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.
Nobel Vaz and Others Vs. Member Secretary, Margao Planning and Develop ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-08-2013
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Kanade, J.) Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the reliefs claimed by the petitioners in para (A), are as under : "(A) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 to take appropriate action in the matter of illegal constructions/activities being carried out by the Respondent Nos.6 and 7, viz.:- (a) The installation and operation of Restaurant in the basement of Building Nos.22, 23 and 24; (b) The installation and commencement of Outdoor Restaurant and tandoori kitchen in the open spaces as indicated in Photograph at "ANNEXURE D"; (c) The illegal construction and storage of L.P.G. Cylinders therein as indicated in Photograph at "ANNEXURE C"; (d) Construction of Building Nos.33 and...
Ratnakar Bank Ltd. Vs. Shri Uday Jaywantrao Mahajan
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-2013
S. R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member Heard Adv. Mrs. Medha Rajesh Behere on behalf of the Appellant/original Opponent, Ratnakar Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Bank for the sake of brevity) and Adv. Rahul K. Desai on behalf of the Respondent/original Complainant, Mr. Uday Jaywantrao Mahajan (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant for the sake of brevity). [2] This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 1/10/2001 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolhapur (hereinafter referred to as the Forum for the sake of brevity) in Consumer Complaint No.679 of 1998, Shri Uday Jaywantrao Mahajan Vs. The Manager, The Ratnakar Bank Ltd. It is a case of honouring a fraudulent cheque bearing No.150262 issued for an amount of `50,000/- and it was a bearer cheque. According to the Complainant, he had neither issued the disputed cheque bearing No.150262 nor did he receive from the Bank a cheque booking containing disputed cheque leaf and inspite of that the ...
Gouri Prasad Goenka Vs. Rabo India Finance Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-2013
PC : 1. In a Summary Suit instituted under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, leave was granted under Clause-XII of the Letters Patent. The Defendant, who is in appeal in these proceedings, has been sued on the basis of guarantees executed by him in favour of the Plaintiff in consideration of two facilities granted by the Plaintiff to a company, of which the Defendant was at the material time a principal director. A Chamber Summons was taken out by the Defendant seeking revocation of the leave granted under Clause-XII of the Letters Patent. The Chamber Summons for revocation has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 12 March 2012, against which judgment the Defendant is in appeal. 2. The basis on which the Defendant sought revocation of the leave which had been granted under Clause-XII of the Letters Patent was stated as follows in the affidavit-in-support filed by the Defendant in the Chamber Summons: "I. The Deed of Guarantees are entered into at Kolkata; II. ...
Tci Telenet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Milliennium Motors Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-2013
Oral Order: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Counsel for the respondent waives notice. As short question is involved, petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent. 2. By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 11th March 2011 passed by learned District Judge-10, Pune dismissing the Petitioner's revision, being Revision Application No.26 of 2010. Consequently, trial court's order rejecting the Petitioner's application at Exhibit-54 in Civil Suit No.433 of 2006 stood confirmed. 3. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows : The Petitioner is the original Plaintiff and the Respondent is the original Defendant. The Petitioner filed Civil Suit No.433 of 2006 for possession and arrears of rent with averments that the licence was executed by the Petitioner in favour of the Respondents for the period of 33 months for licence fees (comp...
M/S. Zenith Fire Services (India) Private Limited Vs. Charmi Sales
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-2013
The Petitioner, original Respondent, has challenged an exparte Award dated 31 October, 2011 passed by the sole Arbitrator by invoking Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, Arbitration Act). 2 The basic events and dates, as per the Petitioner, are as under: On 18 October, 2007, an agency Agreement was executed between the Petitioner and the Respondent for clearing and forwarding of their products at different locations in Gujarat. On 4 September, 2010, an agency Agreement was terminated by the Respondent. Therefore, the Petitioner was constrained to invoke the Bank Guarantee. 3 On 16 June, 2011, Advocate for the Respondent appointed Shri Shelar as the sole Arbitrator. The learned Arbitrator assumed unilaterally his appointment and on 30 June, 2011 addressed a letter to the Petitioner and the Respondent fixing up the schedule of hearing. Upto 14 September, 2011, the correspondences were exchanged and objections were raised as to the appointment of the Arbit...
innovatherm Gmbh and Another Vs. Sesa Goa Limited
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-07-2013
V.M. Kanade, J. The appellant is challenging the judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge dated 22/11/2012 in Company Application Nos.78 and 79 of 2012. By the said judgment and order, learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the Company Applications filed by the appellant by holding that the appellant Company had no locus to be heard in the Company Petition filed by the respondent under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956. 2. Brief facts which are necessary for the purpose of deciding this appeal are as under: The respondent Sesa Goa Ltd has filed Company Petition in this Court seeking sanction of proposed scheme of amalgamation and arrangement under Sections 391 to 394 read with Sections 98, 100 and 203 of the Companies Act, 1956 between Sesa Goa Ltd and Sterlite Industries India Ltd ('SIIL' for short) amalgamating Company no.1, Madras Aluminum Company Ltd ('MALCO' for short) amalgamating Company No.2, Sterlite Energy Ltd ('SEL' for short) amalgamating Company No.3, Ve...
Sau Aarti Vijay Shinde Vs. Vijay Jalandar Shinde
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-07-2013
Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 2. This Misc. Civil Application is filed seeking transfer of Hindu Marriage Petition No.355 of 2011, pending before the Court of learned C.J.S.D. Jalgaon, District Jalgaon to the court of learned C.J.S.D. Shahada, District Nandurbar. 3. It is the case of the applicant that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent was solemnized on 1.3.2006 at Shahada, District Nandurbar. It is further case of the applicant that the respondent husband started ill treating the applicant and she was driven from matrimonial house in the year 2007 and since then she is residing at Shahada with her parents. It is further case of the applicant that she was always willing to reside with the respondent. However, because of the ill treatment, cruelty and desertion at the hands of the respondent-husband, she is helpless and is residing with her parents at Shahada. 4. On 8.8.2011, the respondent-husband has filed H.M.P. No.355 of 2011 before ...
Sanjay Jaywant Gaikwad and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
1. These three appeals are directed against conviction of the appellants by the learned Special Judge, Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 255, 256, 258, 259, 420 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for ten years with a fine of Rs.50,000/- each or in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year imposed upon them on the conclusion of trial of Sessions Case No.37 of 2005/156 of 1999 before him. The learned Judge also convicted Ramratan Shrinivas Soni appellant in Criminal Appeal No.486 of 2006 for the offence punishable under Section 256 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years with a fine of Rs.10,000/- or in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. The appellant Abdul Karim Ladsaheb Telgi in Criminal Appeal No.710 of 2006 was also convicted for the offences punishable under S...
Mohamed Umer Tahsildar Chaudhari and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
Oral Judgment: This appeal is directed against the conviction of the appellants, husband and parents in-law of the victim, for offences punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC") and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, "DP Act") and sentence of imprisonment with fine imposed upon them by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for Greater Mumbai on conclusion of trial of Sessions Case No.820 of 1989 before him. 2. Facts which are material for deciding this appeal are as under:- Victim Kulsumbanu, daughter of PWs-1 and 10 and sister of PW-6, was married to appellant No.1 sometime in June, 1988. Both the parties are residents of Mumbai. The victim was staying with the appellants and used to frequently visit her parents' house. On 19-2-1989 appellant No.1 Mohamed Umer is alleged to have left the victim near her parents' house and pretended as if she had gone away. The victim, however, told her parents that she had been dropped by her husb...
The Nashik Merchantâs Co-op. Bank Ltd. Vs. Dhananjay Shriram Daga ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
Oral Judgment: By this appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Appellant seeks to challenge an order dated 1st December, 2011 passed by the Principal District Judge, Nashik rejecting application filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Case No. 28 of 2007). 2. None appeared for the respondents though served. 3. On 20th January, 2001, the appellant bank had granted cash credit loan of Rs. 50,000/- to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent committed default in making payment. The appellant therefore filed proceedings under section 84(4) of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002. The learned arbitrator made an award on 31st March, 2005. The learned arbitrator recorded the findings that the 1st respondent had admitted the claim made by the appellant. After recording the finding that the appellant was entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 63,002/- jointly from respondent nos. 1 to 3 alon...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »