Mumbai Court October 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.
M/S. Nagindas K. and Bros. and Others Vs. the Official Liquidator, Hig ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-2013
Oral Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) 1. The appeal arises from a judgment and order of a learned Single Judge in a company application that was moved by the Appellant for recalling an earlier order dated 12 February 2013 of the Company court. 2. M/s. Rajen Textile Private Limited, a company which is now in liquidation, mortgaged its leasehold rights in respect of the land bearing block Nos.399 to 403, 405 and 427 situated at village Barshi, District Solapur in favour of the Central Bank of India. The company went into liquidation on 27 June 1984. Central Bank of India, which was one of the secured creditors, instituted a suit in 1986 before this Court for the recovery of its dues. A decree was passed in favour of the Central Bank on 30 November 1996. Amongst the securities furnished to the Central Bank was a mortgage of the leasehold rights held by the company. On 11 August 2000, the erstwhile owners of the land, including one R.R. Deshpande entered into a sale deed in respect of ...
Messrs. Keystone Constructions and Others Vs. State Bank of India and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-2013
S.J. Vazifdar, J. 1. The interpretation of the second proviso to section 18(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the "SARFAESI Act" or the "said Act") falls for consideration in these writ petitions. Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act reads as under:- 18. Appeal to Appellate Tribunal. (1) Any person aggrieved, by any order made by the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17, may prefer an appeal [along with such fee, as may be prescribed] to an Appellate Tribunal within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order of Debts Recovery Tribunal: [Provided that different fees may be prescribed for filing an appeal by the borrower or by the person other than the borrower:] [Provided further that no appeal shall be entertained unless the borrower has deposited with the Appellate Tribunal fifty per cent of the amount of debt due from him, as claimed by the secured creditors or determined by ...
Satpalsingh @ Raja S/O. Jeetsingh Pujari and Another Vs. the State of ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-08-2013
T.V. Nalawade, J. 1. The appeal is filed against judgment and order of Special Case (NDPS) No. 3/2011, which was pending in the Court of Extra Jt. Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded. Both the appellants are convicted and sentenced for offences punishable under sections 15, 22, 25 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'NDPS Act' for short). They are also convicted and sentenced for offence punishable under section 18 (C) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Both the sides are heard. 2. In short, the facts leading to the institution of the appeal, can be stated as follows:- On 19.3.2011 Smt. Nirmala Devi, Deputy Superintendent of Police, a Gazetted Officer, received information that at Amar Complex, Gurudwara Chowk, Nanded, Satpalsingh (accused No. 1) and his servant Shankar (accused No. 2) were in illegal possession of poppy straw powder and they were selling it. Smt. Nirmala Devi was heading a special squad at the relevant time. She collecte...
The Branch Manager, L. I. C. of India, Hyderabad and Another Vs. Mrs. ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-2013
Oral Order: R. C. Chavan, President: This appeal is directed against the order dated 06/01/2011 passed by the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane in Consumer Complaint No.80 of 2010, Smt. Kavita Sudam Mhaske Vs. The Branch Manager, L. I. C. of India. [2] Heard Adv. Prakash B. Kadam on behalf of the Appellant/original Opponent Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the Insurance Company for the sake of brevity). Notice before admission and even notice after admission was duly served on the Respondent. However, the Respondent failed to appear before this Commission and participate in the proceeding. We are, therefore, constrained to decide this appeal without the assistance of the Respondent. [3] Appellant/Insurance Company admits that a policy of insurance had been taken out on the life of Mr. Sudam Mhaske. Respondent/original Complainant Smt. Kavita Sudam Mhaske (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant for the sake of brevity) is t...
Sanjay Bhimrao Sule Vs. Omkar Singh Harman Singh and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-2013
1. The appeal is preferred against the Judgment and award dated 22-01-2009 passed by learned Commissioner for workmans compensation in application WCA No.586/C-230/2005 whereby the application was partly allowed and the amount in the sum of Rs.1,87,062/- only was awarded @ interest at the rate of 12 % p.a. from the date of adjudication till the date its realization payable by the Insurer and the employer Mr.Onkarsingh Harnamsingh (hereinafter referred as Opposite party). 2. Heard submissions at the Bar. 3. Facts stated are:- The appellant Sanjay aged about 33 years was Driver earning salary of Rs.4000/- per month on the Motor Vehicle No.MH-04-F-7938 owned by the opposite party. The motor vehicle was insured with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. under Policy No. 140400/31/04/14800 valid and operative during the period 16-10-2004 to 15-11-2005. On 04-11-2004 on Pune-Mumbai highway No.4, Khopoli, he met with an accident and sustained serious injuries during the course of his employment wi...
Panna Surendra Mehta Vs. Jaisukh Krishnalal Shah and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. By this Notice of motion filed by the Petitioner/Plaintiff, the Petitioner seek a declaration that the Caveat dated 16.1.2013 filed by Jitendra Krishnalal Shah and Jaisukh Krishnalal Shah are not maintainable and seeks dismissal thereof. 2. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding the Notice of Motion are summarised as under : 3. To appreciate the issues involved in this Notice of motion, it would be appropriate to reproduce the Geneology and relationship of the present Caveators with the deceased Jaswantlal Jolia. Those are reproduced as under : Family Tree JASWANTLAL N. JOLIA Veenabenwife Pre-deceased Died : 3.3.2007. (Died : 26.1.2004) TESTATOR (Will dated 10.8.2002) ____________________________________________________________________________ MrsRamaben KrishnalalShah Mrs Indiraben Mrs.Trilochanaben T.Fozdar ...
Babu Kunchankuch Vagalil Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-2013
Oral Judgment: A.R. Joshi, J. 1. Heard rival arguments at length on earlier dates. Perused the record and proceedings. Also gone through the detailed evidence of prosecution witnesses recorded during the trial. Present appeal is preferred by the appellant/sole accused challenging the judgment and order of conviction dated 13.10.2006 passed by the 11th Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge for Greater Mumbai at Sewree in Sessions Case No.1093/1996. By the impugned judgment and order, the present appellant/accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 326 of Indian Penal Code. For the former offence, he was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.500/in default to suffer RI for three moths. For the later offence, he was sentenced to suffer RI for five years and to pay fine of Rs.200/, in default to suffer RI for one month. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. Apparently from the date of the arrest of the appellant/accu...
Abdul Salim Shaikh (Siddique) and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-2013
Oral Order: 1. The applicants are the accused in a case arising out of C.R. No. I 63/2013 of Sheel Dahighar Police Station, Thane. The said C.R. was initially registered in respect of offences punishable under Section 336 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 304 of IPC, Section 337 of IPC, Section 338 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC. The applicants were arrested on 06.04.2013 by the Crime Branch, Thane and were produced before the Magistrate on 07.04.2013 for obtaining their remand in police custody. In the course of investigation, the accusation of some other offences also came to be levelled against the applicants and other accused in this case. On 06.06.2013, when the investigation was still pending, the applicants applied for bail on the ground that the maximum period of detention pending investigation, as permitted by Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) was over, and that, since the investigation was still incomplete, the a...
Lawrence Dorai Swami and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-07-2013
Oral Judgment: [K.U. Chandiwal, J.] 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally, by consent. 2. The Applicants question Crime No.122 of 2009 registered at Bhingar Camp Police Station, Ahmednagar, for offence punishable under Section 306 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, further culminated in charge sheet No.91 of 2013 pending presently on the files of learned J.M.F.C., Ahmednagar. 3. Rajendra @ Nandkishore, deceased, a Government employee, branded as a whistleblower, committed suicide on 14th October 2009 by consuming poisonous substance. Pursuant to F.I.R. by Ratnamala Vikrant Tigote, his sister, investigation was carried. Statements of several persons were recorded. In the statement, Smt. Reshma, widow of Rajendra Palate, refers that before three months of her husband having untimely death, he had protested about atrocious acts of the Applicants, who were manning a Toll Naka. She feels that her husband was threatened of dire consequences. Pursuant thereto, her husb...
Marienella Chs Ltd Mumbai and Others Vs. Mrs. Helan Godinha
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-2013
R.C. Chavan, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum, Central Mumbai whereby the District Forum partly allowed the complaint No.35/2008 before it and directed the opponent/Society to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards repairs of the tenement and Rs.5,000/- towards cost. 2. Facts which are material for deciding this appeal are as under :- The complainant owned a flat No.6 on second floor of the building of the appellant/Society which accommodates twelve members. There was some open land adjacent to the building. M/s.Suraj Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. (M/s.Suraj Developers in short) was to start some construction on the adjacent piece of land and for that construction activity; they had to utilize the open space of the appellant/Society. M/s.Suraj Developers had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.7,01,000/- towards usages of this open space. However, subsequently, M/s.Suraj Developers and the Society agreed that in lieu of payment of Rs.7,01,0...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »