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.
Suman N. Agarwal Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-2013
Oral Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) Rule, by consent made returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents waives service on behalf of the Respondents. By consent, both the Petitions are taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. The Petitioner has sought to impugn in these proceedings under Article 226 the validity of (i) a notice to show cause dated 29 August 2005 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Drawback Department; (ii) an order dated 20 September 2007 of the Commissioner of Customs (Export Promotion); and (iii) a notice of demand dated 1 November 2011 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Special Recovery Cell. When the Petition came up for preliminary hearing on admission, an order was passed by this Court on 19 December 2011 recording the statement of the Petitioner that the challenge is being restricted only to the notice of demand dated 1 November 2011 (Exhibit C) and that the other reliefs in prayer (a) are not being pres...
Sanjay Mahadeo Sonwane and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-10-2013
Oral Judgment: (A.P. Lavande, J.) Ms. Sarkar, learned Counsel appears on behalf of applicants. Mrs. Joshi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appears on behalf of respondent no.1. Respondent no.2 appears in person. Ms. Sarkar, learned Counsel identifies applicant no.1 as well as respondent no.2. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of learned Counsel for the parties. 3. By this application under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants seek quashing of the First Information Report dated 21/8/2011 in Crime No.114/2011 registered at Koradi Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 4. The respondent no.2 is wife of applicant no.1 and applicant Nos.2, 3 and 4 are mother-in-law, sister-in-law and sister-in-law of respondent no.2 respectively. It is the case of the applicants that after filing of the first information report dated 21/8/2011, applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 are stayi...
Samina Parveen Abdul Sattar Vs. Swami Ramanand Tirth Marathwada Univer ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-10-2013
A.H. Joshi, J. 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2] The petitioner has approached this court with the following main prayers:- [B] By issuing Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction in the like nature the respondent may kindly be directed to grant the eligibility number to the petitioner. Further respondent Nos. 1 to 3 may kindly be directed to declare the result of petitioner of IInd Semester of M.Sc.(Mathematics) forthwith. [C] By issuing Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction in the like nature the respondent No.1 to 3 may kindly be directed to declare the result of the petitioner of IInd Semester of M.Sc. (Mathematics) forthwith and further the respondent No.4 may kindly be directed to allow the petitioner to continue remaining course of M.Sc.(Mathematics). 3] During pendency of the petition, the question as to eligibility of the petitioner was decided against the petitioner. The petiti...
Smt. Shivmala Chandrashekhar Shete and Others Vs. Fakira Biruji Patil ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-10-2013
Oral Judgment: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 24.11.1998 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yavatmal in M.A.C. No.38/92, whereby the tribunal awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.3,21,000/- inclusive of No Fault Liability claim on account of death of one Chandrashekhar Shete caused in motor vehicular accident occurred on 17.09.1991 involving motorcycle and a truck. 2. The deceased, with a pillion rider, was proceeding on his motorcycle from village Ladkhed to Yavatmal. The truck owned by respondent no.1 and driven by respondent no.2 while coming from opposite direction dashed against the motorcycle. This resulted in instantaneous death of Chandrashekhar. He left behind him a widow and two minor children aged five and one year respectively. The deceased was serving as Assistant Field Officer with Maharashtra State Seeds Corporation Ltd., Yavatmal and was drawing total emoluments of Rs.3230/-. The appellants claimed compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- on ...
Tarunkumar Dayalal Doshi and Another Vs. Kishorkumar Dayalal Doshi and ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-10-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard learned Counsel Mr. A.R. Chavhan for the petitioners, learned Counsel Mr. N.S. Warulkar for respondent No.1 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. P.V. Bhoyar for respondent No.3/State. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith by consent of learned Counsel for the parties. 3. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 feel aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal on 17th September, 2012 dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioners against the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yavatmal on 20th July, 2012. The order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 20th July, 2012 directed framing of charges against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The said order further directed framing of charges against respondent No.2 Sanjay Devilal Vyas for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 read wit...
Pramod Raghunath Vaidya Vs. Yuvak Vidyalaya and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-10-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Sh. Bhandarkar, the learned Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, Sh. Sundaram, the learned Advocate, appearing for the respondent No.1 and Sh. Thengre, the learned Advocate, appearing for the respondent No.2. 2. This writ petition challenges the Judgment and order dated 26-9-2008 passed by the Grievance Committee dismissing the Appeal No.31 of 2004 filed by the petitioner challenging his termination from service by an order dated 18-7-2005. The Grievance Committee has held that the appointment of the petitioner on 23-7-2002 was made without following the procedure and, hence, it cannot be treated to have been made on probation. 3. The petitioner possesses the qualifications of B.A., B.Ed and he was initially appointed on 1-1-2002. According to the averments made in the memo of appeal the appointment of the petitioner was made in place of one Sh. J.R. Meshram in the permanent vacancy occurred due to his death and, thereafter, he was continuously working on the...
S.B. Avasarmol Deceased Through Lrs. Vs. Member, Industrial Tribunal, ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-10-2013
Oral Judgment: By this petition, the petitioner impugns the judgment passed by the Industrial Court on 9.4.2002, allowing a revision filed by the respondent Corporation and reversing the judgment passed by the Labour Court on 29.11.2001, allowing the complaint filed by the petitioner and directing the Corporation to reinstate the petitioner in service with back wages. 2. The petitioner was working with the respondent Corporation as a driver since the year 1974. The petitioner was on duty on a Corporation bus on 27.8.1987 which was driven by the petitioner from Dahi to Buldana. When the bus was checked at Deulgaon Ghat, the petitioner was found to be under the influence of alcohol. A spot panchanama was performed. An alcohol test was conducted on the petitioner. The result of the test turned out to be positive and it was found that the petitioner was driving the bus under the influence of alcohol. The petitioner was issued a charge-sheet and an inquiry was conducted against the petition...
Videocon Industries Limited Vs. Jmc Projects (India) Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
Oral Judgment: By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, petitioner seeks to challenge the award dated 6th September, 2011 declared by the Arbitral Tribunal allowing the part of the claims made by the respondents and rejecting the substantial part of the claim of the petitioner. 2. Mr. Sancheti, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents raised preliminary issue about territorial jurisdiction of this court in entertaining this petition on the ground that no cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. 3. In this background, I will refer to refer to some of the admitted facts emerging from the petition which are summarized as under : (a) The Petitioners are engaged in the business of manufacturing colour television glass shells used for picture tubes and have set up a plant for manufacturing the same at Chavaj, near Bharuch, Gujarat. The Petitioners decided to expand their production cap...
Mohammed Jaheer S/O Abdul Rehman and Others Vs. M.V. Mohammed HussaIn ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
1. Heard Shri M. Hussain, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants; and Shri V.R. Mundra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. In Regular Civil Suit No.201 of 1983, the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gondia, passed a decree on declaring the plaintiffs as the owners in respect of their 1/3rd share in the suit property. The further declaration is granted that the sale-deed dated 24-1-1983 in respect of the suit property executed in favour of the original defendant M.V. Mohammad Hussain Walayata is inoperative and does not give a complete title of the suit property. A decree for permanent injunction is also passed restraining the defendant from disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs to the extent of their respective share in the suit property. 3. Since the claim of the plaintiffs was for half of the share in the suit property and the Trial Court granted only 1/3rd share in the suit property, the plaintiffs preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.14 of ...
Rahul Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
Oral Judgment: (P.V. Hardas, J.) The appellant, who stands convicted for an offence punishable under section 498-A of I.P.C. and sentenced to simple imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of which to undergo further S.I. for six months and imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of which to undergo further R.I. for one year, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir, by judgment dated 30.6.2011 in Sessions Case No.21 of 2010, by this appeal questions the correctness of his conviction and sentence. 2. Facts in brief as are necessary for the decision of this appeal may be stated thus :- P.W.10 P.S.I. Bhagwan Dhabadge, who on 27.10.2009 was attached to Udgir city police station was entrusted with the investigation of Crime No.67 of 2009, which was registered on the basis of statement of deceased Priti at Exh.64. The offence had been registered by Head Constable Dhepe. On being entrusted with the investigation of the said crime, P.W.1...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »