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.
The Bagayatdar Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. Vs. Vernon Vaz
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-11-2012
Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. By this appeal, the appellant takes exception to the judgment and order dated 15/01/2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ponda in Criminal Case No.101/NIA/2009/C acquitting the respondent of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the Act' for short). The appellant is the complainant while the respondent is the accused in the above case filed by the appellant for dishonour of the cheque dated 12.11.2008 for an amount of Rs.1,74,430/-. 3. The case of the complainant is that the accused issued the above referred cheque towards part payment of the loan availed by him. The cheque was delivered by the respondent on 12/11/2008 to Mr. Dayanand Chari. The defence of the accused is that a signed blank cheque was given by him at the time of sanctioning the loan agreement along with the other cheques and the said cheque was misused by the complainant to recover the money which is not due a...
Jeevanjyoti Krida and Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Vs. State of Maharashtr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-2012
Oral Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) Rule, by consent made returnable forthwith. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents waive service on behalf of the respective Respondents. By consent, the Petitions are taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. The Petitioner (in Writ Petition 949 of 2012) is registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act 1950 and conducts a secondary school and a D.Ed. College, its activities being mainly confined to the district of Solapur. The Petitioner has challenged a Government Resolution dated 30 August 2011 by which the Social Justice Department of the State Government allowed the application of the Fourth Respondent for the transfer of a primary Ashram School from Deggewadi in the district of Solapur to the district of Yavatmal. 3. In 2003 the Petitioner had submitted a proposal to the Special District Welfare Officer, Solapur for opening a new primary Ashram School in the taluka of Akkalkot of the district of Sol...
The United Goans Shanti Concern Vs. the Chief Secretary, Government of ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-11-2012
Oral Judgment: (S.A. Bobde, J.) Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. We are not inclined to entertain this petition as prayed in view of the Judgment in the case of, SaraswatiIndustrial Syndicate Ltd. etc. Vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1975 Supreme Court 460, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows: “24. As the appeals fail on merits we need not discuss the technical difficulty which an application for a writ of certiorari would encounter when no quasi-judicial proceeding was before the High Court. The powers of the High Court under Article 226 are not strictly confined to the limits to which proceedings for prerogative writs are subject in English practice. Nevertheless, the well-recognised rule that no writ or order in the nature of a Mandamus would issue when there is no failure to perform a mandatory duty applies in this country as well. Even in cases of alleged breaches of mandatory duties, the salutary general ...
The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Others Vs. Dalamal Tow ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-2012
The Reference : On a difference of opinion between Mr.Justice D.K.Deshmukh and Mr.Justice R.G.Ketkar, constituting a Division Bench, in an appeal arising out of the decision of a Single Judge, the following question of law has been sent for reference to a third judge: “(i) In view of the repeal of the Bombay Rent Act and enactment of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, is the Bombay Municipal Corporation justified in taking into consideration the actual amount of rent received or receivable by the landlord in relation to the units which are let out, but where the lease is exempted from the provisions of the Rent Act for determination of annual letting value with effect from 1 April 2000?” The Controversy: 2. Section 140 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, provides for the levy of taxes on buildings and lands in Brihan Mumbai. These taxes which are called property taxes comprise of: (i) water tax; (ii) additional water tax; (iii) sewerage tax; (iv) additional sewera...
Jeevanjyoti Krida and Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Vs. State of Maharashtr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-2012
Oral Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) Rule, by consent made returnable forthwith. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents waive service on behalf of the respective Respondents. By consent, the Petitions are taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. The Petitioner (in Writ Petition 949 of 2012) is registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act 1950 and conducts a secondary school and a D.Ed. College, its activities being mainly confined to the district of Solapur. The Petitioner has challenged a Government Resolution dated 30 August 2011 by which the Social Justice Department of the State Government allowed the application of the Fourth Respondent for the transfer of a primary Ashram School from Deggewadi in the district of Solapur to the district of Yavatmal. 3. In 2003 the Petitioner had submitted a proposal to the Special District Welfare Officer, Solapur for opening a new primary Ashram School in the taluka of Akkalkot of the district of Sol...
The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Others Vs. Dalamal Tow ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-2012
The Reference : On a difference of opinion between Mr.Justice D.K.Deshmukh and Mr.Justice R.G.Ketkar, constituting a Division Bench, in an appeal arising out of the decision of a Single Judge, the following question of law has been sent for reference to a third judge: (i) In view of the repeal of the Bombay Rent Act and enactment of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, is the Bombay Municipal Corporation justified in taking into consideration the actual amount of rent received or receivable by the landlord in relation to the units which are let out, but where the lease is exempted from the provisions of the Rent Act for determination of annual letting value with effect from 1 April 2000? The Controversy: 2. Section 140 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, provides for the levy of taxes on buildings and lands in Brihan Mumbai. These taxes which are called property taxes comprise of: (i) water tax; (ii) additional water tax; (iii) sewerage tax; (iv) additional sewerage tax; (v) ge...
Dhirajilal Vishanji Chedda and Others Vs. Kshitija Infrastructure Pvt. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-2012
Oral Judgment:- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. Since parties and issues involved are similar, these Civil Revision Applications are being disposed of by common judgment. The representative facts are taken from the first matter, viz., Civil Revision Application No. 662 of 2012, for the sake of brevity and convenience. 3. By this Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the applicant is challenging the orders of the learned Single Judge and Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, whereunder the applicant's plaint is rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 (d), of C.P.C. 4. Respondent No. 1 is the owner and landlord of the suit premises, and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are the Authorities under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976. The applicant filed a suit for declaration that his possession of the suit premises is protected under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 and by prayer (b), a declaration is sought that the...
Smt. Maria Antonetta Pereira E Miranda and Others Vs. the Society of t ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-11-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri S. S. Kakodkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Shri J. Godinho, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no.1. None for the other Respondents. 2. The above Appeal challenges the Judgment and Award passed by the Reference Court dated 29.11.2006, whereby a reference preferred by the Appellants under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (herein after referred to as the said 'Act'), came to be rejected. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that pursuant to a Notification under Section 4 of the said Act dated 10.09.2003, land belonging to the Appellant admeasuring an area of 2500 square metres from the property bearing P. T. Sheet no. 16, Chalta no. 8, Sub-division 4 of Margao City, was acquired for the purpose of constructing a school complex. By an Award passed under Section 11 of the said Act dated 10.04.2005, the Land Acquisition Officer, offered a compensation at the rate of Rs.8/- per square metre besides a sum of Rs.13,400/- for th...
Gopinath S/O Baban Pawar and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-11-2012
Oral Judgment: (U.D. Salvi, J.) 1. The appellants assail their conviction for the offence punishable under section 302 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also consequent sentence to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months each imposed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Beed in Sessions Case No. 112/2011 on 23rd February, 2012 in the present appeal. 2. The appellants were husband, brother-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased Mangal respectively. 3. According to the prosecution, the deceased Mangal succumbed to the 72% burn injuries sustained in the incident which occurred at her residence situated at Neknoor around 8.00 pm on 7/3/2011; and the appellants/ accused along with the absconding accused-Pooja had set her on fire. 4. Law was set in motion on registration of crime at Cr.No. 26/2011 under Section 307, 504 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Neknoor Police Station ...
The United Goans Shanti Concern Vs. the Chief Secretary, Government of ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-11-2012
Oral Judgment: (S.A. Bobde, J.) Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. We are not inclined to entertain this petition as prayed in view of the Judgment in the case of, SaraswatiIndustrial Syndicate Ltd. etc. Vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1975 Supreme Court 460, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows: 24. As the appeals fail on merits we need not discuss the technical difficulty which an application for a writ of certiorari would encounter when no quasi-judicial proceeding was before the High Court. The powers of the High Court under Article 226 are not strictly confined to the limits to which proceedings for prerogative writs are subject in English practice. Nevertheless, the well-recognised rule that no writ or order in the nature of a Mandamus would issue when there is no failure to perform a mandatory duty applies in this country as well. Even in cases of alleged breaches of mandatory duties, the salutary general rule, w...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »