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.
Smt. Rukhminidevi Wd/O Laltaprasad Gupta and Others Vs. Addl. District ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
Oral Judgment: Since the facts and issues involved in both the writ petitions are almost identical, they are heard together and are decided by the common judgment. 2. The petitioner in both the writ petitions is the widow of original applicant-landlord. Separate applications were filed by landlord Laltaprasad against the respondents under Clauses 13(3)(vi) and (vii) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949. It was stated by the landlord in the applications that he needed the premises in occupation of the respondents for starting an eating house and restaurant for his son Manojkumar and for carrying out the additions and alterations. It was pleaded that three shops on the ground floor were leased out to separate tenants by the landlord and the respondents in both the petitions were the tenants in two of the shops. On the first floor of the building, the eldest son of the landlord by name Santoshkumar was running the business of Nilam Lodge. The landlord had p...
Digambar S/O Jaiwanta Langote and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra, ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
R.M. Borde, J. 1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. 2 Instant writ petition is presented by eleven agriculturists challenging the award passed by Sub Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer, Degloor on 31.03.2010. 3 The impugned award is passed in respect of lands belonging to petitioners situate at village Bhendegaon Khurd, Tq.Mukhed, District Nanded, which are required for the purposes of resettlement of project affected persons. 4 It is not disputed that on earlier occasion, agricultural lands belonging to petitioners situate at village Bhendegaon Khurd have been acquired for submergence under Lendi Project by declaring the award on 30.11.2005. It is not a matter of dispute that Lendi Project is an Inter-State Project jointly executed by the State of Maharashtra and State of Andhra Pradesh. In view of acquisition of lands belonging to the petitioners for Lendi Irrigation Project, they are affected pers...
Sow. Kalpana W/O. Vinod Muley Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard. 2. A report is received from learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Basmathnagar dated 20th November, 2012 disclosing events that have taken place in the matter of condoning the delay. Learned Judge had referred to the order passed in Criminal Application No.1337 of 2009 dated 19th October, 2010 by this Court which reads as under: "Heard. Allowed to withdraw the application with liberty to file an appeal before the Court of Sessions, in because the acquittal is for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The time spent in this Court, if any, may be considered for the purpose of condonation of delay under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The application is disposed of as withdrawn." The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, considering the condonation of delay, entertained the Appeal and recorded order of conviction. 3. The legal position, in respect of preferring Appeal against acquittal and seeking leave to file Appeal in terms of Section 378(4) of the...
Vithaldas S/O Devising Mohta Vs. Suresh S/O Ramkrishna Gangane and Ano ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-09-2013
Oral Judgment: By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Rent Controller on 28.02.2001 allowing an application filed by the respondent no.1-landlord under clauses 13(3)(i)(ii)(iv) and (vi) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order as also the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority dated 10.10.2001 upholding the order passed by the Rent Controller and dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. 2. The respondent no.1 is the original applicant-landlord. The respondent no.1 had filed an application against the petitioner under clauses 13(3)(i)(ii)(iv) and (vi) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order before the Rent Controller. It was the case of the landlord that the petitioner had not paid the rent to the landlord from 15.11.1983 till the date of filing of the application on 14.01.1987 and the landlord was entitled for permission under Clauses 13(3)(i) and (ii) of the Rent Control Order. It was pleaded that thou...
Qatar Airways Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-2013
Oral Judgment: (Dy. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) The Respondent has instituted a suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 59.22 lakhs together with interest from the Appellant, based on a contract for carrying out the work of interior decoration at certain offices of the Appellant. In response to the Summons for Judgment, the Appellant filed an affidavit questioning the maintainability of the suit on the ground that permission of the Union Government under Section 86 of the CPC has not been obtained. The learned Single Judge held that the suit is maintainable. 2. The Appellant is a juristic entity, a company incorporated under the laws of Qatar. The Appellant has stated that the Company is a 'closed' Qatari share holding company incorporated in accordance with the provisions of Commercial Companies Law No. 11 for the year 1981. The Memorandum of Association and transfer of Qatar Airways Company from a limited liability company to a closed ...
Uzair Abdul Rehman Maqba and Others Vs. Thane Municipal Corporation an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-2013
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Oka, J.) The substantive prayer in this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the prayer clause (a) which reads thus:- "(a) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ of direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing and ordering the Respondents Nos.4 to 7, the collector of Thane and State of Maharashtra, to delete the name of Deputy Custodian of Evacuee property from the Record of Rights pertaining to property bearing Pardi No.11, Hiss No.5, C.T.S. No.1045 to 1056." 2. The Petitioners claimed that their predecessor Abus Salam Maqba was the purchaser of the property in dispute who transferred the property in the name of his wife Sharifabibi under a Gift Deed. In the year 1954, the Mamlatdar, Thane, without notice to the predecessor of the Petitioners made an entry in the revenue records in respect of the said property in favour of the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Prope...
M/S. Maneesh Pharmaceuticals Limited Vs. M/S Contract Advertising Indi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-2013
By this petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short Act of 1996), the petitioner seeks to challenge award dated 30th December 2011 delivered by the learned sole arbitrator directing the petitioner to pay to the respondent the principal sum of Rs. 69,17,551/- with interest @ 18% per annum on the said principal sum from 5th March 2009 till payment and/or realisation and cost of the arbitration proceedings quantified at Rs.2,45,000/- and rejecting the counterclaim made by the petitioner. Some of the relevant facts which emerge from the pleadings and documents filed by both parties are summarized as under. 2. By an agreement dated 19th February 2008 entered into between the petitioner and the respondent, respondent was appointed by the petitioner to handle all advertising and communication work required for the petitioner's brand Disney Baby Care Products with effect from 1st March, 2008. 3. By letter dated 19th February 2008, the petitioner's d...
M/S. Century Enka Ltd. Vs. Kishan Sambhaji Biradra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-2013
Oral Judgment: 1 Rule, with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2 The Writ Jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked against the Judgment and order both dated 15-2-2012 passed by the Learned Member of the Industrial Court, Pune, by which the Revision Applications filed by the Respondent in each of the above Petitions, came to be allowed and resultantly the Judgment and Order dated 2-2-2011 passed by the Labour Court in Complaint ULP No.22 of 2002 and Complaint ULP No.34 of 2002 filed by each of the Respondent in the above Petitions, came to be allowed and the Judgment and Order dated 2-2-2011 came to be set aside. Whilst allowing the said Revision Applications, the Industrial Court has also set aside the order dated 30-10-2009 by which order the Applications dated 19-3-2009 filed by the Respondent in each of the Petitions for production of documents relating to the inquiry proceedings in respect of some oth...
Upendra Kantilal Thanawala and Others Vs. Shree Ram Builders and Other ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. By this Chamber Summons, Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 seek to recall the Order dated 15th March, 2012 passed in Leave Petition No. 211 of 2012 granted by this Court under Clause XII of the Letters Patent in Arbitration Petition (L) No. 404 of 2012 in favour of the petitioners. 2. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this Chamber Summons are as under:- (a) On 6th August, 2003, an agreement for development came to be executed between the petitioners and respondent no. 5 as the vendors and the respondent nos. 1 to 4 as the developers for the property situate at Thane (hereafter referred to as the suit agreement). (b) Respondent no.1 is a partnership firm. Respondent nos.2 to 4 are the partners of the 1st respondent. The suit agreement dated 6th August, 2003 was registered with the office of the Sub Registrar, Thane. The registered office of the 1st respondent is at Thane. (c) On 9th April, 2008, the petitioners through their advocates issued a notice of termi...
Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited Vs. Klassic Studios and Films Pv ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-2013
1. By this petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short `Arbitration Act, 1996), the petitioner seeks to challenge the award dated 21st October, 2011 allowing part of the claims made by the respondent. 2. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:- 3. On 15th November, 2006, the petitioner and the respondent entered into an agreement for the production of a television serial Ghar .... Saath Zindagi Bhar Ka subsequently title changed to Maayka .... Sath Zindagi Bhar Ka on the terms and conditions setout therein. The consideration agreed in the said agreement for production of the said serial was Rs.4,70,000/- per episode. Based on the said agreement, the respondent commissioned the production of the said serial and the said serial was telecast by the petitioner thereafter. 4. Sometimes in the month of April 2007, dispute arose between Mr.Ashwin Varma of the respondent and Ms.Anjana Sood, writer of the se...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »