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.
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...
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...
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, ...
Manohar S/O. Rangnath Jagtap Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
1. Feeling aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dt.9.4.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Buldana in Special Anti-Corruption Case No.3 of 2000, whereby the appellant/accused has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w. Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months on the first count and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month on the second count, the appellant/accused has preferred the present appeal. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned Judgment and Order as also both the oral and the documentary evidence adduced on record. 3. The facts, briefly stated, are as under: That the appellant/accused was working as an Accountant at Mahatma ...
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 Defendants 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 consultant to the Plaintiff. 3. On ...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Upkarsing Samshersing Aroara and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
State has preferred both the aforesaid appeals against the judgment and order dated 13th March, 1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, acquitting of each of the respondent in respective appeal from the charge of the commission of offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 by reversing finding of a guilt for commission of such offences by each of the respondent in aforesaid appeal arrived by JMFC Court No.3, Pune, in RCC No.136/1995 of the said Code and awarding sentence of RI for one year with payment of fine of Rs.1000/- by each of them and in default of payment of fine, ordering them to suffer RI for three months. 2 The prosecution of each of the respondent for commission of such offences has arisen out of the chargesheet submitted by PW5 PI Pir Mohammed Abdul Gaffar Japharbhai of Bund Garden Police Station, Pune, on 27th September, 1995 for commission of such offences and the offence under Sect...
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 lacs date...
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...
Ajitsingh Harnamsingh Vs. Geetabai T. Mishra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
Oral Judgment: On 6th July, 2012, when this Petition was called out for final hearing, after noticing that the Petitioner was appearing in person, this Court directed that intimation be given to the Petitioner of the date fixed in the Petition. Accordingly, the office report shows that the intimation has been given. This Court had appointed Shri Nitin Deshpande, Advocate to espouse the cause of the Petitioner who was appearing in person. Though the Petitioner appearing in person was not present, I have heard Shri Nitin Deshpande, Advocate appointed to espouse the cause of the Petitioner. 2. The Petition arises out of the obstructionists proceedings in execution of the decree passed in a suit filed by the Petitioner against the first Respondent by the Court of Small Causes. It appears that the Petitioner filed a suit for eviction against the first Respondent contending that he was the owner and landlord of the suit premises being Room No.1, more particularly described in the suit. The P...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »