.5.2010 in WP 6136/10 and the letter dated 7.6.2010 by Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Ahmadnagar in WP 6153,6155/10 and dated 18.6.2010 in WP 6186 of 2010 are questioned in these matters. All these petitions also contain a prayer to declare part of Section 18(1),18(5),19(1) and 19(5) of the Right of Children to Free and Com...
Suresh Motwani and Another Vs. Devidas Thawani and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-2012
The petitioners questioned issuance of process for offence under Section 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This Court has, on earlier occasion considering age of the complainant, huge amount of payment as deposits being involved, waiting since 2002 for the cheque dated 29.3.2002, parties were asked to ensure settlement, however, it did not materialised. 2. In a complaint against Sun Earth Ceramics Ltd. and others, the petitioner was one of accused. The case is, deposit of Rs.30,00,000/- vide cheque on the basis of negotiable instrument and the company towards repayment and in discharge of liability of said deposit drew, issued and handed over a cheque bearing no.31151 dated 29.3.2002 drawn on Karnataka Bank Ltd., Fort, Mumbai. After ensuring statutory compliance since the payment was not made, the complaint as stated above is filed by respondent no.1. The learned Judge has issued process by order dated 13.6.2002. In another matter the cheque issued was for Rs.15,00,000/- a...
Jaysukh Raghla Patel Vs. the Land Acquisition Officer
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-2012
Oral Judgment: 1 This appeal is today fixed for final hearing. By this appeal, the appellant has taken an exception to the Judgment and order dated 20th April 2007 passed by the learned District Judge in a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). 2 The land subject matter of the reference was notified by a notification under section 4(1) of the said Act dated 6th March 1995. By an Award made on 28th February 1996 the market value at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per Acre was offered. By the said award, compensation of Rs.2,20,000/- was granted for standing trees. The statutory benefits were also offered. The appellant claimant accepted the compensation amount without recording any formal protest. On 1st March 1996, an application under section 18 of the said Act was made by the appellant seeking enhancement in market value. 3 A Reference was made to the District Court which was contested by the respondent by filing written statem...
M/S Shree Mallikarjun Shipping Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/S Balaji Logistics Carr ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-17-2012
In both these matters the parties are the same and the issues are interconnected. Therefore, both the matters are taken up and being disposed of by common judgment. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, heard forthwith. 4. M/s Shree Mallikarjun Shipping Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the applicant”) entered into a contract with M/s Balaji Logistic Carrier (hereinafter referred to as “the respondent”) dated 25.2.2008 as the seller and the applicant as the buyer for 40000 M.T. of Iron ore of 63.50% Fe contents at Rs.4,500/- per DMT. Since certain dispute arose between the parties in connection with the said contract the applicant issued notice dated 22.12.2009 calling upon the respondent to refer the dispute to an arbitrator and to agree to arbitration by nominated arbitrator. 5. On 29.12.2009, the applicant filed an application being Arbitration Application No. 20/2009 under Section 9 of ...
Himanshu @ Hemant @ Rajendra Bhatt Vs. the State of Maharashtra (at th ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-2012
The petitioner questions order of the Sessions Court in Sessions Case no.468 of 2005 dated 31st January,2011 passed in Miscellaneous Application no.233 of 2009 deleting Section 255 of IPC and wants that the trial be conducted by the Court of Magistrate. The petitioner is one of the accused in the Sessions Case. 2. The Chief Manager of Bank of Baroda has lodged complaint against twenty five borrowers on 3rd September,2004, that such persons produced forged documents with the bank and obtained loan giving rise to C.R.no.702 of 2004 of Goregaon Police Station. On examination of the accounts, it reveals that the petitioner has availed loan of Rs.12.50 lakhs from the said bank by submitting forged documents of M/s.Regal Enterprises and Hermitage Constructions to purchase the property at Shivling, Kashimira, Mira Road, Thane. The investigation indicates, the properties were not in existence. The franking impressions, stamp duty receipts, registration receipts of sale Agreement were forged/bo...
Maharashtra Tour and Travels and Bus Owners Association, Through Chief ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-17-2012
A.H. Joshi, J. 1] Public Interest Litigation No.32/2011 is filed by association of Contract Carriage Bus Operators. Its members own bus or buses and they run those for carrying passengers between fixed destinations after availing permit. In this petition, one Shri Rakesh Omprakash Agrawal, who is shown to be Chief Secretary, represents the petitioner. This petition is drafted in vernacular (Marathi) and is argued in Marathi by him. 2] Main prayer in the petition is aimed at challenge to taxation of the buses owned by the members of the petitioner association and classifying the same in the category of Item No.VII of First Schedule attached to Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958. 3] Rule has been issued and reply has been filed. 4] In the midst of hearing, in order to narrow down exact challenge, this Court had permitted Shri Rakesh Omprakash Agrawal representing the petitioner to reformulate and place on record description of exact scope and the compass of challenge. This Court had als...
Rakesh Omprakash Agrawal Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through Princip ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-17-2012
A.H. Joshi, J. 1. Heard both sides. 2. Perused the record. Petitioner has argued the case. Considering that the petitioner is appearing in person, we have heard the petition at quite length and have read every paper contained in the paper book. 3. In the midst of hearing, we had noticed that the annexures to the petition were not arranged in proper sequence. Therefore, it was difficult to understand the case. This court had guided the petitioner as to the usefulness of proper arrangement of annexures. Thereafter the petitioner sought leave to re-arrange the annexures. Leave to rearrange the annexures in date sequence and place on record fresh synopsis, index, etc. was granted. The petitioner had complied with this exercise and thereafter we have continued with the hearing of the petition. 4. Petitioner is resident of Jalna and is owner of motor vehicle No. MH-21/6123, which is registered as a public transport passenger contract carriage Bus. It is allowed to carry in it one driver, cle...
Mohammed Arif Akbar HussaIn Vs. M/S. A.R. Enterprises and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-2012
Oral Order: By this Summons for Judgment, the Plaintiff seeks that the judgment be entered against the defendant in the sum of Rs.1,29,00,383/- with interest and cost. 2. The suit is based on the contract and also admission of liability in the suit bearing No. 2771 of 2006 filed by the defendant against Mr. Nilesh Tanna and others including the plaintiffs herein. 3. According to the Plaintiff, defendants were introduced by Mr. Faizal Qureshi, son of defendant no. 2. The development agreement came to be executed between the defendants and Mr. Nilesh Tanna, M/s. Sai Developers and Bhavsar Construction Company. Under the said development agreement, the defendants agreed to develop the property. According to plaintiff, after negotiations with the plaintiff, a quotation dated 28th March, 2004 was issued by the plaintiff which was approved by the defendants. Work order came to be issued in favour of the plaintiff for carrying out the said work awarded to the defendants by the developers. Acc...
Shri Pandurang Shankarrao Padwal and Others Vs. the State of Maharasht ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-2012
Davare, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 4th October, 2008 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No.437/2007 thereby convicting the appellant nos.1 to 3 (original accused nos.1 to 3) (hereinafter referred to as per their original status as “accused nos.1 to 3”) for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC and sentencing each of them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and also convicting them for the offence punishable under Section 352 read with 34 of IPC and sentencing each of them to suffer imprisonment of three months and pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for seven days and directing that parents of deceased Mayur Damle be paid compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. after depositing the fine amount of Rs.15,000...
Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Valecha Engine ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-2012
Oral Judgment: The Petitioners, a Government of Maharashtra undertaking, have challenged the award dated 29 February 2008 passed by the Sole Arbitrator, as appointed on the basis of Arbitration clause in the agreement in question between the parties. 2 On or about December 2001, the Petitioners invited tender for Four Laning of Satara Kolhapur upto Maharashtra State Border Section of NH4 Package III from km. 639/000 to 668/000. The Petitioners awarded the work to the Respondents and issued a letter of acceptance. A formal contract was entered into between the parties. On 3 May 2002, a notice to proceed with the work was issued to the Respondents, which work was to be completed by 2 August 2004. On 1 June 2005, the work was completed by the Respondents. 3 Certain disputes arose between the parties in respect of the contract with regard to reimbursement of increase in royalty charges under the provisions of Clause 14 of the Special Conditions of Contract mentioned hereinabove and Price E...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »