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.
New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shivdas Pandurang Mopari, Amravat ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-13-2012
Oral Judgment: The judgment and award dated 29.9.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amravati in M.A.C.P. 1308/1998 is challenged in this appeal. 2] The facts may be stated thus: On 22.8.1987 the offending vehicle met with an accident because of its rash and negligent driving by the original respondent no.1. One Shivdas who was travelling in said vehicle sustained multiple injuries mainly injuries to Cervical Vertebrae C3 to C6 of the quadriparesis and chest. He sustained 100 % permanent disability and for that claim petition was filed. During pendency of the petition he died and therefore his legal heirs were brought on record. 3] The original respondent no.1 and 2 appeared before the Tribunal and resisted the claim. It was their case that one truck dashed against the jeep and caused accident. The original respondent no.3 - appellant herein appeared and filed written reply. It was their case that deceased was travelling as a fare-paying passenger. Further responde...
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...
Padma Thakore and Another Vs. Dilip Sumanlal Shah and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-2012
Oral Order: Rule. With the consent of the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The above Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 15th June 2012 passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court by which order the application filed by the Petitioners herein for being permitted to lead evidence on the preliminary issue came to be rejected. The said rejection as can be seen from the impugned order is on the ground that the relief sought is only against Defendant Nos.1 and 2 and that the Defendant No.3 Society being a formal party, the Court has only to deal with the said issue on the basis of pleadings. It is the case of the Petitioner that they desire to bring certain jurisdictional facts on record so as to facilitate the adjudication of the said preliminary issue which was as regards the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in the context of the fact that the Petitioners as well as Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the members o...
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range - 2 Vs. State of Maha ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-2012
Oral Order: All these applications can be conveniently disposed of by this common order, as the facts in all these cases and the questions involved, are the same. 2. The applicant is the original complainant. He was the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, at the material time. Claiming to be acting on behalf of the Income Tax Department, he had prosecuted the respondent nos.2 and 3 herein, by filing 17 separate complaints, in respect of offences punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. The Learned Magistrate, on 29 December 2010, dismissed all the said complaint cases by separate orders, and acquitted the respondent nos.2 and 3, who were the accused in the said complaint cases, by invoking the provisions of section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter "the Code" for the sake of brevity). 4. The applicant/appellant, being aggrieved by the said order of acquittal, is seeking leave to file an appeal, challenging the said orders of acquittal. 5. For t...
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...
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...
Ramrao Venkatrao Rane Vs. Sanjay Rane and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-13-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri Prasheen Lotlikar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri G. Agni, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waives service. 3. The above petition challenges an order passed by the learned District Judge-1 dated 25/01/2012 whereby an application filed by the petitioner to produce two documents viz. one survey plan and the other Deed of Gift and Adoption dated 24/01/1908 came to be dismissed. 4. Shri P. Lotlikar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the ground that whilst remanding the matter before the learned District Judge this Court by judgment dated 10/12/2010 passed in First Appeal No.184/2004 had given liberty to the parties to adduce further evidence in accordance with law. The learned Counsel has further pointed out that the petitioner came across the said Deed of Gift only therea...
New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shivdas Pandurang Mopari, Amravat ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-13-2012
Oral Judgment: The judgment and award dated 29.9.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amravati in M.A.C.P. 1308/1998 is challenged in this appeal. 2] The facts may be stated thus: On 22.8.1987 the offending vehicle met with an accident because of its rash and negligent driving by the original respondent no.1. One Shivdas who was travelling in said vehicle sustained multiple injuries mainly injuries to Cervical Vertebrae C3 to C6 of the quadriparesis and chest. He sustained 100 % permanent disability and for that claim petition was filed. During pendency of the petition he died and therefore his legal heirs were brought on record. 3] The original respondent no.1 and 2 appeared before the Tribunal and resisted the claim. It was their case that one truck dashed against the jeep and caused accident. The original respondent no.3 appellant herein appeared and filed written reply. It was their case that deceased was travelling as a fare-paying passenger. Further respondent no.1...
Mrs. Z.H. Lamak Vs. Accountant General â Ii, (a and E) Maharashtr ...
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 ...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »