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.
Vidarbh Infotech Private Limited Vs. Pune Municipal Corporation and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-03-2013
A.M. Khanwilkar, J. This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, was filed on 18th February, 2011 praying for setting aside the decision of Respondent No. 1 holding Respondent No. 2 qualified for Tender No. 1 Recall 2010 and further, direct Respondent No. 1 to award that contract under Tender No. 1 Recall 2010 to the Petitioner and not to award the contract under the said tender to Respondent No. 2. However, as during the pendency of this Writ Petition, the work order was issued by Respondent No. 1, in favour of Respondent No. 2, the Petitioner has amended this Petition pursuant to liberty given by this Court in terms of order dated 31st March, 2011, and has additionally asked for setting aside the said work order dated 5th March, 2011 issued in favour of Respondent No. 2. 2) It is relevant to note that on 31st March, 2011, the Court, while granting leave to the Petitioner to amend the Petition, made it clear that any action taken from that date will be subject t...
Sulocbana Trimbak Birari Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-03-2013
Smt. Sadhana S. Jadhav, J. The appellant herein is the original accused No.2 in Sessions Case No.57 of 2004 decided by the III Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Malegaon. By a judgment and order dated 17th February, 2006, the appellant is convicted for offence punishable under Section 364-A read with Section 34 of IPC and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo further R.I. for six months. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the appellant has preferred the present Appeal. 2. Such of the facts which are necessary for the decision of this Appeal are as follows :- Kailas Pagar (complainant) a resident of Satana, has a son named Sarthak @ Munna. His son was taking education in 2nd Standard in Abhinav Balm Vikas Mandir. On 28.2.2004, it was a holiday. At about 7.00 to 7.15 a.m., the mother of Sarthak had sent him to "Arihant Provisions", a grocery shop to purchase a packet of tea powder. He did not return home and, therefore,...
Shri Kiran Ramchandra Suryavanshi Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-03-2013
A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Counsel appearing for the respective respondents waive service for the concerned respondents. By consent, taken up for final disposal. 3. This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to quash and set aside the Resolution passed by Respondent No.2 Corporation on 31.8.2012 and the appointments of Respondent Nos. 4 to 12 herein as elected members of the Standing Committee of the Respondent No.2 Corporation and/or to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to withdraw the Resolution dated 31.8.2012 forthwith. 4. These reliefs are claimed on the assertion that the election of Respondent Nos.4 to 12, as members of the Standing Committee of the Respondent No.2 Corporation, was in gross violation of the procedure stipulated in section 31A of the Maharashtra Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 194...
M/S. M. Mamotra Associates Vs. Leela Raj âaâ Co-operative Ho ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-03-2013
1. The Petitioner has invoked Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, Arbitration Act). The Petitioner, original claimant has challenged Award dated 12 September 2011 passed by the sole Arbitrator, thereby rejected the statement of claim with costs. The operative part of the Award is as under : The Prayer Clause a-1 and a-2 of the Statement of Claim are hereby rejected with costs. 2. Prayer clauses (a1) and (a2) of the State of Claim are as under : (a-1) that it be declared by this Honourable Tribunal that the claimants are entitled to sell the 11 Flats and constructed area and stilt parking space and other amenities/benefits to prospective buyers pursuant to clauses (4) and (17) of the Development Agreement dated 20/2/2006 being Exhibit A hereto. (a-2) that it may be declared that this Hon'ble Tribunal that the sale of 11 Flats and constructed area stilts parking is in due compliance of the clauses (4) and (17) of the Development Agreement dated 20/2/2006 ...
Rajesh Tiwari Vs. M/S. Motilal Oswal Financial Services Ltd. and Anoth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-03-2013
1. The Petitioner has invoked Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, Arbitration Act). The Petitioner, original borrower, has challenged Award dated 29 December, 2009 passed by the sole Arbitrator, thereby awarded claim in favour of the Respondent/original claimant/Lender. 2. The Petitioner had demat account with Motilal Oswal Securities Limited at Buxal, Bihar, which is stated to be sister concern of Respondent with whom the Petitioner entered into a Master Loan Agreement dated 14 December, 2007 for providing loan against the deposit of securities and/or finance for purchase of security facilities. The learned Arbitrator has dealt with the contention revolving around Respondent No.2, while granting the Award in favour of Respondent No.1. Admittedly, Respondent No.2 was not party to the arbitration proceedings as they were not party to the agreement between the parties having arbitration clause. Therefore, there was no question of adjudicating or deciding ...
Kantilal Chhaganlal Securities Private Limited Vs. Shilpa Pareek
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-03-2013
The Petitioner has challenged award dated 29 April 2010 passed by the panel of Arbitrator of National Stock Exchange of India Limited (for short, NSEIL) as per their Rules, Regulations and Byelaws. 2 The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent has raised preliminary objection with regard to the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the present Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Arbitration Act). Admittedly, the parties have entered into an Agreement between Stock Broker and Client, at Mumbai, on 14 October 2008. Clause 19 of the said agreement is as under:19. The stock broker and the client declare and agree that the transactions executed on the Exchange are subject to Rules; Byelaws and Regulations and circulars issued there under of the Exchange and all parties to such trade shall have submitted to the jurisdiction of such court as may be specified by the Byelaws and Regulations of the Exchange for the purpose of giving effe...
Dy. Collector and S.D.O., Mormugao, Vasco-da-gama and Another Vs. Olav ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-03-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard Ms. Linhares, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. M. B. D'Costa, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 31/08/1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (II) (Reference Court, for short) in Land Acquisition Case No. 116 of 1997. 3. The parties shall be referred to in the manner as they appear in the cause title of the said Land Acquisition Case. 4. Facts giving rise to the appeal, in short, are as follows: Vide notification published under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L.A. Act, for short), in the Official Gazette dated 10/10/1991, the Government acquired land for construction of Utorda to Arossim link road (additional area). This included a portion of land admeasuring 1225 square metres from Survey No. 98/1 and a portion of land admeasuring 515 square metres from Survey No.149, of Village Arossim of Mo...
Prem Masih S/O Late Rev. Rehmat Masih Vs. State of Maharashtra Through ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-03-2013
Oral Judgment: Admitted. Heard finally by consent of parties. Heard learned counsel Mr. S.I. Khan, learned counsel for the applicant; Mr S.S. Doiphode, learned Addl. P.P. for respondent no.1 and Mr. Prashant Keole, learned counsel for respondent no.2. 2. In the first place, it may be stated that the applicant has not filed Revision Application in the Sessions Court against the order of learned Magistrate. However since the respondent no.2 has not seriously raised the issue as to whether the applicant should have, in the first place, moved the Sessions Court, the said issue is not being touched in the present order. 3. As far as the merits of the case are concerned, the applicant is one of the accused in private Criminal Complaint No.126/2000 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur. He is facing charges for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 506 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted by learned counsel Mr. S.I.Khan that the applicant ...
Durgaprasad S/O Madanlal Suwarnakar Vs. the State of Maharashtra Throu ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-03-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission itself. 2. The petitioner takes exception to the manner in which the order in Appeal preferred against the order dated 25th July, 2012 passed by the Licencing Authority and Assistant Commissioner Food and Drugs Administration, State of Maharashtra, Jalgaon had been passed, whereunder the licence granted to the petitioner stands cancelled. According to the petitioner, show cause notice has been issued only for suspension of licence, whereas order passed by the authority straight away cancels the licence. The counsel for petitioner further contends, that apart, discrepancies, which have been informed by the authority concerned, are of minor in nature and do not call for such a drastic action. Petitioner had therefore approached the Appellate Authority State of Maharashtra and had also sought stay to the operatio...
Netcore Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Pinnacle Teleservices Pvt.L ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-03-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The main grievance of the petitioners is that the learned trial Magistrate without following the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.138 of 2011 had issued process against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 had filed complaint bearing No.16047 of 2010 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Statement of the complainants/ respondents on oath was recorded for verification of the correctness of the complaint and a process was issued against the applicants to answer the charge for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on 16th December, 2010. The said order was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No.138 of 2011. This Court (Coram : A.P. Bhangale, J) whi...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »