Mumbai Court August 2012 Judgments
ishwar S/O Vithalrao Mohite Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through the S ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioner, is a Police Patil and runs a retail kerosene shop at village Ghodki, Tq. Washi, Dist. Osmanabad since the year 1997. 3. The respondent no. 3 issued show cause notice to the petitioner calling explanation from the petitioner as to why the kerosene dealership should not be cancelled as he was appointed as Police Patil. The said notice was issued relying on the Govt. Resolution dated 13/10/2006. The respondent no. 3 thereafter cancelled the kerosene retail licence of the petitioner on the count that petitioner being a Police Patil is a Govt. servant and not entitled for licence of kerosene retail shop. 4. The petitioner being aggrieved by order of respondent no. 3 filed Appeal before the Commissioner [Supply]. The Commissioner [Supply] dismissed the said Appeal. The petitioner preferred Revision before the Hon’ble ...
Tag this Judgment!AmiruddIn JamaluddIn Sayyed Vs. Medha Gadgil, the Principal Secretary ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.M. Khanwilkar, J.) 1. This petition, is filed by the brother of detenu-Saiyed Jamaluddin Naeemuddin, praying for issuance of writ of habeas corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and for quashing and setting-aside the preventive detention order passed by the Principal Secretary (Appeals and Security), Government of Maharashtra, Home Department and the Detaining Authority dated 26th September, 2011 bearing No.PSA-1211/CR-17(1)/SPL/3(A), in exercise of powers under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act, 1974. 2. The petitioner has raised diverse grounds for quashing and setting-aside the impugned preventive detention order passed against his brother. 3. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, we, tentatively, indicated that the first ground urged by the petitioner appears to be a formidable ground and the petition can be disposed of on that basis without going into any other contention articulated in the memo of writ petition. However, the said ground, wou...
Tag this Judgment!Maharashtra Film Stage and Cultural Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. M ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
The Petitioner, a Government of Maharashtra Corporation, (original Respondent) has challenged Arbitral Award dated 28 July 2008. The operative part of the Award is: (a) The Respondent is ordered and directed to pay to the claimant the sum of Rs.3,16,30,770/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum to be calculated as under: I) On Rs.86,30,770/- from 18.04.2002 till payment or realisation, whichever is earlier; II) On Rs.1,70,00,000/- from 14.05.2002 till payment or realisation, whichever is earlier; III) On Rs.60,00,000/- from 23.10.2002 till payment or realisation, whichever is earlier. (b) the Respondent is ordered and directed to pay to the Claimant further sum of Rs.1,61,27,759/- with interest thereon to be calculated @ 12% p.a. From the date hereof till payment or realisation, whichever is earlier; (b)(i) Counterclaim is not considered for want of jurisdiction; (c) the Respondent is ordered and directed to pay to the Claimant the costs of arbitration quantified at Rs.26,08,354/...
Tag this Judgment!Angel Capital and Debt Market Limited Vs. Sharad Munot
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
The Petitioner-stock broker, has challenged award dated 16 May 2009, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, in the matter of Arbitration under the Bye-laws, Rules and Regulations of the National Stock Exchange of India Limited (for short, NSEIL). 2 The operative part of the order is as under:- AWARD 1 The claim of the Applicant, Mr. Sharad Premraj Munot is accepted for Rs. 1,63,11,371/- being the losses incurred by him on account of squaring off position by the Respondent. 2 The additional claim of Rs.1,17,21,022/- for not selling the shares of pool account on 21st January 2008 stands rejected. 3 The claim of Rs. 37,88,787.50/- stands fulfilled as the Applicant has already received credit for Rs.47,01,570.96/- from the Respondent against this amount. 4 The claim of Rs.80,000/- towards losses on account of short sale of Hindustan Unilever shares also stands fulfilled as the Respondent has agreed to compensate for...
Tag this Judgment!Panna Atmaram Bhansali Vs. Tinoo M. Bhansali and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
1. The plaintiff is one of the daughters of the deceased one Shakuntala Mansen Damodardas Bhansali. The deceased executed her last will and testament on 28.04.1977 which is sought to be probated. The plaintiff is one of the 4 executors/executrices appointed under the will of the deceased. 2. It is the plaintiffs case that the will has been executed by her mother in the presence of 2 attesting witnesses, her solicitor and the solicitors clerk when she was in a sound and disposing state of mind. 3. The defendant is the brother of the plaintiff. It has been the defendants contention that the will was not validly executed at the volition of his mother and that the plaintiff has by certain misrepresentation and influence got the will executed. 4. Based upon these pleadings the following issues have been framed which are answered as follows: ISSUES1Whether the writing and document being Exhibit A to the petition is the last will and testament of the deceased testatrix Shakuntala Mansen Bhans...
Tag this Judgment!Mazda Construction Company and Others Vs. Sultanabad Darshan Chs Ltd. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
Oral Judgment: 1 Heard. 2 Rule. The Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 3 By this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners are challenging the order dated 11.04.2012, copy of which is at Annexure-A to the Writ Petition, by which the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai City-3 and Competent Authority under Section 5A of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (for short MOFA), on an application bearing No.55/2011 has directed as under:- In exercise of the powers conferred on me under Section 5A of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963, I, S.P.Ghorpade, District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai City (3), Competent Authority under Section 5A of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963, 1. certify under sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Kotak Securities Ltd. Vs. Gaurav Goel and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
The Petitioner has challenged the Award dated 8th May, 2007, passed by an Arbitral Tribunal constituted under the rules, regulations and bye laws of the National Stock Exchange of India Limited (NSEIL). The operative part of the Award is as under: Resultantly we award Rs.26,16,321.00 to the claimant and if the respondent does not deposit the amount within one month the claimant shall be entitled to future interest @ 12% p.a. on the said amount till the amount is paid 2. The basic events/dates as per the Petitioner are as under: On 1st November, 2004, the Petitioner and the Respondent No.1 entered into a Member Client Agreement (The agreement). The transactions/dealing took place accordingly. 3. On 28th December, 2004, Respondent No.1 allegedly wrote a letter with hole month standing instructions. It was handed over to Mr. Abishekh Bhargave, who was at that time, was a Relationship Manager of the Petitioner. As per the letter, as Respondent No.1 was. going to have a very busy schedule f...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Bombay Trading Co. Vs. M/S. Jai Santoshi Maa Enterprises
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
By this Summons for Judgment, the Plaintiff seeks that judgment be entered for the Plaintiff in this suit against the Defendant for Rs.11,32,569.54 and for interest and costs. 2. The suit is based on an invoice dated 26th January, 2008. The Plaintiff is registered partnership firm and carries on business of manufacturing of Ayurvedic products under the head of Noorani Tel (Oil). It is the case of the Plaintiff that vide invoice dated 26th January, 2008, the Plaintiff supplied a bulk of quantity of Noorani Tel (Oil), an Ayurvedic product to the Defendant for a sum of Rs. 6,99,117/-. The said goods were delivered to the Defendant. The Defendant received the invoice. There is no dispute that in respect of the earlier transaction held between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, payment has been already made by the Defendant to the Plaintiff. 3. It is the case of the Plaintiff that since Defendant did not make payment in respect of invoice dated 26th January, 2008, the Plaintiff through his ad...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ms. Vaishali Harish Devare and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
Oral Judgment: The parties were put to notice on the earlier date that the appeal will be heard finally at the stage of admission. Accordingly, the appeal was taken up for final hearing. The learned counsel for the first to third respondents on instructions states that the said respondents do not desire to prefer either cross appeal or cross objection for challenging the impugned Judgment and Award. We accept the said statement. 2. Before we proceed to deal with the facts of the case and the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel for the contesting parties, we may note that initially this appeal was placed before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge by order dated 2nd August 2012 came to the conclusion that the appeal pertains to the jurisdiction of the Division Bench. When we called upon the registry to submit an explanation as to why the appeal was placed before the learned Single Judge, the Registrar (Judicial-I) has placed on record order dated 6th December 2010...
Tag this Judgment!Amey Prakash Kasbekar Vs. the Director, Medical Education and Research ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. The Petitioner was admitted to the Krishna Medical College at Karad, a Deemed University, in July 2009 for pursuing the M.B.B.S. degree course. The Petitioner passed his first MBBS examination on 26 July 2010. The Petitioner submitted an application for transfer from Krishna Medical College to Lokmanya Tilak Municipal Medical College, at Mumbai on or about 8 September 2010. The Petitioner obtained, before submitting the application, a no objection certificate of the relieving institution. On 14 September 2010, the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences (`MUHS') also granted its approval for the transfer/migration of the Petitioner to the Lokmanya Tilak Municipal Medical College at Mumbai. The Petitioner was informed by a letter dated 30 December 2010 of the Director, Medical Education and Research, Mumbai that his name was not listed in the transfer list because of a restriction on the number of transfers from the receiving college for the regular batch o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »