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.
Balaji S/O Ganpati Manmode Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through Its S ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-22-2013
Oral Judgment: (A.H. Joshi, J.) 1] This Letters Patent Appeal is taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned Advocates appearing for the parties. 2] The Letters Patent Appeal is filed by unsuccessful writ petitioner in Writ Petition No.6533/2012. 3] The proceedings had begun in the premises noted in paras to follow. 4] Respondent no.5 - Sudam Rautrao initiated proceedings u/s 14 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act. He prayed for disqualification of Sarpanch - Balaji Ganpati Manmode - present appellant and another member of panchayat. In the application praying for the said relief, he has alleged that the appellant herein had incurred disqualification on account of [i] withdrawal of Rs.17,000/- by cash from the account of the panchayat and failing to account for it; [ii] creating fake and fictitious record of paying by way of loan to the panchayat an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- and recovering the money from the panchayat against construction work by fabricating record. Thereby ...
Ritesh S/O Deoram Patil Vs. Dhanvantari Urban Co.Op. Credit Society Lt ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-22-2013
Oral Judgment: 1) Heard both the Criminal Applications finally. No notice to respondent No.1 Credit Co.op. society. 2) The applicant has questioned process under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, the Act) dated 17.10.2007 issued by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhusawal in both the cases. 3) The applicant has not resorted to the available remedy of revision before the learned District Judge. 4) The respondent No.1 Dhanvantari Urban Co-op. Credit Society Ltd., Bhusawal had invested an amount of Rs.1,55,00,000/- with Vyankat Urban Credit Co.op. Society Ltd. (for short, Vyankat society) on 27th March, 2006. The deposit was to accrue interest @ 10.5%. An advance cheque in respect of said deposit and also accrued interest of Rs.11,43,756/- was issued by the applicant Ritesh on 28.3.2006 in the capacity as Chairman of Vyankaresh society. 5) After expiry of period of the deposit, the said cheques were deposited in Jalgaon Janata Co-operative Society Ltd.,...
M/S. Chemipex Vs. M/S. Shlok Chemicals
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-2013
Oral Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) : 1. Admit. With the consent of the learned counsel, the Appeal is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. The Appeal arises from a judgment of a Learned Single Judge dated 9 April 2012 on a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. The Appellant, who is the Original Petitioner, challenged an arbitral award dated 1 July 2011 of an Arbitral Tribunal constituted by the Chemical and Alkali Merchants' Association. The challenge to the arbitral award has failed. Hence, the Petitioner before the Learned Single Judge in the Arbitration Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 is in appeal. 3. A contract was entered into between the Appellant and the Respondent on 27 December 2010. Under the agreement the Respondent agreed to supply to the Appellant 210 Metric Tons of Hydrogen Peroxide originating in China in 10 FCLs. The contract envisaged that shipment would be effected before 20 January...
Bhartiben Shah and Others Vs. Smt. Gracy Thomas and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-2013
MohitS. Shah, C.J. 1. The following questions have been referred for our opinion: (1) What is the scope and ambit of the power of revision under section 34(4) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999? (2) Whether a revision application under section 34(4) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 would be maintainable in respect of a procedural order passed under the Code of Civil Procedure in a suit arising out of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act ? 2. For giving answers to the above questions, we propose to proceed in the following manner: Para Nos.Page Nos.(i)Indicating brief facts leading to this reference3 to 64 to 5(ii)Setting out the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties7 to 96 to 15(iii)Statutory provisions1016 to 18(iv)Giving broad analysis of rival submissions on maintainability of revision.1118 to 20(v)Relevant consideration for correct perspective12 to 1920 to 26(vi)Brief exposition of the principle on maintainability of revision20 to 2426 to 31(vii)Analysis...
The New India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pyarelal Textile Limited a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-2013
The Petitioner (original Respondent) has challenged an award of Arbitral Tribunal, consisting of three members under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Arbitration Act). The challenge is to the majority award of two members and also the minority award, both dated 27 July 2009. 2 The summary of majority award is as under:- VII SUMMARY OF AWARD: Our award is summarised as set out hereafter 1. Claim wardedRs.56,48,1062. Costs awarded"13,50,2653. Interest awarded"21,96,675Total AwardRs.91,95,046VIII NIA is directed to pay the total award of Rs.91,95,046/- (Rupees Ninety One Lakhs Ninety Five Thousand Forty Six Only) before 31st August 2009. If NIA fail to do so, simple Interest @ 18% per annum on the full amount of the award of Rs.91,95,046/- from 28th July 2009 till the date of final payment, will be applicable and shall be paid by NIA as per Subsection 7(b) of Section 31 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (as amended). As stated earlier, as rega...
Naresh Eknath Naik Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-2013
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 29.9.2004 passed by the learned IV Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in Sessions Case No. 97 of 2004. 2. By the said impugned judgment and order the appellant-accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and he was also convicted for offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for one year. 3. The case of the prosecution, in nut shell, is as under: The appellant-accused and his wife Yogita, since deceased had married in the year 1996. Out of marital relations they have two children, daughter Sanjana and son Sandesh. After marriage the accused used to object Yogita maintaining relations with her brother, mother, sister and other relatives. There used to be quarrel on that count. The mother and other relatives of Yogita tri...
Mahavir Saremal JaIn Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-2013
A.P. Bhangale, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and Heard by consent. 2. The petitioner seeks to invoke writ jurisdiction of this court questioning validity of the order dated 31-08-2012 in appeal no EXT2012 /128 passed by the Principal Secretary, Home Ministry of the State of Maharashtra who dismissed the appeal of the Petitioner against the externment order dated 05-06-2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police Zone -2 Mumbai, whereby externing the Petitioner from the Districts of Brihan Mumbai (Greater Mumbai) Mumbai Police Commissioner Zone, Navi Mumbai, Thane and Raigad for period of one year with effect from the date the petitioner is externed. 3. It is case of the Petitioner that on 15-03-2012 the Petitioner was called by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Gaondevi and was handed over an order dated 15-03-2012 and was directed to furnish surety. The Petitioner had furnished surety of Shri Anant Advilekar on the same day. The Petitioner was allowed to go. On 03...
M/S. Menezes Fernandes Enterprises Vs. the Income Tax Officer and Anot ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-21-2013
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Kanade, J ): The appellant is challenging the judgment and order passed by the ITAT, Panaji, dated 28/12/2005. The appeal was admitted and the following substantial question of law was framed: Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the revised return was invalid in law when the said return was filed before the due date for filing the return u/s. 139 (4) of the Act and it could be deemed as a rectified return u/s. 139 (4) of the Act and not a revised return u/s 139 (5) of the Act? 2. The facts relevant for deciding this appeal are as under: The assessee is a registered partnership firm constituted by the partnership deed dated 2/9/1991. At the relevant time, the due date for filing of the return was 31/8/1993. The assessee filed its return of income on 30/9/1993 and the said return declared an unabsorbed depreciation to the tune of Rs.2,42,996/- for the assessment year 1993-94. Intimation under section 143 (1) (a) was issued on 21.9.1994 and served on th...
Smt. Savitri Dattatraya Powar and Others Vs. Divisional Officer, Natio ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-2013
Narendra Kawde, Member Both these appeals are filed by same Appellants against the same Respondent challenging a common order dated 12/5/2007 passed by the District Forum, Kolhapur in two consumer complaints bearing Nos.223 of 2006 and 224 of 2006. Since these appeals involve identical facts and common question of law for adjudication both these appeals are disposed of simultaneously by this common judgment and order. [2] Smt. Savitri Dattatraya Powar and Smt. Laxmi Dattatraya Powar, who are the Appellants Nos.1 and 2 herein respectively and who were the original Complainants Nos.1 and 2 respectively in the two consumers filed before the District Forum, both are widows of Late Mr. Dattatraya Keshav Powar, while the Appellant No.3/original Complainant No.3, Mr. Gautam Dattatraya Powar is the son of deceased Mr. Dattatraya Keshav Pawar. (Hereinafter all the Appellants shall be collectively referred to as the Complainants) Late Mr. Dattatraya Keshav Pawar had insured his vehicle 10 seater...
Sadashiv S. Kalsekar Drawing Teacher (Retired) Department of Education ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-21-2013
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Kanade, J.) By this petition which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners are challenging order dated 12/06/2001 and are also seeking an appropriate order and direction to fix the pay of the petitioners who were in service upto 31/12/2000 under Part 'B' notionally from 1/1/1996 as applicable to teachers in service on 01/01/2001. 2. Brief facts are as under: The petitioners were appointed in the grade of teacher/head master on 01/01/1996. The petitioners attained age of superannuation and retired sometime on or before 31/12/2000. It is the contention of the petitioners that by the impugned order the Government had taken a decision that the teaching allowance and special allowances have to be given to teachers who were in service after 01/01/2001 and part 'B' scale was therefore made applicable to those teachers who were in service on or after 01/01/2001. The grievance of the petitioners is that the said cut off date has been fixed in...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »