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.
PravIn S/O Bhaskarrao Borkute Vs. Dinkar S/O Bhaskarrao Borkute and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-31-2013
Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the judgment passed by the first appellate Court on 09/07/2012 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the miscellaneous civil appeal. The petitioner is the original plaintiff. A suit was instituted by the petitioner against the respondent Nos.1 to 3 for preemption. The petitioner filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure restraining the respondent Nos.1 to 3 from developing the suit property. The trial Court by the order dated 14/10/2011, rejected the application for grant of temporary injunction. The petitioner filed a miscellaneous civil appeal on 12/01/2012 against the order dated 14/10/2011 along with an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. It was the case of the petitioner in the application for ...
Sudhakar S/O Sidram Patil Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through Minist ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-31-2013
1. Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. This writ petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 5th May, 2012 passed by the Minister, Food and Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection in case No.VAM1009/F.N.530/C.S.21. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was running a fair price shop and retail kerosene in Yemgarwadi since 1987. The retail kerosene licence of the petitioner was renewed by the respondent authorities from time to time till 1997. It is the case of the petitioner that though the petitioner paid renewal fees, his retail kerosene licence No.13/87has not been renewed after 1997 but, the petitioner was given kerosene quota for distribution till December, 2004. 4. The respondent authority directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.3,000/- towards deposit for retail kerosene security deposit vide Challan No.101915161. The petitioner deposited Rs.3000/- in the treasury office Tuljapur on 27th November, 2002. 5. It is th...
Hdfc Standard Life Insurance Solapur Branch Vs. Dilip Shridhar Sapatne ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-2013
S. B. Mhase, President. [1] Heard Adv. A. S. Vidyarthi on behalf of the Appellant/Opponent and Adv. Anand S. Kulkarni on behalf of the Respondent/Complainant. [2] This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 30/4/2008 passed by the District Forum, Solapur in Consumer Complaint No.139 of 2007. By this order the Appellant/Opponent, namely HDFC Standard Life Insurance was directed to amend the insurance policy to include mortality and extra health cover charges. Insurance Company was further directed to pay to Respondent/Complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- by way of compensation besides costs of Rs.1,000/-. The Insurance Company was directed to comply with this order within a period of thirty days and failing which the amounts ordered to be paid to the Respondent/Complainant were to carry interest @ 9% p.a. Being aggrieved by the said order the Appellant/Opponent, Insurance Company has preferred this appeal. [3] In this appeal, Appellant is the original Opponent while the Respond...
Krishnan Kutty Nair Vs. Union of India, Through the General Manager, C ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-2013
R.C. Joshi, Member (A) 1. In this Original Application the Applicant has impugned Exhibit A-4 letter dated 07.04.2003, Exhibit A-3 letter dated 15.02.2005 issued by the Chief Administrative Officer (Construction), Central Railway, Exhibit A-2 letter dated 29.04.2005 issued by the Chief Administrative Officer (Construction), Central Railway and Exhibit A-1 containing the decision held in PNM Meeting on 15/16.11.2006. 2. Briefly, the Applicant was initially engaged as a Casual Khalasi (Group 'D') on 23.01.1982 in Central Railway and attained temporary status after 180 days of continuous service as per Rules. He was subsequently promoted/posted as Casual Labour Welder (Group 'C') on 16.06.1983 after a trade test and was granted the temporary status as Welder with effect from 01.01.1984. The Applicant has been working as an ad-hoc Welder Group 'C' in the Construction Organization and seeks absorption with effect from 30.04.1997 as an Artisan Group 'C' employee with consequential benefits. ...
Ms. Reshma Ashok Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-2013
P.C.: [A.R. Joshi, J.] 1. Heard rival submissions on this application preferred by the prosecutrix defacto complainant challenging the judgment and order of acquittal of respondent No.2/orig.accused dated 26.9.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Borivali Division, Borivali, Mumbai. The impugned judgment and order of acquittal was passed in Sessions Case No.127 of 2011 by which present respondent No.2/sole accused was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 376 and also under Section 417 of Indian Penal Code. 2. During the trial before the Sessions Court, six prosecution witnesses were examined. Out of them, only important witness is PW1 i.e. prosecutrix girl. 3. PW2 is Dr. Baban Shinde then attached to Nagpada Police Hospital as Medical Officer. He examined the prosecutrix and also respondent No.2/accused. According to his examination, the victim girl was habituated to sexual intercourse and her age was more than 21 years. According to...
Moser Baer Entertainment Limited Vs. Goldmines Telefilms Private Limit ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-2013
1. By this petition filed under section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short `Arbitration Act, 1996), the petitioner seeks to challenge an order passed by the learned arbitrator granting interim measures in favour of the respondents on application filed under section 17 of the Act. Some of the relevant facts for the purposes of deciding this petition are setout hereunder:- 2. By an agreement dated 28th February, 2012 entered into between the petitioner and the respondent, the respondent granted sole and exclusive rights to the petitioner to manufacture, record, copy, sell and distribute various films through DVDs, VDCs and all devices for the home video markets in the territory of India. The said agreement was to commence w.e.f. 1st March, 2012 and the terms of the agreement was of three years. The said agreement however provided for one year lock in period under clause 3.1. Clause 1.4 provided that the petitioner was given a right to exploit the film right...
Agricultural Produce Market Committee Vs. the Hon'ble Member, Industri ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-30-2013
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) Admit. Heard finally by consent of the parties. Shri N.S. Khubalkar, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives notice on behalf of respondent No.1 and Shri S.R. Bhongade, the learned Counsel waives notice on behalf of respondent No.2. 2. By this appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the appellant-Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Nagpur has questioned the judgment dated 07th September, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 5121 of 2006. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition filed by the present appellant and upheld the order of the Industrial Court dated 17.12.2005 in Complaint (ULPN) No. 574 of 2002. The Industrial Court has found that the appellant-Market Committee has to pay subsistence allowance in accordance with the provisions of Clause 25 (5A) of Model Standing Orders framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 to its employee-respondent No.2. Th...
Mrs. Vaishali W/O Sunil Raichur Vs. Arun Shridhar Karadkhedkar
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-30-2013
Oral Judgment: Rule was issued in Criminal Writ Petition No.127/2011 on 14th Oct., 2011. 2. With the consent of learned Counsel for respective parties, Rule, in other matters. Counsel for respective parties waive service. 3. Heard forthwith. 4. These six writ petitions question issuance of process under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in six different complaint petitions against the petitioner, initiated by respective respondents (members of the same family). Process was directed on 6.5.2010, 16.7.2009, 29.4.2011, 16.7.2009, 6.5.2011 and 14.7.2009 in respective matters. 5. No revision is preferred under Section 397 of Cr.P.C., though alternate remedy was available to the petitioner. In normal circumstances, on this count, the petitions would have been remitted for approaching appropriate Court, however, since the grounds in the petition indicate to consider whether there exists a primary liability of the petitioner in terms of Section 138 or 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act,...
Bhumsingh Udaysingh Kachhway Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-2013
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Oka, J.) By this Petition, the Petitioner has invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Code") for quashing an offence registered under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act of 1988"). The First Information Report was registered by the fifth Respondent-the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Mumbai. The first Informant is the sixth Respondent. The Petitioner accused was a Police Constable who was at the relevant time attached to Vikhroli Police Station, Mumbai. The allegation against him is of demand of illegal gratification from the sixth Respondent. On the basis of information supplied by the sixth Respondent, a trap was laid on 31st October 2012 when the Petitioner was caught raid-handed while accepting the bribe amount of Rs.18,000/- in cash. 2. The ch...
Enercon (India) Ltd. Vs. Kishor B. Patel and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-2013
Oral Judgment: Since a narrow controversy is involved in the above petition, Rule, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties is made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The order impugned is one dated 17.10.2012 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Daman by which order the application dated 15.09.2012 filed by the Petitioner herein i.e. Exhibit 1 for deciding the preliminary issue as to whether the 11 workmen, who have raised the demand have the locus-standi to represent the workmen of the Petitioner-Company came to be disposed of by observing that the application for interim relief filed in the said Reference could be taken up first. The Reference in question has arisen out of the charter of demands raised by the said 11 workmen purportedly on behalf of the other workmen whom they claimed to represent. The matter had been referred to the Industrial Tribunal in view of the failure of the conciliation proceedings. The order of the Reference contains...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »