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.
Homa Engineering Works, a Registered Partnership Firm and Another Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-2013
S.J. Vazifdar, J. 1. The petitioners have challenged the first respondents decision to consider respondent No.3 HAL Offshore Limited as a qualified bidder for the tender in question; the decision of respondent No.1 to declare respondent No.3 as the L-1 bidder in respect of the said tender and the decision of respondent No.1 to permit respondent No.3 to satisfy the bid eligibility criteria by giving an undertaking to comply with the technical specifications stipulated in the tender before the supplies are made. 2. In December, 2012, respondent No.1 published a Competitive Bid E-Tender for revamp of safety system at Neelam and Heera Wellhead platforms. The product in respect of which tenders were invited is a DCP Skid Fire Firing System 150 Kg capacity for offshore installation. The tenders were invited in the two-bid system viz a technical bid and a commercial bid. 3. Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.3 submitted tenders. According to the petitioners, respondent No.3 failed to satisfy ...
Rajesh Himatlal Shah and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-2013
Oral Order: 1. Since both matters involve common issues, they are being decided by this common order. For properly appreciating the arguments of parties, the facts in Criminal Application No.700/2011 are referred to. 2. There was a order to dispose of these Petitions finally and hence we have heard counsel accordingly. Hence, RULE. The Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 3. The Criminal Application No.700/2011 invokes jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash the First Information Report dated 08.07.2011 registered with Dahisar Police Station being C.R. No.220/2011 alleging offences of cheating and forgery punishable under Sections 420, 464, 465, 467 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The Respondent No.2 (original Complainant) has in his statement alleged that he is residing in Thane district and at the address particularly mentioned by him. He states that he belongs to Adiwasi Warli Community. He made ...
Subhash Devidas Deshmukh Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-03-2013
A.I.S. Cheema, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally, by consent. 2. Writ Petitioner Subhash Devidas Deshmukh, along with other fourteen accused, was prosecuted vide Sessions Trial No.149 of 2004 before the Court of Sessions Judge, Parbhani. The fifteen accused were charged with offences punishable under Sections 148, 341, 504, 302, 307, 323, 324 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("I.P.C." in brief). Writ Petitioner was accused No.13 in the sessions trial. At the conclusion of the trial, some of the accused were convicted and imposed different sentences. As far as regards the writ Petitioner, he was acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with 149 of I.P.C. and 504 read with 149 of I.P.C. Petitioner was found to be inflicted stab injury by knife on abdomen of one PW-3 Keshav, which was found to be of serious nature. He was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 148 of I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for o...
Mrs. Prema Steve Gosciminski and Another Vs. Mrs. Nirmala Patrick Berg ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-2013
1. By this chamber summons, plaintiff/petitioner in suit no. 78 of 2012 seeks dismissal of the caveat dated 21st June, 2012 filed by the caveator Ms.Nirmala Patrcik Bergan and permission to proceed with the petition and obtain grant of probate of the last Will and testament dated 17th December, 1999 of the deceased Mrs.Florie Lawrence D'Souza. 2. Mr.Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that affidavit in reply is served upon the petitioner's advocate by the caveator respondent now and petitioner be permitted to proceed on the basis of denial. Permission is granted. Some of the relevant facts emerge from the pleadings, for the purpose of deciding these proceedings are summarized as under:- 3. On 23rd June, 2008, Mrs.Florie Lawrence D'Souza expired (hereinafter referred to as the said deceased). She had executed her last Will and Testament dated 17th December, 1999. The said deceased left behind her four daughters and one son. By the said Will, the said deceased app...
Subhash Yetal Wagh Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-2013
1. Heard Advocate for the appellant and A.P.P. Perused the impugned judgment and record. 2. In all 13 accused persons were charged for various offences under sections 147,148, 307 read with 149, 120B of Indian Penal Code and under section section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. In the course of the incident Dilip Thongre (P.W.11) was assaulted and he suffered severe injuries. 3. Considering the evidence led by the prosecution the learned Sessions Judge convicted accused no.1 for offence punishable under section 307 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine amount of Rs.5,000/- and acquitted all accused including appellant for all other remaining offences. 4. In this appeal against conviction the ground put forward by appellant is summarised as below :- (a) The reasons due to which the accused nos.2 to 13 are acquitted in relation to all other charges the appellant no.1 as well is entitled for acquittal from all charges including for the offence und...
Kishore Baliram Balu Vs. Dy Comr of Police, Zone-i and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-2013
G.S. Patel, J. 1. Since June 2013, we have had to deal with a quite extraordinary number of petitions challenging appellate orders under Section 60 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 in externment proceedings. Those appellate orders have been passed by one Mr. Vineet Agarwal, the 2nd Respondent in this case. In VinayakDynaneshwar Mainkar v State of Maharashtra and Ors we had occasion to criticize Mr. Agarwal for his approach in these matters (Cri WP No.3257 of 2013, judgment dated 6th September 2013). We found it formulaic and unthinking. There was little or no attention to facts. Settled law was ignored. It seemed to us that his orders were issued mechanically, using standardized phrasing. Since the time of that order, we have encountered other cases, too (Cri WP No. 2807 of 2013; Cri WP No. 2744 of 2013; Cri WP No. 3035 of 2013; Cri WP No. 3207 of 2013). In fairness to Mr. Agarwal, his appellate orders in these cases were all before our decision in Mainkar, as is the appellate order in t...
Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd. . Pil Industries Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-2013
Oral Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) 1] Both the Appeals arise from a judgment and order of a learned Single Judge dated 4 February 2013 on Chamber Summons which were taken out by the Appellant for revoking the leave which was granted by the learned Single Judge under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. Both the learned Counsel have urged before the court the facts of the first of the two appeals and are agreed that since the issue is similar, the judgment will govern both the appeals. 2] The Appellant in both the Appeals is the original First Defendant. The Appellant availed of financial facilities from Future Capital Holdings Limited, the Seventh Respondent (the Original Seventh Defendant). The Second, Third and Fourth Respondents furnished personal guarantees. Though the original loan facilities were provided to the First Defendant by the Seventh Defendant the Plaintiff claims under a Deed of Assignment dated 3 August 2012 by which the loan facilities and all the receivables, righ...
M/S. Kundil Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Govind Fadte and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-01-2013
Oral Judgment: Rule in Writ Petitions No.59 of 2013, 62 of 2013 and 67 of 2013 with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. In so far as Writ Petition no.813 of 2012 is concerned, rule came to be issued in the said Writ Petition on 13/06/2013. By consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the said Writ Petition is also taken up for hearing along with the other three Writ Petitions. 2. The above Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India arise out of orders each dated 30/04/2012. By the said orders the applications filed by the petitioner-company in the pending references under the Industrial Disputes Act for being permitted to amend the written statement so as to incorporate an averment that in the event the Industrial Tribunal holds the inquiry as vitiated on any grounds it should be allowed to lead evidence in Court came to be rejected. The Industrial Tribunal would be hereinafter referred to as the...
The Chairman/Director and Another Vs. Shobha M. Dhore and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-01-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. SUBMISSIONS: 2. Mr. Atrey, learned counsel for petitioners in this writ petition, has submitted synopsis dated 23.09.2013 and the very first question raised is: (i) Whether the ICAR and the institutes under its control including the petitioner No.2, is an industry under Sec.2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? 3. It appears that the said question was specifically raised and decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of DuryodhanHiraman Ingole and ors.. vs.. Indian Council Agriculture Research and anr.; 2009 (4) Bom.C.R. 107. This Court, in paragraph nos. 31 and 31 observed thus: 31. The learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 cannot be termed as industries and, therefore, the provisions of industrial law would not at all be attracted. For this purpose, he placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Physical Research Laboratory v. K.G. Sharma reported in : (1997...
Smt. Shobhabai Widow of Manik Teltumbade Vs. Dadaji Son of Jairamji Wa ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-01-2013
Oral Judgment: 01. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned Adv. Mr. V.R. Mundra waives service on behalf of respondent sole. By consent, this Civil Revision Application is taken up for final hearing. 02. Present applicant, the wife of original judgment debtor, raised the first objection, namely that the decree holder, brought on record in place of original decree holder - Kalubai who had filed the execution, was not her legal heir. In my opinion, this objection was rightly overruled in view of the fact that in Regular Darkhast No. 8 of 2003, the present respondent had brought on record a Will executed in his favour. As a result, he was brought on record in place of Original Decree-holder - Kalubai in the execution proceedings and as such he continued to pursue the execution proceedings. That order brining the respondent on record has attained finality. 03. The contention raised by learned Adv. Mr. Kalwaghe for the applicant that the present decree holder, who is the wife of or...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›