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.
Shankar Vs. Veena @ Kanchan and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-11-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard. 2. ADMIT. 3. Heard finally by consent. 4. The learned trial Magistrate has passed cryptic order rejecting the application for adjournment and thereafter has closed cross examination of witness No.1 on behalf of non-applicant viz. Mrs. Veena @ Kanchan Shankar Chandwani. The applicant is husband of Non-applicant No.1 Mrs. Veena and father of non-applicant No.2 Mast. Anshul. The non-applicants have filed application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. An affidavit of evidence of non-applicant No.1 Mrs. Veena was filed. The learned counsel for the applicant was absent. The learned counsel was to come from Washim. The local lawyer Mr. P.T. Tolani made an application for grant of adjournment. The said application has been rejected by passing following order on 13.08.2012. "The reasons are not satisfactory. Hence rejected." Immediately thereafter the learned trial Magistrate passed the following order. "The counsel for NA present. I have rejected the adj...
Vpk Urban Co-operative Credit Society Limited Vs. Mrs. Nandini Shankar ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-11-2013
Heard Mr. Pangam, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Lobo, learned Counsel, appointed under Legal Aid Scheme, on behalf of the respondent no.1. 2. The appellant is the complainant of Criminal Case No. 393/NIA/2008/B and this appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Order dated 29/10/2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Ponda ( J.M.F.C., for short) in the said Criminal Case. 3. The complainant had filed the said case against the accused, who is the respondent no. 1 in this appeal, for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, (N.I. Act, for short). The case of the complainant is as follows:- It is a Credit Co-operative Society registered under Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act as made applicable to the State of Goa and having its head office at Mardol, Ponda, Goa and its branches in various parts of Goa including the one at Corlim, Goa. The complainant is engaged in financial business of accepting deposits incl...
Mahonar Yadaoraoji Belge and Others Vs. Kamlabai Wd/O Manohar Raut and ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-11-2013
Oral Judgment : 1. Heard Shri Mundra, the learned counsel for the appellants; and Shri Vyas, the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Regular Civil Suit No.295 of 1982 filed by one Sonuji Maharuji Raut, who expired during the pendency of this second appeal, was decreed by the Trial Court by its judgment and order dated 29-8-1985, holding that he has proved the title over the suit house and a decree for delivery of vacant possession of the suit premises was passed against the original defendants, who are the respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8 herein. 3. In Regular Civil Appeal No.24 of 1987 preferred by the respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8, the learned Additional District Judge, Gondiya, set aside the decree passed by the Trial Court, holding that the respondent No.6 Smt. Mankuwar Choudhari has legal right to remain in possession of the suit house. The appellants before this Court have purchased the suit property during the pendency of Regular Civil Appeal No.24 of 1987 from the original plaintiff...
Gl Asia Mauritius Ii Cayman Limited and Others Vs. Pinfold Overseas Li ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-11-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri M.S. Sonak, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri R. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The above petition challenges an order dated 21/08/2010 passed by the learned District Judge, South Goa at Margao in Arbitration Application No.31/2008 whereby the preliminary objection raised by the petitioners herein with regard to the jurisdiction of the learned Judge to entertain an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (herein after referred to as 'the said Act') came to be disposed of inter alia holding that the Court had jurisdiction to entertain such application. 3. The above matter was adjourned from time to time in view of the fact that the point for consideration in the present petition as to whether Part I of the said Act is applicable in cases of international commercial agreements was under consideration before the Apex Court. It was pointed out by the learned Counsel that the ma...
Vasantrao Vs. Collector, District Washim and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-11-2013
Oral Judgment: By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Rent Controller on 23.4.1999, allowing an application filed by the respondent No.4-landlord and granting permission to the landlord to issue quit notice to the petitioner under Clause 13(3)(v) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order. The petitioner also challenges the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner and confirming the order passed by the Rent Controller. 2. The respondent no.4 is the landlord. He had initiated the proceedings against the petitioner under Clause 13(3)(v) of the Rent Control Order. It was the case of the landlord that the tenant had secured alternative accommodation and did not reasonably need the premises in his occupation. It was pleaded that the tenant had purchased the accommodation by a registered sale deed dated 11.11.1994 and after making necessary alterations in the construction had started the ...
Yogesh Balasaheb Ingale and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-2013
Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J. The appellants/original accused Nos.1 and 2 have filed this Appeal against the Judgment and order dated 3rd December, 2007 passed by the learned I Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge,Kolhapur in Sessions Case No.240 of 2001. By the said Judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants under Section 364-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). For the said offence, he sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to suffer R.I. for one month. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated is as under:- The complainant PW-1 Sunil was residing at Jadhavwadi, Opposite Market Yard, Kolhapur along with his brother Anil Salokhe, wife of Anil Salokhe and two children of Anil Salokhe, who are a daughter named Nilima and a son Nilesh @ Babalu that is victim boy. At the time of the incident, Nilesh was about 9 years old and he was studying in 3rd Standard in Buds Primary School situated at Rajendran...
PravIn Shripati Yadav Vs. Grampanchayat, Minche and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. The Petition takes exception to the concurrent order passed by the Additional Collector, Kolhapur dated 14th August, 2012, thereby rejecting the dispute filed by the present Petitioner challenging the No Confidence Motion passed against him on 19th June, 2012 and the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Pune dated 2nd January, 2013 thereby dismissing the Appeal filed by the present Petitioner. 3. The facts in brief giving rise to the Petition are as under: The Petitioner was elected as a member of Grampanchayat Minche, Taluka Hatkanangale, Dist. Kolhapur in the general election which was held in the year 2012. The Petitioner had contested and elected for the seat reserved for OBC. The post of the Sarpanch was reserved for OBC and the Petitioner came to be elected on the said post. A notice was issued to the Tahsildar-Hatkanangale purportedly by nine members of village panchayat proposing to move No Confidence Motion ag...
ivrcl Ltd. (Formerly Known as Ivr Prime Urban Developers Ltd.). Vs. Io ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-2013
By this petition, petitioner seeks injunction in respect of the bank guarantee issued by IndusInd Bank, Secunderabad branch dated 4th June 2010 for the sum of Rs.52,58,33,000/- on behalf of the petitioner in favour of the respondent under clause 14.3.1 of the contract towards mobilization advance given by the respondent to the petitioner. 2. The bank guarantee was due to expire on 23rd November 2012. Since the petitioner did not renew the bank guarantee before 23rd November 2012, the respondent by its application dated 22nd November 2012 invoked the said bank guarantee by addressing a letter to the bank and demanded payment in respect thereof. The petitioner vide its letter dated 20th November 2012 to the respondent contended that as the work had been completed to the extent of 96.14% which according to the petitioner was substantial completion of work, further extension of bank guarantee was not required and requested the respondent to return the same. The respondent not having return...
Sjj Marine Pte Ltd. and Another Vs. Pisces Exim (India) Private Limite ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-2013
Oral Order: 1. The Plaintiff has filed the above Summary Suit against Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 for an order and decree against the Defendants to jointly and/or severally pay to the Plaintiff USD 1,570,500.20 together with interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from the date of filing the suit till payment and / or realisation thereof, and for costs. 2. The Plaintiff has taken out the above Notice of Motion in the Suit under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 inter alia (I) for an order and injunction restraining the Defendants from selling and/or creating third party right, title and interest and/or dealing with the cargo of 40,000 WMT of Iron Ore Fines belonging to Defendant No.1 and presently lying and stored at Berth No. 9 at Mormugao Port; (ii) directing the Defendants to disclose on oath all their assets, bank accounts, list of debtors, creditors and list of all pending suits, arbitrations and legal proceedings filed by and against the Defendants; (iii) for...
Sandeep Indravadan Sagar and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Other ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. All these matters can be conveniently disposed of by this common order, as all of them raise questions about the nature of the offence punishable under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter 'M.V. Act' for the sake of brevity), and the procedure for the investigation and the trial thereof. Though the facts of each case are different, and even the contentions raised by the petitioner/applicants are different, the discussion on these aspects would necessarily be common. 2. Before proceeding further, the provisions of Section 185 of the M.V. Act may be reproduced here:- 185. Driving by a drunken person or by a person under the influence of drugs. Whoever, while driving or attempting to drive, a motor vehicle, - (a) has, in his blood, alcohol exceeding 30 mg. Per 100 ml. of blood detected in a test by a breath analyser, or (b) is under this influence of a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of exercising proper control over the vehicle, shall be p...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »