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.
Union of India, Through Dy. Chief Engineer (C) Vs. M/S.S.N.Naik and Br ...
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 and judgment dated 24th July, 2009 passed by the Principal District Judge, Raigad, Alibaug rejecting application filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Act (Civil Misc. Application No.66 of 2005). By the said Civil Misc. Application No.66 of 2005, the appellant had challenged two claims out of several claims viz. grant of interest at the rate of 21% in the sum of Rs.2,42,107/- and pende-lite interest in the sum of Rs.4,68,263/-. 2. Mr.Sureshkumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant places reliance on clause 16 (2) of General Conditions of Contract which reads thus:- 16(2) No interest will be payable upon the earnest money or the security deposit or amounts payable to the Contractor under the contract, but Government securities deposited in terms of Sub-Clause (1) of this clause will be repayable with interest accrued the...
M/S.Areeb Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Nkgsb Co-operative Ba ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
Oral Judgment: By this appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, appellants seek to challenge an order dated 5th July, 2012 passed by the learned arbitrator rejecting application filed by the appellants on 16th September, 2011. By the said application, the appellants had applied for a direction against the respondent bank to opt only for one remedy between the proceedings under section 84 of the Multistate Co-operative Societies Act 2002 and the SARFAESI Act, 2002. 2. Mr.Bhadrashete, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent raises preliminary objection in respect of the maintainability of this appeal under Section 37 of the Act on the ground that though the appellants have in the cause title of the Memorandum of Appeal has referred to the order passed by the learned arbitrator as if the order passed under section 17 of the Act, on perusal of the averments and prayers made in the said application, it is clear that the said application is not un...
Edifice Developers and Project Engineers Ltd. Vs. Essar Projects (Indi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
Oral Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) This Appeal arises from a judgment of a Learned Single Judge dated 11 November 2011 on a challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 to an award of a sole Arbitrator dated 15 January 2007. 2. Before the Arbitrator an objection was raised by the Respondent on the ground that there was no arbitration agreement. The Arbitrator by an order dated 29 August 2003 overruled the objection. Admittedly four separate contracts were entered into between the Appellant and the Respondent. These contracts were for (i) Construction of Plant 'C' building for the EOL refinery at Jamnagar; (ii) Construction of EOL township at village Baid, Jamnagar; (iii) Construction of a fire water basin pump house; and (iv) Construction of a fire water basin for the EOL refinery at Jamnagar. There is no dispute about the fact that there was an arbitration agreement in respect of the contracts entered into between the parties for the construction of t...
Ashok Muralidhar Jagtap Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
A.R. Joshi, J. 1.Heard rival submissions on this criminal appeal preferred by the appellant accused challenging the judgment and order of conviction dated 4.6.2004 passed by the learned II Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik in Sessions Case No. 70 of 2003. 2. By the said impugned judgment and order the appellant1 accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer further RI for three months. 3. The case of the prosecution, in nut shell, is as under:- The appellant accused and his wife Shobha, since deceased, married with each other somewhere in the year 1983. They had two sons by names Ganesh and Gokul. Appellant accused is an agriculturist as well as carpenter by avocation. During the relevant time of the incident he was residing along with his family. The appellant accused is in habit of taking liquor and at times he used to quarrel with his wife Shobha. 4....
Prakash Ramji Chawande (Deceased) and Another Vs. Madhuri Prakash Chaw ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
The Petitioner has applied for Letters of Administration with the Will of the deceased Prakash Ramji Chawande annexed thereto. The Petitioner is the sole beneficiary under the Will of the deceased. The deceased has left his wife, son and daughter as his heirs and legal representatives. The wife filed a Caveat and has claimed that the Will is forged and fabricated. 2. The Petitioner is stated to be the second wife of the deceased, however that contention is irrelevant since the Petitioner is the beneficiary under the Will of the deceased. It would be for the Petitioner to prove the valid execution and attestation of the Will by the deceased. The Testamentary Court is not concerned with the relationship of the parties when the Will is proved. However the wife of the deceased Caveatrix herein alleged that she was the first wife of the deceased. That aspect has been admitted by the deceased in his Will as also by the Plaintiff in this Petition. 3. Based upon the pleadings the following iss...
Ashokkumar S/O. Jagatmal Khatwani Vs. Sanjaykumar S/O. Sadashio Hirpur ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
Oral Judgment: By this petition, the petitioner impugns an order passed by the Rent Controller, Achalpur on 14/09/1999 allowing an application filed by the father of the respondents seeking permission to issue quit notice under clause 13(3)(i),(ii),(vi),(vii) and (viii) of the C.P. and Berar, Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949 as also the order passed by the appellate authority on 21/12/2005 upholding the order of the Rent Controller. 2. The respondents are the sons of original applicant Sadashio Hirpurkar. An application was filed by the applicant-landlord in the Court of Rent Controller, Achalpur under Clauses 13(3)(i),(ii),(vi),(vii) and (viii) of the Rent Control Order, 1949 against the petitioner. It was the case of the applicant-landlord that the plot was allotted to him by the Government and he had constructed a house thereon. It was pleaded that his elder brother Uttamrao and his mother Jankibai were allowed to reside in the said premises as licensees. It was also...
State of Goa and Another Vs. Yashodi Y. Dessai (Expired) Through Lrs a ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Ms. S. Linhares, learned Additional Government Advocate for the appellants and Mr. P. A. Kamat, learned Advocate for the respondents. 2. The appellants have challenged the Judgment and Order dated 20.3.2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge(II), South Goa, Margao (Reference Court, for short) in Land Acquisition 3. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the manner as they appear in the cause title of the said Land Acquisition Case No.36/1993. 4. The land which was the subject matter of the acquisition bears survey no. 200/11 of Nagorcem village and along with other land, the same was acquired for the purpose of construction of Minor Irrigation tank at Chapoli of Canacona Taluka (Additional area). The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L.A. Act, for short) was issued on 27/1/1989 and was published in the Government Gazette dated 2/2/1989. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO, for short) awarded Rs. 8/- per square...
Krishnabai Bhimrao Mendhekar Vs. Natthu Marotrao Dharmik
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
Oral Judgment: By this petition, the petitioner impugns a judgment passed by the Ad Hoc District Judge - 6, Nagpur on 03/10/2007 and reversing the judgment passed by the Small Causes Court on 15/11/2006 decreeing the suit filed by the petitioner under Section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. 2. The petitioner is the original plaintiff. A suit was instituted by the plaintiff against the respondent for possession under Section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. It was the case of the petitioner that she was the owner of two rooms on the ground floor of the building known as Handloom Cloth Market and two rooms on the first floor. According to the petitioner, one of the rooms on the ground floor namely block No.58 was occupied by the respondent on a monthly rent of rupees four hundred. The adjoining block was leased to one Bhojraj Barapatre. In the two rooms on the first floor, the petitioner was carrying on business of electrical goods, coolers, steel f...
Santanu Sudhir Banerjee Vs. Chaurang Developers Thru Its Propritor Mr. ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
Dhanraj Khamatkar, Member 1. Mr.Santanu Sudhir Banerjee (hereinafter referred to as complainant) has filed a consumer complaint against M/s.Chaurang Developers through its Proprietor Mr.Harishchandra Madhukar Shinde and Varadvinayak Real Estate Consultant through its Proprietor Mr.Vijay Shinde (hereinafter referred to as opponents) under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on 16/11/2010. The complaint was numbered as Complaint No.194/2010. Accordingly notices were served on the opponents. Opponents appeared through their Advocates and filed written version and given copy of the same to the complainant. 2. The brief facts of the complaint can be summarized as under :- The complainant states that he has purchased two flats in a project constructed by opponent No.1 called as Mangalmurti. He states that he purchased flat No.504 admeasuring 53 sq.mtrs. built up area (570 sq.ft.) on 19/09/2008 for a consideration of Rs.5 Lakhs for himself and flat No.402 admeasuring 555 sq.ft. on 30/12/2008 fo...
Rajaram Baijanath Bharati Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-03-2013
Oral Judgment: (Mrs. V. K. Tahilramani, J.) Through this Appeal, the Appellant / original accused has challenged the Judgment and order dated 19th January, 2005, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No.414 of 2002. By the said Judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the Appellant under Sections 302, 452 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 37 read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. For the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, the Appellant was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- (Rs. Two Thousand) in default, S.I. for two months. For the offence punishable under Section 452 of Indian Penal Code, he was sentenced to S.I. for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rs. Five Hundred) in default, S.I. for one month and for the offence punishable under Section 37 read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, he was sentenced to imprisonment for one year. The learned Sessions...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »