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.
Akhil Mansuklal Mehta Vs. Sheetal Deepak Karamchandani
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-29-2013
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 2. This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 20.7.2012, passed below Exh.17 in R.C.S. No. 330 of 2012, by the learned C. J. J. D. Rahata, District Ahmednagar. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that on 24.9.1996, the petitioner and respondent purchased (first) property bearing old survey No. 51/4 (new 51/5) situated at Shirdi, Tq. Rahata, District Ahmednagar, for consideration of Rs.4,50,00/- and the names the petitioner and the respondent are mutated in the revenue record. Thereafter, they purchased (second) property admeasuring 18 R out of 44 R from survey No. 51/1 situated at Shirdi, Tq. Rahata, District Ahmednagar for consideration of Rs.1,26,000/- (second property) out of the funds of the petitioner himself and his name is also mutated in the 7x12 extract. It is further case of the petitioner that the petitioner alongwith respondent purchased jointly (third) property at village Vihigaon, Tq. Shahapu...
D. Virendra and Co. and Others Vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner seeks to challenge the award dated 30th June, 2011 allowing some of the claims made by the respondent. 2. Mr. Murthy, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits as under: (a) No notice was issued by the respondent to the petitioner before appointing the learned arbitrator. (b) The learned arbitrator did not disclose in writing any circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to his independence or impartiality and thus the arbitrator has acted in breach of section 12 sub section (1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. (c) Though the contract provides for payment of interest at the rate of 11% p.a., the learned arbitrator has awarded interest at the rate of 15.3% p.a. 3. As far as the first issue raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no notice to the petitioner was given before appointment of the arbitrator is concerned, cla...
Dhondiram Balu Dhotre and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-2013
A.R. Joshi, J. 1. Heard rival arguments on this Criminal Appeal preferred by the appellants/orig.accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 challenging the judgment and order of conviction dated 17.2.2003 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur in Sessions Case No.64 of 2000. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellants/orig.accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 were convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with 149 and 324 read with 149 of IPC. The major punishment inflicted on the said appellants/accused is punishable under Section 302 read with 149 of IPC whereby they were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to suffer further imprisonment for a period of two months each. They were sentenced to suffer other minor sentences for other offences. Each of the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. By the said impugned judgment and order, all the appellants/accused were acquitted of the offence punis...
Hindustan Computers Vs. Dart Computers Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-2013
P.C. Heard Mr. Uday Malte, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anilkumar, learned counsel for the respondents at length. 2. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff' has challenged the Judgment and order dated 11.2.2010 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Malegaon, below Exhibit-49 in Special Civil Suit No.76 of 2004. By that order, the learned trial Judge rejected the application taken out by the plaintiff for amending the Plaint. 3. The plaintiff-M/s Hindustan Computers instituted Special Civil Suit No.76 of 2004 on 4.9.2004 for recovery of Rs.44,81,820/- from the respondents, hereinafter referred to as 'defendants'. The plaintiff was sued as under:- "M/s.Hindustan Computers, Through - Upendra lad, Age 39 years, Occ: Business." The defendants resisted the suit by filing Written Statement on 30.10.2004. Issues were framed on 28.10.2005. On 19.6.2009 the plaintiff filed application for amendmen...
Tukaram @ Ravi Vs. Sau. Vaishali and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-28-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard learned Counsel Mr. Muhammed Ateeque for the applicant and learned Counsel Mr. P.H. Khobragade for the non-applicant. 2. Admit. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the parties. 3. The applicant has taken exception to the judgment and order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nagpur in Petition No.E-259/2008 on 13th July, 2011. The Family Court, by the impugned judgment and order, had directed the applicant to pay a sum of Rs.800/- per month to non-applicant No.1 and a sum of Rs.700/- per month to non-applicant No.2 by way of maintenance. Non-applicant Nos.1 and 2 are wife and son respectively of the applicant. 4. An application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code was filed by the non-applicants before the Family Court. Evidence of the non-applicants was recorded and the application was posted for recording of evidence of the applicant. It appears from the roznama that the applicant did not adduce any evidence and therefore,...
Walmik Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-28-2013
Oral Judgment: By consent Criminal Revision Application is admitted and heard finally. 2. This Criminal Revision Application has been filed by the Applicant challenging the judgment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 25th August, 2006 in S.C.C. No.1648 of 1998, convicting the applicant for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act sentencing him to undergo S.I. for 3 months and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further S.I. for 1 month, with a direction that on realisation of the fine, an amount of Rs.15,000/- be paid to the complainant. The aforesaid judgment of the trial Court was confirmed in Appeal by the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani by judgment dated 31st October, 2009 in Criminal Appeal NO.66 of 2006. 3. Shri Bhauthankar, learned counsel for the Applicant has urged before me that indisputedly the complainant has received amount of Rs. 15,000/- as directed by the trial Court. The learned counsel for ...
Pankaj Uttamrao Ingale and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-28-2013
Oral Judgment: (A.P. Lavande, J.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, matter is taken up for final hearing. 2. By this application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants seek quashing of Criminal Case No.784 of 2011 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Akola against the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 342 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Charge-sheet has been filed against the applicants pursuant to FIR filed by respondent no.2, who is the wife of applicant no.1. Applicant no.2 to 5 are close relatives of applicant no.1. 4. Applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 are present in the court who have been identified by their respective advocates. 5. Applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 have filed affidavits stating that they have settled the dispute amongst themselves. Moreover, it has been stated by respondent no.2 that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, she is not...
Gaurav Textiles Vs. the Manager the National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-2013
Narendra Kawde, Member: (1) Complainant M/s.Gaurav Textiles has filed this consumer complaint through its proprietor-Dilip Jayantilal Nakum alleging deficiency in service against the opponent-The National Insurance Co.Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as insurance company), as insurance claim payable under the Standard Fire and Special Peril Policy has not been settled for the loss sustained by the complainant due to destruction of insured stock on account of electric short circuit that occurred at the insured godown premises of the complainant. (2) Further, it is the contention of the complainant that under the Standard Fire and Special Peril Policy bearing No.260900/11/06/3100000560 stock of cloth processing machinery and raw material was insured which was stored in the godown premises. During the validity period of the insurance policy, the fire took place in the insured godown premises on 11/07/2006 and stocks worth Rs.28,29,238/- was destroyed. The incident was promptly reported to th...
Kalpana Dilip Dave Vs. Pramila @ Pista Chhaganlal Dave
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-2013
1. The plaintiff is the wife of the deceased one Dilip Chhaganlal Dave who died intestate on 28th August, 2001 leaving behind the plaintiff as his widow as also his mother and daughter. The petition is for issue of Letters of Administration of his estate. Letters of Administration would have to be granted to one of the parties to the suit. The defendants have not applied for issue of Letters of Administration. 2. All the three heirs including the plaintiff are entitled to receive 1/3rd share of the above estate, comprising movable as well as immovable properties. 3. The entire estate is not admitted belonging to the deceased. What is the admitted estate and what constitutes the entire estate of the deceased shall have to be seen. 4. The admitted estate comprises one flat purchased by the deceased upon taking a loan of Rs.5.5 lakhs from the HDFC Bank, the death dues payable to the deceased in the company where he served consisting of gratuity, provident fund and employees deposit link i...
Ashapura Minechem Ltd. Vs. Pacific BasIn Ihx (Uk) Ltd. [Formerly Known ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-2013
Oral Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) This Appeal arises from a judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 4 October 2012 by which a motion seeking a direction under Order 39 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 striking off the defence of the Appellant to a Petition for enforcing a foreign award was allowed. The learned Single Judge has directed that the defence filed by the Appellant to the Petition instituted by the Respondent under Section 47 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 be struck off. 2. The facts before the Court lie in a narrow compass. On 25 October 2007 a contract of affreightment was entered into between the Appellant and the Respondent for shipment of a certain consignment of Bauxite from the west coast of India to China. One of the ports of dispatch was Okha which, the Court is informed, falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Court of Jamkhambhalia in the District of Jamnagar. The Respondent lodged a claim against the Appellant ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »