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.
Shaikh Aziza Parveen W/O Shaikh Hafeez and Another Vs. Mohd. Qusro S/O ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-07-2012
1 This civil revision application is challenging the order dated 28th May, 2012 passed by the Presiding Officer, Maharashtra Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad allowing the Respondents’ application for temporary injunction in Wakf Suit No.54 of 2011. 2 It is common ground that property bearing City Survey No. 2543 at Aurangabad is a Wakf property. City Survey map is produced on record at Page No.65, which shows its position. It is a rectangular plot of land on which there are two structures. One structure standing on South-East part is utilized as Ashurkhana and the other structure of North side is used for residence in which the Petitioners / Defendant Nos.1 and 2 or their family members reside. It is also an admitted fact that this house property situated on the suit plot of land, is in residential use of the Petitioners / Defendant Nos.1 and 2 and their family members for quite some time. There is an open space on the suit plot, which is lying on the Western side of Ashurkhana. 3 The R...
Malad Kokil Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and Another Vs. the Mode ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-2012
Suit No. 1005/2011 has been filed by the plaintiff Society for a decree directing the defendants 1 and 2 or any other person found to be the owner of the property to convey the suit property admeasuring about 10,208.40 sq. meters and for declaration that the concessions/relaxations granted by the defendant no.7 on the Approval Report dated 5th December, 2009 are bad in law, malicious etc. The plaintiffs have also prayed for cancelling the said approval report. The plaintiffs have also prayed for declaration that commencement certificate dated 13th October, 2010 is null and void. The plaintiffs have also prayed for an injunction restraining the defendants from making any construction in furtherance to the commencement certificate dated 13th October, 2010 alongwith the other ancillary reliefs. The plaintiffs have also taken out a notice of motion for grant of certain interim-reliefs during the pendency of the suit. The plaintiffs had also moved the Court for grant of ad-interim orders. T...
M/S. Gulraj Engineering Construction Co. Vs. Hotel Corporation of Indi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-2012
The Petitioners, Original Claimants, have challenged award dated 14 January 2009, passed by the Sole Arbitrator, appointed in view of the contract agreement dated 28 April 2000 and 22 October 2001, for the works of renovation of 60 Guest Rooms together with connected shafts and corridors at Centaur Hotel, Mumbai Airport, Mumbai and also renovation of additional 60 Guest Rooms together with connected Shafts and corridors at Centaur Hotel, Mumbai Airport, Mumbai. 2 The summary of award is as under:- Claim No.DetailsAmountClaimed by Claimant in Rs.AmountAwarded to Claimant in Rs.Remarks1Interest for Delayed Payments Ph-I9,52,403.881,70,916.00Compensation for delayed payment for the period between schedule date of payment (15.09.01) and actualdate of payment (10.06.02) @ 10% of final amount payable.2Escalation-Ph:15,08,711.00NilThe contract does not contain specific escalation clause and formula.3Silicon Sealant-Ph-I45,232.0045,322.00The seepage was due to design of windows in Phase-I. The...
Escolastico Mazarello Vs. Dr. Stacey Moraes
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-07-2012
This is plaintiff’s Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiff had filed Special Civil Suit No. 237/91/A for declaration that the defendant has no right to occupy the room of the flat on the first floor of the northern block belonging to the plaintiff in the building named “Bela Vista Apartments” after revocation of the licence and expiry of 30 days time given to him to quit and vacate the said room; for direction to the defendant to quit and vacate the said room and lastly for recovery of monthly fee of Rs. 250/- from December, 1990 to May, 1991 and for payment of compensation of Rs.1000/- per month by the defendant from June 1991 for illegal possession of the said room till the same is restored to the plaintiff. 3. Case of the plaintiff, in short, was as follows: He is the owner of a flat located on the first floor of the northern block facing the Luiz Miranda Road, Margao in the building known as “Belavista Apartments”. The second floor of the said northern block ...
Jeremias Serafino Basilio Rodrigues Vs. M/S. P.V. Builders, Through It ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-07-2012
Oral Judgment : Heard Shri J. Godinho, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Susan Linhares, 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 learned Civil Judge, Junior Division at Mapusa dated 12/06/2012 whereby an application under order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code for amendment of the plaint came to be rejected. 4. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner filed the suit against the respondent inter alia raising the dispute with regard to the legality of the construction put up by the respondent in the property surveyed under no. 59/11 of Arpora Nagoa, Bardez Taluka. On the basis of such allegations the petitioner sought for a permanent injunction to restrain the respondent from carrying out any such construction and for mandatory injunction to demolish such construct...
Haffkine Bio-pharmaceuticals Corporation Ltd. Vs. Keshav Dhanbahadur G ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 2 The Petitioner has challenged impugned order dated 7 July 2012 passed by the Industrial Court, Pune, thereby rejected the Revision Application without assigning any reason. By this Revision, the Petitioner has challenged order dated 27 June 2012 passed by the Labour Court, Pune, whereby it is held that “Enquiry conducted against complainant is legal, fair and proper, however, finding of the enquiry officer is perverse”. “There was no sufficient evidence before him to prove misconduct.” Except referring to the judgments against such interlocutory order of the Larbour Court, the Industrial Court, has not given any reasons on merits of the matter. 3 The order passed by the Labour Court, treated as “preliminary issue”. The order/action based upon the enquiry report and/or the conduct of enquiry always goes to the root of the matter. The findings so given, as recorded above if challenged, the Rev...
Holy Spirit Hospital and Another Vs. BenjamIn Fernandes and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-2012
1. Rule in Writ Petition No. 2225 of 2011. Learned Counsel waives service on behalf of Respondent. Since Rule is already issued in Writ Petition No. 1646 of 2011, on the request of the learned Counsel, both the Petitions are heard finally. 2. These two cross Petitions impugn an award dated 10 May 2011 passed by the Labour Court in Reference (IDA) No. 107 of 2008. Writ Petition No. 1646 of 2011 is filed by the Petitioner-Hospital (hereinafter referred to as 'the Hospital') aggrieved by that part of the impugned award whereby the punishment awarded by the management was altered and instead of dismissal from service, two increments of the workman were ordered to be withheld permanently and the workman was directed to be reinstated with continuity of service. Writ Petition No. 2225 of 2011 is filed by the Petitioner-workman (hereinafter referred to as 'the workman') aggrieved to the extent of denial of back wages and the withholding of two increments permanently. 3. The Hospital is establi...
Rangnath S/O. Shripati Tate Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-07-2012
1. Heard Adv. Mr. A.S. Deshmukh, for the appellant, and learned APP Mr. N.B. Patil, for the respondent. 2. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 10-11-2011, rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani, in Sessions Trial No. 113/2011, thereby convicting the appellant (original accused) [hereinafter referred as per his original status i.e. 'accused'] for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years, and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months. In fact, accused was charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC but was acquitted thereunder and came to be convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of IPC, as aforesaid. 3. The brief facts which gave rise to the present appeal are as follows:- (a) The incident, in question, occurred on 2-3-2011 at about...
State (Cbi) Vs. Bhimraj Sagar and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-07-2012
Oral Judgment: This appeal has been preferred by CBI, challenging the order of acquittal dated 1st December, 2004, passed by the Special Judge, South Goa, Margao in Special Case No. 4 of 2002 (new), acquitting the respondent-accused of the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The charge against the respondent-accused was that for the period from 17.1.1989 to June, 1995, while functioning as Operation Officer at Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Vasco Terminal, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa he abused his official position and amassed wealth disproportionate to his known source of income i.e. he acquired total assets worth Rs.8,33,000/- and was in possession of disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs. 4,58,773/- and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. 4. Prosecution examined 25 ...
M/S. Tata Motors Ltd. Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary, Minist ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-2012
R.Y. Ganoo, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel Mr. Jetly waives service on behalf of the respondents. By consent, petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. By this petition, the petitioners are seeking following reliefs. “(i) Clause No.7 of the circular bearing No. 643/34/2002-CX dated 1st July, 2002 issued by the respondents to the extent it states that cost of PDI and free after sales services incurred by the dealers are includable in the assessable value of the vehicles be quashed and set aside. (ii) The Circular No. 681/72/2002-CX dated 12th December, 2012 issued by the respondents be quashed so far as it relates to the period after 1st July, 2000. (iii) The order in original dated 5th December, 2011 passed by respondent no.2 by which it is held that cost of PDI and free after sales services have to be included in the assessable value of the vehicles sold by the petitioners be quashed and set aside. (iv) The judgment delivered by the CESTAT in...
- ‹ Prev
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- Next ›
- Last »