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.
State Vs. Mohanand Naik
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-29-2013
NareshH. Patil, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30th March, 2010, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-1, at Margao, Goa in Sessions Case No.33/2009, by the State. The respondent-accused was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is as under: It is alleged by the prosecution that between 19/2/2008 to 24/2/2008, the respondent-accused committed murder of Miss Nirmal, on the hillock at Verna and robbed her gold ornaments such as gold chain and a pair of gold earrings. It is alleged that Nirmal was the younger sister of PW.1 Pundalik Amolkar. In the month of February, 2008, Nirmal left the house and did not return back. After 4 to 5 days, PW.1 Pundalik filed a missing report dated 23.2.2008 (Exhibit-13) at Quepem Police Station. When the report was lodged, PW.1 also handed over a photograph of his sister Nirmal to the police. After about 4 to 5 days, cousin of PW.1 Umesh...
M/S. Sangeet Syntex Ltd. Through Its Director, Rahul S. Modi Vs. Unite ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-29-2013
Narendra Kawde Member: 1. Complainant is a medium scale undertaking Company. It has filed this consumer complaint through its Director Shri Rahul S. Modi, alleging deficiency of service against the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Opponent Insurance Company in short) in not settling the claim payable under the Insurance policy on account of fire that damaged Diesel Generator Set (hereinafter referred to as DG set in short) of the Complainant. Salient features giving rise to file this consumer complaint are that the Complainant availed Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy No.020100/11/01/02561 issued by Opponent Insurance Company. Validity period of the policy was commencing from 8th March, 2002 to the midnight of 7th March, 2003. Sum insured under the policy is Rs.5,65,00,000/- covering twofold insurance, viz. (i) on building and such other structures Rs.80,00,000/- and (ii) on machineries, accessories and such other machineries of every description Rs...
Sumedha Fiscal Services Ltd. Vs. the Oriental Insurance Company Limite ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-29-2013
R.C. Chavan, President: 1. This complaint filed by a company doing business in shares and securities makes out a grievance that opponent/Insurance Company did not honour its commitments under the policy of insurance taken out by the complainant. 2. The complainant had obtained Insurance Policy named Trading Member Indemnity Policy which was exclusively made for trading members of the National Stock Exchange (NSE) for indemnifying the insured for loss sustained in action in good faith upon written instructions or advices from the clients in respect of securities which are counterfeit, forged, fraudulently altered or lost or stolen. This Insurance Policy bearing No.120000/48/97/001 bearing Certificate No.97/677 was issued by the opponent for a period from 01/06/1996 to 31/05/1997. The complainants client Mridula Securities had sold shares in the regular course of business which were returned by the NSE with declaration that the endorsement was forged. Out of these shares 1700 shares of S...
Vishwanath Namdeo Patil and Others Vs. the Official Liquidator of M/S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-28-2013
A short but important question that arises in this matter is, up to which date the dues of workmen are to be calculated when a Company is wound up. Whether the Companies Act, 1956 provides the date of passing the order of winding up as the only contingency or whether the Act provides any other event prior to the date of order of winding up. 2. This Company application is taken out by workmen of M/s Swadeshi Mills Co. Ltd. These workmen are five out of the 735 workmen who were employed in the Mill. They had filed proof of debt before the Official Liquidator. They inter alia claimed that they should be paid up to the date of the order of winding up. The Official Liquidator has paid them till the date of the appointment of Provisional Liquidator, taking that as the relevant date. Since this view taken by the Official Liquidator affects large number of workmen of the Mill under liquidation, and that the issue raises question of law of general importance, the learned counsel for the parties...
Harit Vasai Saurakshsn Smirti and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-25-2013
P.C. 1. The Petitioners are a registered society, most members of whom are residents of Vasai-Virar area of Thane District. The PIL relates to unauthorised construction in Vasai. It is the case of the Petitioners that there is a master plan prepared for the concerned area which provides, inter alia, for a Green Zone and No Development Zone; that industrial estates and commercial constructions are allowed within the No Development Zone by the local authorities concerned; and that despite intimation regarding the illegalities to the local authority, no action is taken. The Petitioners, in the premises, have prayed, inter alia, for (i) formation of a committee to identify illegal structures, (ii) stoppage of further illegal constructions and (iii) demolition of existing illegal constructions. 2. Originally, the State of Maharashtra, CIDCO ( being the local planning authority), the Collector of Thane and the municipal councils of Vasai, Navghar, Nalasopara and Virar were arraigned as party...
Sajid Ismail, Sole Proprietor of M/S Allied Constructions and Others V ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-25-2013
1 Heard submissions at the Bar at length. This appeal is against the Judgment and order dated 21-08-2003 passed by Jt. C.J.S.D. Pune, in Special Civil Suit No.2107 of 1997, decreed in favour of the original plaintiffs-respondents, declaring them as owners of th share of the suit property i.e. Land survey no. 61/9/1 admeasuring 14 gunthas, situated at Mauje Vanvadi, District Pune, and that agreements between the defendant nos.1 and 2 in favour of the defendant no.3 or in favour of the defendant no.4 dated 23.04.1994 and 04.09.1995 respectively are not binding on the plaintiffs and their undivided share. Defendant nos.1 to 4 were restrained permanently from carrying out any construction in the suit property and from creating any third party interest or encumbrance on the three-fourth share of the plaintiffs over the suit property. While the defendant nos.5 to 7 were restrained from sanctioning any plan for construction on the suit property without the consent of the plaintiff nos.1 and 2...
Ups Worldwide Forwarding Inc. Vs. Ups Jetair Express Private Limited a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-25-2013
M.S. Sanklecha, J. RULE, returnable forthwith and by consent of the parties, taken up for final disposal. 2 By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 21 March 2013 passed by the Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) (respondent No.4) under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). By the impugned order dated 21 March 2013, the Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) has upheld the order, rejecting the petitioner's application dated 29 March 2010 for NIL Tax Withholding certificate under Section 197 of the Act passed by Assistant Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) (respondent No.3). 3 Briefly, the facts leading to the present petition are:- a) The petitioner is a Company incorporated in United States of America (USA) and is also a tax resident of USA. The petitioner is admittedly eligible to the benefit under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) entered into between USA and...
Anand S. Lad Vs. Ms. Amira Abdul Razak and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-25-2013
Heard Mr. S. G. Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. J. E. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The above Writ Petition inter-alia challenges the judgment dated 27.06.2007 passed by the learned Administrative Tribunal dismissing the Eviction Appeal No.17/05 filed by the petitioner/tenants against the judgment and order dated 20.05.2005 passed by the Rent Controller at Panaji, in case No. ADDL/RENT/4/94 filed by the respondents for the eviction of the petitioner's mother/original tenant. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case as stated by the petitioner are that by a lease agreement executed in September, 1967, the grandfather of the respondents leased the suit premises to the petitioner's father for residential purpose. By virtue of a family settlement entered into on 24.01.1989, the respondents became the owners of the property in which the suit premises are located on the first floor of one of the residential houses out of ...
Faizan Ahmed Abdul Wahab Shah Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-25-2013
1] Heard Ms. Apeksha Vora, learned advocate appointed by the Court and the learned APP. Perused the record. 2] The prosecution case against the accused was as follows:- (a) The victim Noor Hasina Begam was married to the appellant in the year 2008. The couple cohabited for 2-3 months. Thereafter the accused started il-ltreating her on account of monetary demands. The ill-treatment became unbearable and she left the accused and started living with her mother. (b) During the span of two years when Hasina was residing with her mother the accused used to make threat calls and asked her to return back for cohabitation or else he would kill her. (c) The parents of victim performed her second marriage with one Parvez on 12.05.2010 and she began living with Parvez at Govandi. Appellant learnt about the second marriage of the victim. He started going to her house and threatening her. On one occasion the accused went to her house and tried to choke her throat. (d) On 10.07.2010 at about 10.00 a....
Mahila Vikas Mandal, Aurangabad and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtr ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-24-2013
R.M. Borde, J. 1 Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. 2 In this group of petitions, petitioners are questioning the legality and validity of the Government Resolution dated 02.05.2012. Petitioners, before the Court, are either private aided institutions operating primary schools or employees employed by such private schools. 3 The preamble of the Government Resolution dated 02.05.2012 records that it is the primary responsibility of the State Government, under the Indian Constitution, to provide quality education to the children in the State. In order to make available facilities of education to the children, the State Government operates schools through the local self Government as well as by providing aid to the private managements. The Special Justice Department as well as Tribal Development Department of the State of Maharashtra operate Residential schools as well as Ashram Schools for imparting educatio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »