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.
Shetkari Sahakari Sangh Limited Vs. Nashik District Central Co-operati ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-2012
Heard Mr. Inamdar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Gite, learned Counsel for the respondent at length. 2. Rule. Mr. Gite waives service. By consent of the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the Petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. By this Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner - original disputant has challenged the judgment and order dated 07.05.2012 passed by the learned President, Maharashtra Co-operative Appellate Court, Mumbai (for short 'Co-operative Appellate Court') in Revision Application No.26 of 2012. By that order, the Co-operative Appellate Court allowed the Revision Application preferred by the respondent challenging the judgment and order dated 10.02.2012 passed by the learned Judge, Co-operative Court, Nashik below Exhibit 42 in Co-operative Case No.1117 of 2004. The learned trial Judge allowed the application Exhibit 42 made by the petitioner for amendment of the dispute. The facts and circumstances...
Kapil Chopra Vs. Kunal Deshmukh and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-2012
CHIEF JUSTICE Greed and deceit are two human traits which are very often part of the stories of Hindi films. These traits also seem to be writ large on the defence of Respondents 1 and 2, (director and producer of film Jannat-2) in the action taken out by the appellant plaintiff for infringement of copy right and for breach of confidence, wherein it is the case of the appellant-plaintiff that the plaintiff had given to Respondent/Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.1 accepts that the plaintiff had given to Defendant No.1 the story for a film. 2. The plaintiff has filed Suit (Lodging) No.1182 of 2012 and also filed Notice of Motion (Lodging) No.1490 of 2012 for injunction against the release of the film Jannat-2 directed by Defendant No.1 and produced by Defendant No.2. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff had registered his script Zero with the Film Writers Association on 12 November, 2007 and that the film 'Jannat 2' was in clear infringement of plaintiff's script. It is the...
Smt. Vasanati Narayan Naik and Others Vs. Guru Shirodkar Alias Guru Ma ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-06-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, Shri G. Shirodkar, learned Counsel, in person and representing Respondent nos. 1 to 5, 7, 9 and 10 and Shri S. R. Rivonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent nos. 11 and 12. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel and the respective parties. The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents waives service. 3. The short point for consideration in the above Petition is the legality of the Order dated 30.06.2011 passed in Misc. 138/11/COND/TRA in Tenancy Revision Application no. UN-REG./2011. By the impugned Order, the Tribunal has refused to condone the delay occasioned to the Petitioners to file a revision challenging an Order passed by the learned Deputy Collector dated 29.04.2009 in Tenancy Revision Application no. 25/2008 upholding the Order of the learned Mamlatdar, dated 18.11.2008. 4. Shri Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, has assailed the impug...
Milton Coutinho s/o late Jose Claudio Agusto Vs. Antonio Minino Jose D ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-06-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri C.A. Coutinho, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri J. Godinho, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 to 6. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith by the consent of the learned Counsels. 3. Shri J. Godinho, learned Counsel waives service on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 to 6. 4. The above petition challenges an order passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Margao, in Regular Civil Suit No.96/1994 dated 17.03.2011 whereby an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code for amendment of the plaint filed by the petitioner at Exhibit 83 was partly allowed and the prayer for declaration sought to be incorporated by the petitioner was rejected. 5. Shri C.A. Coutinho, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner during the course of the hearing of the above petition has pointed out that the only ground on which the prayer for declaration was rejected by the learned Judge as the prayer was not valued and the petitioner has ...
Ganesh Ratan Ade Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-06-2012
Oral Judgment: (Borde, J.) Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, taken up for final disposal. 2. Petitioner herein is seeking writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus against respondents 2 and 3, directing them to pay petitioner arrears of salary for post of Assistant Teacher from 25.7.2007 to 30.6.2011. Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in respondent No.3 school by order dated 23.7.2007. Appointment of petitioner was as against post which does not receive any grant-in-aid. It is stated in the order of appointment that scale of pay admissible to petitioner would be Rs.5500-175-9000 and appointment was on a post not eligible for grant-in-aid. Initial appointment was for a period of two years and on probation. It is contention of petitioner that his services were continued and by order dated 24.7.2009 appointment of petitioner has been approved by Education Officer. It is further alleged by petitioner that his services hav...
Jethanand Thakurdas Karachiwala Vs. Dattatraya S/O. Ganpat Wani (Decea ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-06-2012
A short point arises in this Civil Revision Application is - whether the suit notice was a notice as contemplated under section 12(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1974? 2. The applicant is defendant in the lower Court. Respondent/plaintiff is owner and landlord in respect of the suit premises. It is a shop admeasuring 25 x 15 ft. on the ground floor. The tenancy was on monthly basis and the applicant/defendant was to pay monthly rent of Rs.200/-. In 1979, respondent/ plaintiff filed a suit for eviction of the applicant/defendant on the ground of unauthorized permanent structural change made in the suit premises. During the pendency of the suit on 21.04.1980, respondent/plaintiff sent a letter by registered post to the applicant/defendant. In this letter, several demands/requests were made. The letter is in Marathi and should be reproduced in verbatim in order to understand the implication of the same. The notice in Marathi reads as under :- "Me.Jethan...
Larsen and Toubro Limited Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-2012
S.J. Vazifdar, J. 1. This is a Reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, by an order dated 24th October, 1988, dismissed the applicant's appeal being ITA No. 2983/Bom/84, against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) pertaining to assessment year 1980-81. The Tribunal has referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this Court:- (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the weighted deduction under section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of bank interest and bank charges of Rs.28,20,501/- incurred by it on Export Packing Credit facilities? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in holding that the professional fees of Rs.71,200/- paid by the assessee in respect of its cement project was a capital expenditure and not revenue expenditure? (3) Whether on the facts an...
indrabahadur Lalbahadur Khatri Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-2012
Oral Order: By this application, the applicants are claiming that they are entitled to be released on bail, in view of Clause (a) of the first proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code). According to them, the period stipulated by the said proviso was over, when they applied for bail, but the investigation was still incomplete, and that as such, a right to be released on bail had accrued in their favour, which has been wrongly denied to them. 2 I have heard Mr.Amit Desai, the learned Senior Advocate for the applicants and Mr.Gadkari, the learned APP for the State. I have gone through the application and the annexures thereto. 3 The facts which are not in dispute, may be stated as under: The applicants were arrested originally in C.R.No.59 of 2011, which was registered with J.J.Marg Police Station, on 17.5.2011. On 23.5.2011, the investigation of the said C.R. was transferred to DCB CID Unit-I, and thereafter, the said C.R. was renumbered as 56 of 2011. It is an ...
Krishnan Venugopal Vs. Antonio Joao A. Braganza and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-05-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri A. D. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. None for the respondents though served. 2. The above petition challenges an order passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Mapusa, in Regular Civil Suit No. 58/1999 dated 08.06.2007 whereby an application filed by the petitioner to get himself impleaded in the suit as pendente lite transferee came to be rejected. 3. Shri Bhobe, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has pointed out that the law is well settled that the pendente lite transferee can be impleaded in the suit to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the petitioner himself has filed an application to be impleaded in the suit and any decree in the suit would affect the right of the petitioner in the suit property. The learned Counsel has taken me through the impugned order and pointed out that the learned Judge has erroneously dismissed the application on a spacious ground that th...
Shri Gokuldas Kumbharjuvenkar Son of Late Janardhan Vs. the Chief Secr ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-05-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.P. Lavande, J.) Heard Mr. Teles, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Noorani, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. 2. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30/07/2001 passed by respondent no.2 and the order dated 29/08/2001 passed by respondent no.1. 3. Briefly, the facts leading to filing of the present petition are as under: The petitioner was granted licence bearing No.169 by the State Government for wholesale of Indian made foreign liquor in the premises belonging to the Municipality of Bicholim, situated at Bicholim Taluka. The petitioner was also granted licence bearing no.178 for retail sale of Indian made foreign liquor/ country liquor in sealed bottles in the same premises. The petitioner was conducting business in the said premises. On 30/06/2001, the officers of the Excise Department conducted surprise inspection of the said premises. The team found certain irregularities having been committed by the p...
- ‹ Prev
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- Next ›
- Last »