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 Polytronic Corporation and Others Vs. M/S Tukaram S. Loliencar and ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-14-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri P. A. Kamat, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no.1(b). 2. Admit on the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether the learned Civil Judge Senior Division at Margao could have decreed the suit when the respondent had not produced the accounts book to prove the payment of amount and establish the liability? (2) Whether the learned Civil Judge Senior Division at Margao could have granted interest @ 20% per annum when the law provides existing rate of interest which could not have been more than 6% per annum? 3. Heard forthwith by consent of the learned Counsels. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no.1(b) waives service. 5. The above appeal challenges the judgment passed in Special Civil Suit No. 156/1999 dated 12.03.2001 whereby the suit filed by the respondents was decreed and the appellants were inter-alia directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,77,975/- with fur...
Skygourmet Catering Private Limited and Another Vs. Mars Hotels and Re ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-2012
Heard Mr. P. K. Dhakephalkar, learned Senior Counsel for petitioners and Mr. Aspi Chinoy, learned Senior Counsel for respondents at length. 2. Rule. M/s. Jhangiani Narula and Associates waive service for the respondents. By consent of the parties, rule is made returnable forthwith and the Petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. By this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Skygourmet Catering Private Limited, petitioner No.1 (original applicant No.1), hereinafter referred to as SKY and WAH Restaurants Private Limited (earlier known as Mars Restaurants Private Limited) (original applicant No.2), hereinafter referred to as Mars or M.R.P.L, as the case may be, have challenged the judgment and order dated 13.12.2011 passed by the learned Judge of Small Causes Court at Bombay, Bandra Bench in R.E.S. Application No.8/RES/2011 as also the judgment and order dated 10.07.2012 passed by the Appellate Bench of Small Causes in Revision Application No.234 of 2011. By these ord...
Abhang S/O Laximan Jadhav Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-13-2012
1] Heard respective learned counsel for the parties. 2] By the present appeal, the appellant i.e. original accused has taken exception to the conviction and sentence imposed upon him by way of judgment and order, dated 26.8.2011, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir in Sessions Case No. 4 of 2011, thereby convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer S.I. for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for six months; and also convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer S.I. for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further S.I. for six months. 3] The factual matrix, which gave rise to the present appeal, is as follows:- The first informant i.e. P.W.3Rajkumar Choukate lodged a report with Jalkot police station on 15.10.2010, alleging that when he wa...
Anant Bondre Vs. Alfred David Fernandes and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-13-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. G. Teles, learned Advocate for appellant, Mr. J. Godinho, learned Advocate for respondent no.1 and Mrs. M. Pinto, learned Public Prosecutor for respondent no. 2. 2. By this appeal, the appellant challenges judgment and order dated 6.2.2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Margao in Criminal Case no. 1117/OA/NI/05/D by which respondent no.1 has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ( 'the Act' for short). Respondent no.1 was prosecuted for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act on account of dishonour of cheque dated 20.4.2005 for Rs.5,00,000/-. 3. The Judicial Magistrate by the impugned Judgment and order has acquitted the accused for the said offence. 4. Although several contentions have been raised by Mr. Teles on behalf of the appellant, it is not necessary for me to consider the same inasmuch as the appeal is liable to be disposed of on very short point. 5. In para...
The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vijay S/O Marotrao ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-13-2012
Oral Judgment: This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.1.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amravati, in M.A.C.P. No.100/2009, granting compensation of Rs.6,23,900/- to the respondents no.2 to 7 on account of death of one Faganu caused in a motor vehicular accident involving auto-rickshaw owned by respondent no.1 and insured with the appellant. 2] The appellant/ insurance company had set up a defence that the Driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid driving licence. The learned Tribunal after assessing the evidence found that the driver-cum-owner - respondent no.1 herein had a driving licence, but it was not renewed and thus was not valid on the date when the accident occurred. He therefore accepted the defence that there was breach of term of insurance policy, however, directed the appellant - insurance company to satisfy the award at the first instance and then to recover it from the respondent on.1. 3] Mr. ...
Mrs. Z.H. Lamak Vs. Accountant General And#8211; Ii, (a and E) Maharas ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-13-2012
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) The petitioner, now aged about 75 years, has in this petition questioned the order dated 31.07.1996 by which an amount of Rs.1,04,989/- is directed to be recovered from her terminal/ retiral benefits. 2. Having heard Shri Haq, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Dangre, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents No. 1 and 2, Shri Kaptan, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and Shri Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent No. 4, we find that the basic facts are not in dispute. The petitioner joined services in 1963 as a Tutor in English and in 1977 that post was upgraded as Lecturer with effect from Academic Session 1975-76. In 1977 only she acquired additional qualification Diploma in Teaching in English Language and because of Government Resolution dated 25.10.1977, she was placed in the post of Lecturer. 3. The Government Resolution on revision of pay scales issued on 27.02.1989 shows a Scheme for Career Advancing in its clau...
Jyoti W/O Rajkumar Sahajwani Vs. Shri Sadhu S/O Safarmal Manjani and A ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-13-2012
1. Heard rival arguments on this criminal appeal for final hearing. Perused the record and proceedings and also synopsis of arguments, advanced by the rival parties. 2. This criminal appeal is preferred by the appellant/original complainant, challenging the judgment and order of acquittal, passed in Case No.630/1999 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, 7th Court, Nagpur. 3. By the impugned judgment and order, dated 2.1.2003, the complaint filed by the present appellant was dismissed and present respondent no.1/original accused was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 4. In order to appreciate the rival submissions in the present appeal and scope of the interference in the judgment of acquittal, certain factual position and also case of complainant can be briefly stated as under. 5. During the relevant time of the year 1996 or there about, the power of attorney of complainant firm was engaged in the business of sale and purchase of ...
The Colva Civic and Consumer Forum and Others Vs. the State of Goa Thr ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-13-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.P. Lavande, J.) Heard Mr. Costa Frias, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mrs. Alvares, learned Amius Curiae, Mr. Salkar, learned Government Advocate for respondents no.1 and 3, Mr. Teles, learned Advocate for respondent no.2 and Mr. Lawande, learned Advocate for respondent no.4. 2. By this petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs: (a) For a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby commanding the respondent no.2 to immediately arrange for and set up a garbage dumping/ Sanitary Landfill and Solid Waste Management site for the villages of Colva, Vanelim, Sernabatim and Gandaulim in accordance with the provisions of the Goa Non-Biodegradable Garbage (Control) Act, 1996 and the Goa Non-Biodegradable Garbage (Control) Rules, 1997. (b) For a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby commanding the respondent no.2 to immedia...
Gunaji K. Govekar Vs. State of Goa Through the Chief Secretary Home an ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-13-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.P. Lavande, J.) Heard Mr. D. Pangam, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Pankaj Vernekar, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 4. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the orders passed by respondent nos. 4 and 3 and further seeks writ of mandamus directing respondents to re-instate the petitioner back in service with all back wages and other statutory benefits. 3. In the year 2000, petitioner was working as Police Constable. On 1.8.2001, chargesheet was issued to the petitioner under Police Subordinate Service (Discipline And Appeal) Rules, 1975 ( 'the Rules' for short) alleging that the petitioner had turned hostile in a Criminal Case. The petitioner filed reply. Respondent no. 5 submitted report to the disciplinary authority, i.e respondent no. 4. Respondent no. 4 issued memorandum dated 29.1.2002 stating that he tentatively agreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. The petitioner was called upon to show cau...
WoodwIn Interior Decorators and Furnitures and Others Vs. George Peter ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-13-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri V. Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri Sudin M.S. Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent waives service. 3. The above petition challenges an order passed by the Administrative Tribunal dated 16/12/2011 passed in Eviction Revision Application no.8/2011 whereby the revision preferred by the petitioners came to be rejected and the learned Tribunal has allowed the application under Section 32(4) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, and directed the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent within a period of 30 days and on failure to do so the Rent Controller was directed to stop all proceedings and hand over the possession to the respondent herein. 4. Shri V. Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has challenged the impugned judgment on the ground that th...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »