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.
Pradeep Mandhana Shivam Vs. Pramod JaIn Green Park Extension and Other ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. By the consent of the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The short question which arises for consideration in the above petition is as regards the entitlement of the Petitioner for being impleaded in S.C. Suit No.817 of 2011 filed by the Respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein. The order which is impugned in the Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is the one dated 12th April, 2012, by which order, the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Dindoshi, Mumbai rejected the Chamber Summons being Chamber Summons No.636 of 2011 filed by the Petitioner herein for his impleadment. 3. The suit in question being S.C. Suit No.817 of 2011 has been filed by Respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein principally for the relief, which is contained in prayer clause (b) of the Petition. The said prayer clause (b) is reproduced herein under for the sake of convenience. “(B) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that the defendants more particu...
M/S. Media Masters and Another Vs. M/S. Reasonable Advertising Pvt. Lt ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-2012
The Petitioner has challenged impugned order dated 13th March, 2009, passed by the Sole Arbitrator. 2. The operative part of the Award is as under: AWARD A) The Claim of the Claimants is allowed and it is hereby ordered that the Respondents shall pay Rs.29,51,000/- to the Claimants pursuant to this award alongwith interest of Rs.12% p.a. from 15th August, 2006 to till the date of realization. B) The counter claim of the Respondents is rejected and dismissed with no order as to cost. The Respondents to bear their own costs for defending the claim and also cost in the counter claim. 2. The basic events as per the Petitioners are as under: On 4th April, 2006, the letter granting approval by Surya TV to Onam Bumper for initial telecast of 65 episodes on Monday to Friday during prime time slot at 10.00 to 10.30 p.m. stating that each episode should be of 25 minutes and allotting 240 seconds of Free Commercial Time (FCT) which could be marked. 3. On 19th May, 2006, execution of the Contract ...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Nana Bal Patil @ Rane (Deceased) Through Heir ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Oka, J.) On the earlier date, we had heard submissions of the learned AGP appearing for the State of Maharashtra and the learned counsel appearing for the original Claimants. The challenge is to the common Judgment and Order dated 6th December, 2000 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Raigad at Alibag by which the References under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") were decided. 2. The notification under Section 4(1) of the said Act was published on 26th November, 1987. The acquired lands are situated at village Morbe, Taluka - Khalapur, District - Raigad. The purpose of acquisition was for construction of Morbe Dam. The Award under Section 11 of the said Act was made on 3rd September, 1999. The market value at the rates of Rs.4/to Rs.5/- per sq. meter has been offered under the Award. The Claimants did not accept the market value and, therefore, at their instance, the references under Section 18 of...
Pradeep Mandhana Shivam Vs. Pramod JaIn Green Park Extension and Other ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. By the consent of the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The short question which arises for consideration in the above petition is as regards the entitlement of the Petitioner for being impleaded in S.C. Suit No.817 of 2011 filed by the Respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein. The order which is impugned in the Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is the one dated 12th April, 2012, by which order, the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Dindoshi, Mumbai rejected the Chamber Summons being Chamber Summons No.636 of 2011 filed by the Petitioner herein for his impleadment. 3. The suit in question being S.C. Suit No.817 of 2011 has been filed by Respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein principally for the relief, which is contained in prayer clause (b) of the Petition. The said prayer clause (b) is reproduced herein under for the sake of convenience. (B) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that the defendants more particularly d...
M/S. Karan Developers Vs. the Municipal Corporation of the City of Pun ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-2012
Oral Judgment (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) : 1. 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 Petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. Though several ancillary reliefs have been claimed in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, the primary relief which has been sought is that the Pune Municipal Corporation be directed to grant TDR for an area admeasuring 3094.78 sq. mtrs. in lieu of the lands from final plot Nos.405, 406 and 407 of TPS III (Final), Pune acquired under an agreement dated 24 May 2000 under Section 126(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act 1966. 3. On 17 September 1982, the Government of Maharashtra approved the draft development plan for Pune city. Under the draft development plan, the land which is now the subject matter of dispute was shown for the purposes of road widening. On 5 October 1982 a ...
Sheikh Shabbir Vs. Shaikh Yusuf
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-10-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Pereira, learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. By this appeal, the appellant ('the accused') takes exception to the judgment and order dated 31/12/2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vasco-da-Gama in Criminal Case No.66/OA/NIA/09/C acquitting the respondent of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the Act' for short). 3. The case of the complainant in brief is as follows: The accused approached the complainant with the proposal that he wanted to extend his business of processing quick and quality photo film processing, by purchasing New Digital Film Processing Unit, Konica 808 Gold, run by him under the name and style F. M. Studio and requested the complainant to invest an amount of Rs.5 Lakhs in the said business. The accused also assured the complainant that the business would fetch good profits and the complainant would get an amount of ...
Arvind N. Savani Vs. Maganlal Savani and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-2012
1. This Chamber Order was taken out by defendant No.1 before the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court for obtaining discharge of his Solicitors and for handing over papers and proceedings. The Papers and proceedings have already been handed over to him by the firm of Solicitors (the firm) representing him. That matter has not been disputed. 2. The Defendant No.1 contended in the Chamber Order that the firm has not given him the NOC for filing the Vakalatnama of the new advocates, whom defendant No.1 seeks to appoint, on the ground of non payment of certain outstanding fees as shown in the correspondence between the parties. The learned Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court has considered the contentions of the parties and held that the firm stood discharged by his order dated 25th July, 2012. 3. It is that order which is sought to be challenged by praecipe filed before this Court. 4. It is contended by the firm that as officers of the Court their right to obtain reasonab...
Thane Municipal Corporation and Others Vs. Municipal Labour Union
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-2012
Oral Judgment: The Petitioners have challenged impugned order dated 4 November 2011, passed by the Industrial Court, Thane. The case of the Petitioners is as under:- 2 The Respondent is one of the unions of employees of Petitioner No.1 corporation. The Respondent is not recognized union. To ensure compliance with Municipal Solid Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000 (for short, MSW Rules, 2000) requiring scientific collection and disposal of waste generated in the city of Thane, Petitioner No.1 issued advertisement dated 7 May 2005 calling quotations from contractors for the work. The Respondent, being aggrieved filed Complaint (ULP) No. 211 of 2005 in the Industrial Court, Maharashtra at Thane. It was inter-alia alleged that the said public notice dated 7 May 2005 was in breach of agreement dated 23 June 2004 between the Corporation, Employees' union and the State Government. It was also alleged that the work of garbage collection and disposal could not be given on contract. 3 ...
Antonio Sebastiao Gandalupe Da Costa, (Since Deceased) Through His Leg ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-07-2012
This is plaintiffs' Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiffs had filed Special Civil Suit No. 22/78/I for a declaration that they are entitled to ownership and possession of right to one half of the five properties identified in the plaint with the right to enjoy one half of its produce from the said properties, the same right being acquired by them by way of succession and prescription. The plaintiffs further prayed for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from obstructing the plaintiffs, their families and servants from entering and staying in the suit house no. 12970 and from collecting their share in the income of the properties identified in the plaint. The plaintiffs lastly prayed for mandatory injunction directing the defendants who are in charge of the said agricultural properties to deliver to the plaintiff annually half of the produce in kind or money valued at Rs. 200/- since 15/06/1976 onwards. 3. Case of the plaintiffs was as follows: The plaintiff no.1 and Benedito Fra...
Ramesh Ashruba Ghodake and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-07-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Adv. Mr. K.S. Bhore for the petitioners, learned APP Mr. N.B. Patil for respondent nos.1 and 2, and Adv. Adv. Mr. V.V. Ingle for respondent nos.1 and 2. 2. At the request of learned Advocate for the petitioners, leave to amend granted and the order passed by the revisional court, to the extent of Clause (iii) thereof, is permitted to be challenged in the present petition. Amendment be carried out forthwith. 3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing. 4. By the present petition filed by the petitioners, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and also under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, they have prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 15-2-2011, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Tuljapur [District : Osmanabad], below Exhibit 1 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 252/2010, and also prayed for quashing and setting aside t...
- ‹ Prev
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- Next ›
- Last »