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.
Ku. Yogeshwari D/O Satish Deore Vs. the State of of Maharashtra, Throu ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
A.H. Joshi, J. 1. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. Petitioners' requests for issue of certificates were rejected by the Competent Authority-Deputy Collector (SETU), Aurangabad, by order dated 6.5.2010. The rejection was challenged before the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, by filing appeal. The appeal is dismissed by order dated 10.8.2010. 3. The petitioners are before us seeking direction to the competent authority to issue to him a certificate of belonging to Thakur Tribe. 4. Petitioners' claim and submissions are summarized as follows:- (a) petitioners' father and mother have received Thakur Tribe certificates. (b) Petitioners' uncle, namely, Shri Ajay Adhar Deore possesses a certificate showing that he belongs to Tribe Thakur and that said certificate is validated by the Scrutiny Committee. 5. Petitioners have annexed along with petition, caste certificates issued to their father, mother and also...
Anil S/O Gattulal JaIn and Another Vs. Amrut Damodar Rokde and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
Oral Judgment: RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioners impugn the judgment passed by the trial Court on 24.12.2004 decreeing a suit filed by the respondent nos.1 and 2 and holding that the respondent nos.1 and 2 were entitled to possession of the suit property under Section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. The petitioners also challenge the judgment of the first appellate Court dated 23.07.2012 dismissing an appeal filed by the petitioners and confirming the judgment passed by the trial Court. 3. The respondent nos.1 and 2 are the plaintiffs. A suit was instituted by the respondent nos.1 and 2 after issuance of notice for possession of the property under Section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. It was the case of the plaintiffs that the father of the plaintiffs was running a cloth business under the name and style 'Amrut Textiles' and the p...
Sau. Devkabai Chudaman Patil and Another Vs. Santosh Supadu Patil and ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-23-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. This writ petition takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dhule below Exhibit 48 in Regular Civil Suit No. 35 of 2010 on 2nd January, 2012. 3. The petitioners herein are the original defendants and the respondents herein are the original plaintiffs. The respondents herein filed Regular Civil Suit No.35 of 2010 in which the petitioners herein appeared after receipt of the summons and resisted the suit by filing written statement. The issues were framed on 8th August, 2011 by the trial Court. 4. The plaintiffs stepped into witness box, and examination and also cross examination of the plaintiffs was completed. 5. It is the case of the petitioners that, original defendants are old aged persons and also not keeping good health. Defendant No.1 is a lady, who is the owner of the property and defendant No.2 is her husband. It is the case of the petitioners that, they are r...
The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Vs. Shri Vitthal Anna Kamb ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-2013
Oral Judgment: 1 Rule, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2 The writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked against the judgment and order passed by the Appellate Authority constituted under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short the said Act) by which the Appeal filed by the Petitioner herein came to be dismissed and resultantly the order passed by the Controlling Authority dated 28.03.2012 came to be confirmed. 3 The factual matrix which is involved in the above petition can be stated thus: The Petitioner herein is the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai established under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. The Municipal Corporation employs a large retinue of employees in its various departments. For regulating the services of its employees, the Petitioner in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 81 of the said Act has framed what are know...
Ansari Asraf Azami @ Asraf Azmi Vs. Ansari Sana Masood D/O.Masood Ansa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-2013
P .C. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 7 December 2012 of the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the appellant's Writ Petition against the order dated 17 October 2012 of the Additional Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Bombay, in Election Petition No.90 of 2012. 2. Ansari Dilshad Azmi Aslam, respondent No.1 in the above election petition came to be elected as a Councillor of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai from Ward No.158. Respondent No.1 herein Mrs. Ansari Sana Masood Ansari (the election petitioner), one of the defeated candidates, has filed election petition No.90 of 2012 challenging the election of Ansari Dilshad Azmi Aslam (hereinafter referred to as respondent No.1). 3. The present appellant is the husband of said elected candidate Ansari Dilshad Azmi Aslam. The appellant himself has also been elected as a Councillor of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai from Ward No.159. The appellant's election from Ward No.159 is not the subjec...
Shane Duff and Others Vs. Essel Sports Private Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. By these petitions filed under section 11 and section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short hereinafter referred to as Act) the applicants seek an order and direction to substitute the sole arbitrator. The facts of all the aforesaid mattes are identical and the issue involved being common, all the above matters were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. 2. Both the parties have addressed this court on the basis of the facts in Arbitration (L) No. 49 of 2013 and the same are therefore, summarized as under: (a) The applicant is engaged in providing physiotherapy, physical fitness/health services etc. for sports items in tournaments/camps. etc. On 23rd January, 2008 the parties entered into ICL Professional Services Agreement (for short referred to as Agreement). The agreement was valid for the period of three years. According to applicant, sum of US $ 26,2904 is outstanding and payable by the respondent to the applicant. On...
Shaikh Raju Shaikh Raheman Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-22-2013
Sunil P. Deshmukh, J. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard by consent, finally. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court against order dated 28.12.2012 passed by respondent no.2-Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee - 2, invalidating his claim to caste as "Momin" Other Backward Class (for short 'OBC'). 3. Petitioner has contested general election of village Panchayat, Vihamandava, Tq. Paithan on a seat reserved for 'Other Backward Class' and was elected. 4. The Collector, Aurangabad had forwarded the certificate of caste "Momin" claimed by the petitioner to respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee for scrutiny, verification and decision. 5. The petitioner's claim that he belongs to the caste "Momin"(OBC) has been resisted by respondent No.6, who appears to have contested the election. According to respondent No.6, petitioner's claim as to his status is fraudulent and that he is "Muslim" from open category. 6. It is seen that the petitioner had applied and the competent Authority - ...
Sumeet Maruti Pawar and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-22-2013
Oral Judgment: (Hardas, J.) Rule, returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, who are accused in Crime No.176 of 2012 under section 363, 366 read with 34 of I.P.C. pray for quashing of the first information report on the ground that a perusal of the first information report does not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence. 3. A first information report against the petitioners came to be lodged on 30th October, 2012 on the basis of which an offence vide Crime No.176 of 2012 for offence punishable under section 363 and 366 read with 34 of I.P.C. was registered. 4. The allegations in the first information report against the petitioners were that petitioners had kidnapped Supriya Bhagwan Karankal, daughter of the first informant and accordingly the aforesaid offences came to be registered. 5. During the pende...
Bajaj Auto Finance Limited and Another Vs. Ramesh Harishchandra Sinari
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-22-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri Ryan Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners. None for the Respondents though served. 2. The above Petition challenges the Orders passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Bicholim, dated 23.10.2008, whereby the Branch in charge of the Petitioner no. 1 has been ordered to be detained in civil imprisonment for not complying with the Decree dated 31.12.2003, passed against the Petitioners. By one Order, the learned Judge rejected the application under exhibit 11 whereby the Petitioners have pointed out that in compliance with the Decree, the Petitioners were delivering the scooter in a good condition. The next application has been filed at the instance of the Respondent, praying, inter alia, for detention of the Petitioners in civil imprisonment for not complying with the Decree. 3. Shri Ryan Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, has assailed the impugned Order as, according to him, after the Decree came to be passed...
Deepak Ramdeo Jaiswal and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-22-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard learned Counsel Mr. P.N. Mehta for the petitioners and learned Counsel Mr. S.R. Deshpande for the respondent. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith by consent of learned Counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioners have been charge-sheeted by the Forest Department of Amgaon Range for the offences punishable under Sections 33 and 63 of the Indian Forest Act. Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act obviously has been wrongly applied as the same is not punishing section. 4. The grievance of the petitioners is that no case at all of any nature punishable under Section 63 of the Indian Forest Act was made out against the petitioners and other accused. Section 63 of the Indian Forest Act has been added only with a few to bring the charge-sheet within limitation period. At this stage, it may be noted here that the substantive punishment for the offence punishable under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act is one year. The substantive punishment for the offence punishable under Sec...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »