Mumbai Court September 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.
M/S. Nagpur Sical Gupta Road Terminal Limited Vs. the Maharashtra Airp ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
The above Petition is filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the said Act”) by the Petitioner, M/s. Nagpur Sical Gupta Road Terminal Limited, inter alia seeking recall of the Order dated 10th July, 2012, passed by this Court in Arbitration Petition (L) No. 655 of 2012 and Arbitration Application filed under Section 11 of the said Act bearing Arbitration Application (L) No. 870 of 2012. 2. The Petitioner Company was established in the year 2007, and is a Joint Venture Company (‘JVC’) for the purpose of implementation of the project concerning development, operation and management of the Road Terminal in the MIHAN Project Area at Nagpur, alongwith the Respondent herein i.e. Maharashtra Airport Development Company Limited (‘MADC’). The Petitioner and the Respondent had entered into a Concession Agreement dated 20th April 2007 (“the said Agreement”). Under Clause 13.2 of the said Agreement the Petitioner and the...
imc Limited (Erstwhile United Storage and Tank ) Terminals Ltd. Vs. In ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
Oral Judgment: By this Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘The Arbitration Act, 1996’), the Petitioner (Original Claimant) seeks modification of the Award dated 23rd February, 2011 to the extent that the interest as claimed by the Petitioner is not awarded by the Arbitral Tribunal. 2. There is no dispute that there was an Arbitration Agreement between the parties and the matter was referred to the Arbitral Tribunal. By an Award dated 23rd February, 2011 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, certain claims made by the Petitioners are granted. The dispute raised in the present petition is in respect of the reliefs considered by the Arbitral Tribunal in paragraphs (42) to (44) of the impugned award. The Learned Counsel appearing for both the parties have informed that the Respondents had filed a petition (619 of 2011) challenging the same award allowing certain claims in favour of the Petitioner. By an Order dated 5th August, 2011 pas...
Smt. Jyoti Subhash Bhansale Vs. the Collector and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
Oral Order: 1 Rule, with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2 The challenge in the above Writ Petition is to the order dated 23/01/2012 passed by the learned District Judge-16, Pune by which order the Application filed by the Petitioner herein being Misc. Application No.209 of 2011 came to be allowed. Resultantly, the Petitioner was allowed to withdraw the amount of Rs.9,50,000/- deposited by the Respondent No.3 in the Trial Court in Land Acquisition Reference No.152 of 2004, however, the same was made subject to the Petitioner furnishing solvent surety for the said amount. The direction for furnishing solvent surety is being taken exception to by the Petitioner in the above Petition. 3 The land of the Petitioner was acquired for widening of the road at Kasba Peth, Pune by following the gamut of the process as laid down in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the said Act). The Special Land Acquisition Officer declared the Award on 29/03/2004 and direc...
Kalyansinh K. Kumpavat Vs. Prashant J. Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
The Petitioner has challenged the impugned Award dated 15 June, 2009 passed by the sole Arbitrator appointed under the bye-laws, rules and regulations of the National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. (NSEIL). 2 The basic events are as under: In March 2006, the Petitioner was approached by Respondent's Intermediaries M/s. Mahalaxmi Shares and commodities and convinced the Petitioner to invest in Share Trading and Derivatives. The Petitioner was made to sign some documents by the said Intermediaries, the copies of which were never provided to Petitioner till the matter was referred to arbitration. The Petitioner also issued a cheque to the said Intermediaries bearing Cheque No. 176763 from HDFC Bank only for Mappin purpose. The Petitioner never dealt directly with the Respondent. All the communication he did with the Respondent was only through the said intermediaries. 3 In May 2007, the Petitioner was again convinced by the said Intermediaries to invest in F and O segment stating that it wo...
M/S. Pancham International Vs. Union of India Through the Director of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
The Petitioner has challenged impugned Award dated 26 February 2009 passed by the sole Arbitrator. The operative part of the same is as under: 9.1 The Claim of the Claimant/UOI as at para 5 above for of Rs.7,45,800/- towards R/P Loss and Rs. 71,704/- towards GD loss is 1allowed in favour of the Claimant and against the Respondent firm with interest @ 12% p.a from its due dates till the date of payment. No cost of proceedings and any other incidental relief as sought are made. 9.2 The Claim of the Respondent firm at para 6(a) is 1disallowed' being `unjustified'. 9.3 The Claims of the Respondent firm as at para (b) and are also `disallowed' being `unjustified'. 2 This typical order based upon a situation which is required to be noted for the purposes of adjudication of any arbitration proceedings specifically when the same is governed by the agreed terms and conditions and where one party is Union of India and/or State, similarly placed undertakings and/or even private undertakings. Adm...
Vilas Bhalchandra Tandel Vs. Mrs. Minakshi Vilas Tandel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
Heard. Admit. By consent of parties appeal is heard finally at the stage of admission. A substantial question of law is formulated as under :- "Whether courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence of cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 and erred in granting divorce to the petitioner?" 2. The appellant/husband is an original respondent in the marriage petition. The respondent/wife has filed a Marriage Petition No.282 of 2004 for divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act 1955. The petition was allowed by the order dated 3.12.2008 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane. The appeal filed by the respondent was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 28.6.2011 by the District Judge, Thane. Thus the appellant challenges the judgment of the appellate court in the present Second Appeal. The petitioner and the respondent were married on 19.2.1981 at Vashi by hindu rites. After marriage they lived ...
M/S. Nagpur Sical Gupta Road Terminal Limited Vs. the Maharashtra Airp ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
The above Petition is filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the said Act) by the Petitioner, M/s. Nagpur Sical Gupta Road Terminal Limited, inter alia seeking recall of the Order dated 10th July, 2012, passed by this Court in Arbitration Petition (L) No. 655 of 2012 and Arbitration Application filed under Section 11 of the said Act bearing Arbitration Application (L) No. 870 of 2012. 2. The Petitioner Company was established in the year 2007, and is a Joint Venture Company (JVC) for the purpose of implementation of the project concerning development, operation and management of the Road Terminal in the MIHAN Project Area at Nagpur, alongwith the Respondent herein i.e. Maharashtra Airport Development Company Limited (MADC). The Petitioner and the Respondent had entered into a Concession Agreement dated 20th April 2007 (the said Agreement). Under Clause 13.2 of the said Agreement the Petitioner and the Respondent have agreed to have their disputes and diffe...
Ganesh Arun Chavan Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
P.C. The petitioner has been elected as a member of Gram Panchayat Bhor, Taluka Khed, Dist. Pune in the election held in the year 2010 and to be precise on 30th July 2010. His tenure is for a period of 5 years. The respondent No.3 made an application seeking to disqualify the petitioner. That application made under section 16 of the Act sought to disqualify the petitioner on three grounds viz., section 14(1)(g), 14(1)(h) and 14(1)(j-3) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act (for short Act). 2. It is not necessary to refer to the grounds under section 14(1)(g) and (h) of the said Act because what has survived for consideration through out is the ground of the petitioner allegedly having encroached on Government Land or public property, which is traceable to section 14(1)(j-3) of the Act. 3. The third respondent who made the complaint alleged that the petitioner has been elected from ward No.4. He is residing with his father Arun Chavan. Mr.Arun K.Chavan has encroached on the land which bel...
Datta S/O Tanaji Ingole and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard rival arguments at length on this Criminal Appeal preferred by all three appellants/ convicted accused. The challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment and order of conviction passed in Atrocity Case no.56/1996. By the said impugned judgment and order dated 6th August 1998, all the three appellants-accused were convicted of the offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 10 days each. The appellants-accused were also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months each. 2. Prior to appreciating rival submissions and the material available before the Special Court, certain factual position is required to be n...
Ratan S/O. Babhootsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra (Through the S ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.P. Bhangale, J.) 1. The appeal is preferred against the Judgment and Order of conviction passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge-3, Amravati on 23.6.2008 in Sessions Trial No.15 of 2008 whereby the learned trial Judge found appellant/accused Ratan Babhootsingh Rathod guilty and convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appellant/accused was also found guilty for the offence punishable u/s.498-A of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs.500/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. The facts, which are stated briefly, are as under: That, on or about 18.10.2007, a report was lodged at Police Station, Kurha, District Amravati by Ramchandra Dashrath ...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »