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.
Sangita Deepak Jare Vs. State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary to ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. This Writ Petition of Habeas Corpus has been filed by the wife of the detenu Shri Deepak Sharad Jare, praying for quashing and setting aside of the preventive detention order passed against him on 14.3.2012 by the Principal Secretary (Appeals and Security), Government of Maharashtra, Home Department and the Detaining Authority in exercise of powers u/s 3(1) of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short, hereinafter referred to as “the COFEPOSA Act”), with a view to prevent the detenu in future from smuggling goods. The detenu was served with the grounds of detention and the documents accompanying therewith. The grounds of detention served on the detenu were accompanied by material referred to and relied upon by the Detaining Authority and which was the basis for recording of subjective satisfaction that it was necessary to detain Deepak Sharad Jare to prevent him from indulging in prejudicial activitie...
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...
Ashok Magharam Kularia Vs. Country Club (India) Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
By this Summons for Judgment, the Plaintiff seeks that judgment be entered for the Plaintiff in this suit against the Defendant for a sum of Rs. 1,53,08,942.32 and further future interest on the principal sum of Rs.1,53,08,942.32. The suit is based on the written contract annexed at Ex. ‘E’ to the plaint. 2. In the month of August 2007, the Defendant approached the Plaintiff for the construction of interior, air conditioner, electrical and certain minor exterior works at the Defendant’s property at Kovalam, known as ‘Treasure Cove’ situated at Trivandrum. The Defendant appointed its architects M/s. Niteen Parulekar Architects Pvt. Ltd. who provided the scope of work, drawings and specifications to the Plaintiff. On 21st August, 2007, the Plaintiff submitted its first quotation to the Defendant. The Defendant appointed a structural consultant for the purposes of advising and opining as to various structural works. The Defendant forwarded report/note of the ...
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 amo...
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 smuggli...
Smt.Shanta Prakash Shewale Vs. the Principal Secretary (Appeals and Se ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
A.M. Khanwilkar, J. This Writ Petition is filed by the wife of Prakash Pandurang Shewale, to challenge the detention order passed against him, under Section 3(1) of COFEPOSA Act, 1974, at the pre-detention stage. The Petition is filed on the assertion that the Petitioner, being wife of the proposed detenu Prakash Shewale, is interested in the life and personal liberty of her husband. She has asserted that she has reason to believe that her husband is likely to be detained. This inference is deduced on the basis of grounds of detention served on the co-detenu Ajit Bapu Satam, who has been detained under the provisions of COFEPOSA Act in connection with the activities in which the Petitioner's husband is also allegedly involved. The Petitioner has thus relied on the grounds of detention served on co-detenu Ajit Bapu Satam and the documents accompanying thereto. 2. The Petitioner asserts that her husband has been granted bail by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai on 26th...
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...
Goculdas Dossa and Company Vs. Kirtikumar Mulji Thakkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
Oral Judgment: By this Summons for Judgment, the Plaintiff seeks to recover a sum of Rs. 8,53,757/- with interest at the rate of 14% per annum. The suit is filed on the basis of Conducting Agreement dated 15th October, 2009. On 15th October, 2009 the Plaintiffs and Defendant have entered into a Conducting Agreement to run Plaintiffs’ factory at Yavatmal during the period 1st November, 2009 to 31st May, 2010 on the terms and conditions mentioned in the said agreement. The Defendant agreed to execute a bank guarantee for Rs. 10 lacs of a nationalized bank in favour of the Plaintiffs as and by way of security. Clause (17) of the said Agreement provided that the Defendant was to pay by way of royalty of Rs. 6,50,500/- for a period of seven months from 15th November 2009 to 31st May, 2010. The said clause records that seven postdated cheques of various amounts were issued by the Defendant to the Plaintiffs totaling to Rs.6,50,500/-. 2. According to the Plaintiffs, a cheque of Rs.10 la...
Mohammed Arif AllahuddIn Khan and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
P.C.: 1. Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP. The petitioner has asked for two reliefs. First relief is for quashing of F.I.R. and the criminal case registered against the petitioner bearing C.R.No.39 of 2012 registered at Dharavi Police Station for offences punishable under Section 326, 324 r/w. 34 of I.P.C. and Section 4 and 25 of the Arms Act. 2. The second relief is to quash and set aside the show cause notice issued to the petitioner by the Appropriate Authority under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 3. Reverting to the first relief, the argument is that the victim, on affidavit has stated that the injury caused to him was due to fall while he was climbing the wall to put up the flag on the top of the roof and not by any weapon or knife, as is noted in the F.I.R. This affidavit of the victim, on whose complaint F.I.R. has been registered is placed on record at Exhibit L, page 72. This argument has been countered by the learned APP by pointing out the st...
State, Through Police Inspector Vs. Sidhesh Shetgaonkar
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
Oral Judgment : Heard Mr. D. Lawande, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State-Appellant and Mr. V. Menezes, Advocate for the respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused'). 2. By this appeal, the appellant-State takes exception to the Judgment and Order dated 16th September, 2009, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Ponda, Goa in Criminal Case No. 97/S/06/A, acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). 3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is as under: On 14th February, 2006, at about 11.20 a.m. at Manaswado, Kundai on National Highway 4, the accused drove the tanker bearing registration No. GA-01, Z-2715 in a rash and negligent manner while proceeding from Ponda to Panaji and dashed against the mini bus bearing registration No.GA-02, T-4634 which was driven by PW.2 Mohan Naik. On account of the accident, simple injuries were caused to PW.2 Mohan Naik and five other passengers travelling in the mini...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »