Mumbai Court September 2012 Judgments
Phulchand S/O Uttamrao Andhare and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtr ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties the matter is taken up for final hearing. 2. Both the Writ Petitions are based on similar facts and involve common question of law as such are decided together. 3. The petitioners in both these petitions were issued licences for running LoknatyaKala Kendras. The same were issued by the Additional Collector, Latur under Rule 92 of the Rules for Licensing and Controlling Places of Public Amusement (Other than Cinemas) and Performances for Public Amusement Including Mela, Tamashas, 1960. The said licences of the petitioners are in force till 2015 as contended by the petitioners. 4. It appears that show cause notices were issued to the petitioners seeking explanation from them as to why their licences should not be cancelled. The said notices are received by the petitioners on 17.08.2012. On 21.08.2012, the petitioners sought time to file their say. On same day i.e. on 21.08.2012, respondent no. 3 Thasildar ...
Tag this Judgment!Ferani Hotels Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Nusli Neville Wadia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
PC : 1. The Appeal, in which the Chamber Summons has been taken out, arises from a decision of a learned Single Judge dated 15 December 2010 dismissing a Miscellaneous Petition seeking : (i) revocation or annulment of an order dated 20 November 2003 authorizing and permitting the Respondent to continue as an Administrator of the estate of E.F.Dinshaw; and (ii) the appointment of a fit and proper person as an Administrator. The appeal has been admitted and is placed on board for hearing and final disposal. The Chamber Summons has been taken out under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (`the Code') for allowing the Appellant to produce additional evidence consisting of fifteen documents of which a list has been appended as a schedule to the Chamber Summons. 2. When the Chamber Summons came up for hearing on 1 August 2012, this Court noted in its order that save and except for a bald averment in paragraphs 13 and 15 of the affidavit-in-support to the effect that the A...
Tag this Judgment!Vijaykumar Hariram Sahu and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra and O ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. Rule. Counsel for the Respondents waive service. By consent, the Rule is made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal, by consent and on the request of learned counsel. 2. A delicate and sensitive issue arises before the Court in this case. It concerns the regulation by the State of the transplantation of human organs. The case traverses medicine, social ethics and law and has profound human implications. The noted German philosopher, Hegel, is attributed with the thought that "genuine tragedies in the world are not conflicts between right and wrong but conflicts between two rights." Whether the First Petitioner should or should not be allowed to donate a kidney necessary to save the life of the Second Petitioner is an agonizing question falling in the same genre. Both the Petitioners are men of modest, if not humble means. One seeks to donate his kidney to the other, stating that they are bound by a bond of attachm...
Tag this Judgment!R.P.R. Nair Vs. Ambaji Niketan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and A ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
Oral Order: By this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the concurrent orders passed at an interlocutory stage by the Cooperative Court and the Maharashtra State Cooperative Appellate Court Mumbai. The Trial Court in a dispute which was filed, being CC-I/08/12, has passed an interlocutory order which is in the following terms:- (a) that the petitioner who is respondent No.1 shall hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the flat on the first floor of the building bearing No.21 within a period of one month from the date of the order, i.e. 21st June 2012. (b) If the petitioner fails to hand over vacant and peaceful possession, then, the Advocate who is appointed as private receiver shall take possession from the petitioner and hand it over to the first respondent society - original disputant. (c) The petitioner was to be given 15 days advance notice by the Receiver. Thereafter the Receiver was to make a report to the Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Vrinda Bharat Mhapsekar Vs. Bharat Prabhakar Mhapsekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
V.M. Kanade, J. The applicant is seeking following reliefs:- A) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to Order and direct the Respondent to pay an amount of Rs. 25,000/- p.m. to the Appellant towards the maintenance of son Uday; and a further sum of Rs. 25,000/- p.m. towards maintenance of the Appellant; and B) That the Respondent be Ordered and directed to provide residence i.e. a Flat comprising of atleast One room-kitchen, for the Appellant and her son Uday; C) That the respondent be Ordered and directed to forthwith return to the Appellant the remaining gold ornaments and 3 articles of son Uday, which are ear-marked at "Ex" annexed herewith, as decreed by FC, and directed by this Hon'ble Court, OR alternatively, the Respondent be directed to pay to the Appellant an equivalent amount/value of the said gold/articles lying in custody/possession of Respondent. D) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the Appeal the Respondent be ordered and directed to repay Rs. 1,00,000/- (R...
Tag this Judgment!Ferani Hotels Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Nusli Neville Wadia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
PC : 1. The Appeal, in which the Chamber Summons has been taken out, arises from a decision of a learned Single Judge dated 15 December 2010 dismissing a Miscellaneous Petition seeking : (i) revocation or annulment of an order dated 20 November 2003 authorizing and permitting the Respondent to continue as an Administrator of the estate of E.F.Dinshaw; and (ii) the appointment of a fit and proper person as an Administrator. The appeal has been admitted and is placed on board for hearing and final disposal. The Chamber Summons has been taken out under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (`the Code') for allowing the Appellant to produce additional evidence consisting of fifteen documents of which a list has been appended as a schedule to the Chamber Summons. 2. When the Chamber Summons came up for hearing on 1 August 2012, this Court noted in its order that save and except for a bald averment in paragraphs 13 and 15 of the affidavit-in-support to the effect that the A...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Mohanlal Girdhani Vs. M/S. Percept Picture
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard finally by consent at the admission stage. 2. The Petitioner has moved this Petition under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (for short 'Arbitration Act'), alleging that there is an arbitration agreement which permit the Petitioner, who is the Writer member, to lodge a complaint before the Writers' Association as well as Producers' Association (IMPPA). Except averments, there is nothing on record. The Petitioner however, indicates that a complaint dated 8th September 2012 filed before the Writers' Association (Dispute Settlement Committee). A similar application dated 11th September 2012 is also filed before the IMPPA. The case is that all these applications could not be considered, since the Tribunal/ Committee are not available for adjudication and as there is urgency, in view of the fact that the Film called "KAMAAL DHAMAAL MALAMAAL" is due to release on 28th September 2012. It is also averred that his idea/script got registered in the year 2008 ...
Tag this Judgment!Pralhad S/O. Babanrao Thombre Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Adv. Mr. A.D. Aghav for the petitioner, and learned APP Mr. N.R. Shaikh for the respondent. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for parties, taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself. 3. By the present petition filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed that the order dated 13-7-2012, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Basmath, in Misc. Criminal Application No. 141/2012, and the judgment and order dated 23-8-2012, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and District Judge-1, Basmathnagar, in Criminal Revision Petition No. 16/2012, be quashed and set aside, and the respondent be directed to release the vehicle of the petitioner, bearing No. MH-15/E-6626 i.e. Tavera Jeep. 4. The petitioner contends that he is doing business of vehicle sale, purchase and transport and he is having vehicle bearing No. MH. 15/E-6626 i.e. Taver...
Tag this Judgment!Aparna D/O Krishnakumar thete @ Aparna W/O Mukesh Sedamkar and Others ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
1] Heard the learned Advocates at length. 2] Above two (2) Writ Petitions and Civil Application in the decided Writ Petition No. 4072 of 2011 were heard together from time to time. Those were reserved for orders. 3] Thereafter, learned Advocate for the petitioner made a motion for taking cases on board, as the petitioner desired to place on record certain documents in Writ Petition No. 6422 of 2012. Therefore, the Writ Petitions were taken on board. The petitioner has sought leave to amend the petition. Leave was granted. Petitioner has added certain averments and certain documents. On the date of hearing, petitioner has also filed Civil Application No. 9666 of 2012 in Writ Petition No. 6422 of 2012, by which the petitioner has prayed for taking in safe custody certain registers which constitutes documentary evidence of petitioners grievance against the Respondent No. 4. This application was heard with the Writ Petitions. 4] Two (2) Writ Petitions and Civil Applications are heard and a...
Tag this Judgment!Shaikh Noor Shaikh Nanhu Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-27-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Adv. Mr. A.S. Lomte for the petitioner, learned APP Mr. N.R. Shaikh for respondent no.1, and Adv. Mr. S.S. Rathi for respondent no.2. Nobody for respondent nos.3 to 5, though served. Learned Advocates for respondent no.6 absent. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Advocates of parties, taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission itself. 3. Leave to amend the prayer clauses granted to the extent that instead of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jintur, it be shown as Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Jintur. 4. By the present petition filed by the petitioner (original accused no.4), under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, he has prayed that the order dated 20th January 2012, passed below Exhibit 125 in Regular Criminal Case No. 65/2000, by the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Jintur, be quashed and set aside. 5.The respondent no.2, Jintur Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., Jintur, has filed private complaint before l...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »