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. Ess Dee Nutek Infinites Pvt Ltd. Vs. M/S. Print Art Digital
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-2012
S.R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 18/01/2011 passed in consumer complaint no.798/2008, M/s.Print Art Digital v/s. M/s.Ess Dee Nutek Infinities Pvt.Ltd. and others; by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolhapur. The alleged consumer complaint pertains to supply of defective Digital printing machine viz. Nutek Skywalker 3208 (herein after referred as printing machine) for a total consideration of Rs.20 lakhs. Forum upholding the contention of the complainant awarded compensation to the extent of part amount of consideration paid i.e. Rs.14,50,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. and further compensation of Rs.10,000/- and costs of Rs.2,000/-. Feeling aggrieved thereby opponent/supplier of the machine viz. M/s.Ess Dee Nutek Infinities Pvt.Ltd. (herein after referred as the supplier) preferred this appeal. 2. At the outset it may be mentioned that as per copy of the original complaint on record the supplier is shown as op...
The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Vandana Wd/O Pradip Ramteke a ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
Oral Judgment: This appeal arises out of the judgment and award dated 23.8.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandrapur in M.A.C.P. No.123/2001, whereby the claimants were awarded compensation of Rs.11,81,000/- on account of death of one Pradip Ramteke occurred in a motor vehicular accident on 7.8.2001 involving truck bearing No. MH-31-1809 insured with the appellant. While the deceased was riding bicycle he was knocked down by the truck and caused his death. He left behind him widow, three minor children and his mother. The learned Tribunal, after considering the income of the deceased worked out the loss of dependency at Rs.73,200/- p.a. and by applying multiplier of 16, having regard to the age of the deceased, awarded amount of Rs.11,81,000/-. 2] Mr. Joshi, the learned counsel for the appellant raised only issue regarding quantum of compensation. According to him the widow of deceased is given compassionate employment by the employer i.e. Western Coalfields and in ...
Union of India, Through the Director, General Naval Project Dgnp (Mb) ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
The Petitioner, by the present Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Arbitration Act), has challenged the awards. 2 The basic facts are as under:- On 16 March 1999, the Petitioner invited Tenders for provision of Civil Works for Non Weapon Repair Facility for Naval Dockyard, Mumbai (NWRF) vide Tender Notice. On 26 July 1999, the Petitioner issued tender documents to all shortlisted Contractors, including Respondent No.1 herein. 3 On 8 March 2000, the Petitioner accepted the offer of Respondent No.1 for a sumpsum amount of Rs.4,55,60,775.24. The contract Agreement (“the agreement”) was entered into between the parties on 31 May 2000. M/s. Moti Enterprises was subsequently reconstituted and renamed as M/s. Suraj Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. 4 On 28 August 2003, an Amendment No. I to the Agreement, dated 31 May 2000 was issued with regard to the building in respect of Item No.1 of Schedule A part I. The scheduled date of completio...
Kritika Nagpal of Mumbai Vs. Geojit Financial Services Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
Oral Judgment: The Petitioner-Original Respondent, has challenged award dated 24 September 2008, by invoking Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Arbitration Act). 2 The Petitioner appointed the Respondent to effect transactions on the Futures and Options Segment of National Stock Exchange of India Limited (for short, NSEIL). 3 On 22 January 2008, the Respondent as alleged squared off the outstanding positions of the Petitioner. The disputes and differences arose between the parties. The Petitioner filed a complaint against the Respondent with NSEIL. The Respondent filed a claim against the Petitioner to recover a sum of Rs.35,19,225.42 together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a.. The petitioner filed written statement and a counter claim for a sum of Rs.9,17,203.72 together with interest thereon at the rate of 18% p.a.. 4 The learned Arbitrator passed award dated 24 September 2008, thereby rejecting the counter claim filed by the Petitioner and a...
V.M. Salgaoncar and Brother Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. the Deputy Colle ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
U.V. Bakre, J. The above two appeals are taken up together for final disposal since both of them arise from the judgment and award dated 30/1/2006 passed by the learned District Judge, South Goa, Margao (Reference Court, for short) in Land Acquisition Case No. 71/2000. 2. The appellant in First Appeal No. 145/2006 was the applicant; the Dy. Collector and S.D.O., Quepem was respondent no. 1 and the Dy. Chief Executive Officer, Goa Industrial Development Corporation was respondent no. 2, in the said L.A.C. No. 71/2000. The parties shall be referred to in the manner as they appear in the cause title of the impugned Award. 3. Heard Mr. A. F. Diniz, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Narvenkar, learned Additional Government for the respondent no. 1 and Mr. H. D. Naik, learned counsel for the respondent no.2. 4. Vide notification issued under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and published in the Official Gazette dated 5/10/...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Santosh S/O. Bhagwan Joshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
Oral Order: (P.D. Kode, J.) The State-applicant has sought leave to prefer an appeal against the Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 7th May, 2012 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad at Alibag in Sessions Case No.100 of 2006 acquitting the respondent original accused from the charge of commission of offences under Sections 302, 201 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The said prosecution was initiated by the Taloja Police Station, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad as a result of investigation of C.R. no.108 of 2005 registered with the said police station upon the report (Exhibit-17) lodged by PW.1 Mohsin Abdulla Shaikh, husband of the victim Nasima on 18th September, 2005 regarding the commission of such offences by the respondent at Village Ovepeth on the same day. The Trial Court after appreciation of a prosecution evidence predominantly of circumstantial nature acquitted the respondent. 3. Mr. P.S. Hingorani, Learned APP vehemently contended that the trial court miserably failed...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt.Archana Bhupendra Jahagirdar and O ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
Oral Judgment: By order dated 22nd August 2012, we directed that the appeal will be taken up for final hearing at admission stage. 2. On 14th September 2012, when we had taken up the appeal for final hearing, the learned counsel for the first and second respondents on instructions stated that the said respondents do not intend to prefer either cross objections or a cross appeal for challenging the impugned Judgment and Award. 3. This appeal preferred by the appellant-insurer takes an exception to the Judgment and Award dated 21st November 2011 passed by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Mumbai. The first and second respondents are the claimants in the claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The compensation is claimed on account of death of one Bhupendra in motor accident occurred on 10th May 2003. The deceased succumbed to the injuries on 11th May 2003. There is no dispute that at the time of accident, the offending ...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Shankar Pandurang Kijbile
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
Oral Order: (P.D. Kode, J.) The applicant - State seeks leave under section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Rule 19 and Chapter XXVI of Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules for preferring appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 10th May, 2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khed, District Ratnagiri in Sessions Case No.9 of 2009. By the said judgment and order the respondent was acquitted of the charge of commission of offences under sections 376, 452 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The said prosecution was lodged by Guhagar police station as a result of investigation of Crime No.49 of 2008 registered with said police station upon complaint Exhibit-21 lodged by victim P.W.1 on 22nd November, 2008 regarding commission of such offences by the respondent - her brother-in-law, on previous day in her house at village Kumbhawane-wadi. The trial Court after appreciation of the prosecution evidence has acquitted the respondent. 3. Mrs.V.R.Bhos...
Union of India, Through the Director, General Naval Project Dgnp (Mb) ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
The Petitioner, by the present Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Arbitration Act), has challenged the awards. 2 The basic facts are as under:- On 16 March 1999, the Petitioner invited Tenders for provision of Civil Works for Non Weapon Repair Facility for Naval Dockyard, Mumbai (NWRF) vide Tender Notice. On 26 July 1999, the Petitioner issued tender documents to all shortlisted Contractors, including Respondent No.1 herein. 3 On 8 March 2000, the Petitioner accepted the offer of Respondent No.1 for a sumpsum amount of Rs.4,55,60,775.24. The contract Agreement (the agreement) was entered into between the parties on 31 May 2000. M/s. Moti Enterprises was subsequently reconstituted and renamed as M/s. Suraj Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. 4 On 28 August 2003, an Amendment No. I to the Agreement, dated 31 May 2000 was issued with regard to the building in respect of Item No.1 of Schedule A part I. The scheduled date of completion for Phase-II...
Kritika Nagpal of Mumbai Vs. Geojit Financial Services Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-2012
Oral Judgment: The Petitioner-Original Respondent, has challenged award dated 24 September 2008, by invoking Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Arbitration Act). 2 The Petitioner appointed the Respondent to effect transactions on the Futures and Options Segment of National Stock Exchange of India Limited (for short, NSEIL). 3 On 22 January 2008, the Respondent as alleged squared off the outstanding positions of the Petitioner. The disputes and differences arose between the parties. The Petitioner filed a complaint against the Respondent with NSEIL. The Respondent filed a claim against the Petitioner to recover a sum of Rs.35,19,225.42 together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a.. The petitioner filed written statement and a counter claim for a sum of Rs.9,17,203.72 together with interest thereon at the rate of 18% p.a.. 4 The learned Arbitrator passed award dated 24 September 2008, thereby rejecting the counter claim filed by the Petitioner and a...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »