Mumbai Court January 2013 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.
Rockwood Hotels and Resorts Limited Vs. Starwood Asia Pacific Hotels a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. By this petition filed under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner seeks stay of the, implementation and or operation of the termination notice dated 17th December, 2012, issued by the respondent to the petitioner purporting to terminate hotel agreements and seeks injunction restraining the respondents from assigning in any manner acting on the basis or in furtherance of or taking any steps pursuant to the purported termination and termination notice dated 17th December, 2012. 2. Dr. Tulzapurkar, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents raises a preliminary objection in respect of the maintainability of this petition in this court. Both the parties through their respective learned senior counsel addressed this court on the issue of jurisdiction. 3. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding the issue jurisdiction of this court are set out as under: (a) The Petitioner is carrying on business and has its regi...
Girdhar Creations and Others Vs. Baban Baburao Rathare and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-2013
Oral Judgment: This Appeal from Order (AO 292/2007) was heard on earlier occasion. It was placed yesterday for passing judgment/final orders. However, it was noted that Mr. S.M. Gorwadkar has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the original defendant-respondent No.10 who is the contesting defendant and who has claimed that who has taken over the rights in the immovable property of the original defendant Nos.1 to 3. Thus, the contesting parties who were represented by Mr. Gorwadkar could not be heard as he was not present. Equally the respondent Nos.12 and 13 have been represented by Mr. Jaydeep Deo. He was also present on earlier occasion. Therefore, I have heard the advocates yesterday at some length and at the request of Mr. Gorwadkar, final orders were deferred today because, he sought time to take instructions from his client with regards to the prayers that are made in Civil Application No.96 of 2010 in Appeal from Order No.292 of 2007. 2. The submissions of the parties would be no...
Uttam and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-17-2013
Oral Judgment: The appellants/original accused no.1 Uttam and original accused no.5 Kantrao, who stand convicted for an offence punishable under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to each pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo S.I. for one month, while original accused no.2 Babasaheb stand convicted for an offence punishable under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo S.I. for one month by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, by judgment dated 13.3.2001, in Sessions Case No.148 of 1996, by this appeal question the correctness of their conviction and sentence. 2. It appears that during the pendency of this appeal, original accused no.1 Uttam died. A death certificate has been produced before me, which is taken on record and marked "X" for the purpose of identification. By virtue of this death certificate, it is clear that original accu...
Ratnakar L. Parab and Others Vs. Agnelo D'Souza and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-17-2013
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Kanade, J.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. By this petition which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are seeking the following reliefs: (a) For issue of a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari vacating the stay granted by the Administrative Tribunal and dismissing the appeal No.3/2008 as not maintainable under Art. 154 of the Code of Comunidades. (b) For a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Government to implement its order of appointing Substitute Committee for the Comundiade dated 13.3.2008. (c) For issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Government to initiate criminal action against the Respondents no.1,2 3, 8 and 9 and civil action for recovery of loss caused to the Comunidade. (d) For issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Collector of North Goa, the Respondent no.7 to initiate eviction proceedings against th...
Executive Engineer, M.S.E.D.Co. Ltd. Vs. Shri. Ambadas Laxman Gholap
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-2013
S.R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member Heard Mr.S.S.Kalekar-Advocate for the appellant and Mr.Tanaji Gholap A.R. /son of the respondent.Affidavit of respondent -Amabadas Laxman Gholap is filed today as per direction dated 19/12/2012. It is taken on record. Heard both the sides on merits. This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 17/05/2012 passed in consumer complaint no.475/2010, Mr.Ambadas Laxman Gholap v/s..Executive Engineer, MaharashtraState Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd., Barshi, District Solapur; by the District Forum, Solapur. Consumer complaint pertains to alleged deficiency in service on the part of appellant/original opponent (herein after referred as the opponent) for not giving energy connection already sanctioned in spite of payment of amount of `4,620/- on 10/02/1996. Thus, grievance is about not releasing the energy connection against the opponent, who is the Executive Engineer of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., at Barshi District Solapur...
Communidade of Sirsaim and Another Vs. State of Goa and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-17-2013
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Kanade, J.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. By this petition which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are seeking the following reliefs: (i) That the Honourable Court be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus or an order directing the Respondents no.5 to 10 to immediately stop illegal constructions being carried out in the Communidade property. (ii) That the Honourable Court be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or an order directing the Village Panchayat, the Respondent no.4, to stop illegal constructions being carried on in the Communidade property by exercising power under section 66(3) of The Panchayat Raj Act. (iii) That the Honourable Court be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or an order directing the Government to give protection to the Communidade under At...
Gadbad S/O Bhavdu Sonne Vs. Ramrao S/O Bhavdu Sonne
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-17-2013
U.D. Salvi, J. 1. This is a reference made by Jt. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kannad under Section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for seeking answers to the following questions: (A) Whether Civil Court can regularize encroachment over forest land by declaration of ownership in contravention and avoiding bar created by Section 2 of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980? (B) Whether Government Resolution dated 12.9.1979 is still good to regularise encroachment over forest land in contravention of Section 2 of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980? (C) Whether Civil Suit is maintainable to protect the encroachment over forest land in contravention of Section 2 of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980? 2. Genesis of this reference lies in Regular Civil Suit No. 153/2007 instituted by one Gadbad Bhavdu Sonne against his brother Ramrao Bhavdu Sonne in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division at Kannad for the following relief: (1) Decree for perpetual injunction permanently restraining the defenda...
Mrs. Philomena D' Souza Vs. John Janus Barreto
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-17-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri Anthony D' Silva, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Shri Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent waives service. 3. The above Petition challenges an Order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Mapusa, in Special Civil Suit no. 43/10/A, whereby an application filed by the Petitioner to deposit the licence fee during the pendency of the suit came to be dismissed. 4. Upon hearing the learned Counsel and on perusal of the records, I find that the learned Judge whilst passing the impugned Order has come to the conclusion that such claim of licence fee can be made by the Petitioner only after a Decree for eviction is passed in terms of Order 20 of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned Judge, whilst passing the impugned Order, failed to consider that such claim on the part...
Suresh Vs. Vinod and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-17-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard learned Counsel Mr. A.R. Wagh for the applicant, learned Counsel Mr. A.M. Deshmukh for non-applicant No.1 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. S.M. Bhagde for non-applicant No.2. 2. The applicant is the complainant in First Information Report No.3031/2011 of Patur Police Station, District Akola. The applicant has moved this Court for cancellation of bail granted to non-applicant No.1 Vinod Purushottam Dhanokar by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola. The First Information Report was filed by the applicant against non-applicant No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(2) (vii) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The First Information Report was filed on 19th April, 2011. However, the offence was registered on 26th May, 2011. Non-applicant No.1 had moved the Sessions Court for grant of bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge gra...
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager Vs. ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-2013
Oral Order: S.R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member Heard Mr.A.S.Vidyarthi-Advocate for the appellant and Mr.Rahul Gandhi-Advocate for the respondent. This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 22/06/2006 passed in consumer complaint no.452/2001, M/s.Prakash Provision and General Stores v/s. The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.; by Additional District Forum, Pune. It is a case of alleged deficiency in service on the part of appellant/original opponent/Insurance Company (herein after referred as Insurance Company) in repudiating part of the insurance claim, which arose on account of Shopkeepers Insurance policy taken by the respondent/original complainant (herein after referred as the complainant) on account of burglary and theft in the shop which occurred in the night between 7th and 8th January, 1998. Insurance Company excluding the cash in the cupboard and electronic weighing scale assessed the loss and agreed to settle the insurance claim at `10,096/- but since it was not acceptabl...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »