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.
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. and Another Vs ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-2013
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Kanade, J.) 1. The Appellant Maharashtra State Electricity Board which is now known as Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL) has filed this appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge (Coram: Mrs. R.S. Dalvi, J.) dated 18/3/2009. By the said judgment and order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Petition which was filed by the Appellant herein and confirmed the Award dated 18/06/2004 which was given by the Arbitral Tribunal. 2. There is a chequered history of litigation between the parties. For the sake of convenience the Appellant shall be hereinafter referred to as MSEB, though now it is known as MSEDCL and the Respondent M/s Datar Switchgear Ltd shall be hereinafter referred to as DSL. The matter travelled to the Apex Court on more than couple of occasions. Criminal complaints were filed by D...
Devendra S/O. Nilkanth Deshmukh Vs. the Ministry of Human Resource Dev ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-19-2013
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Heard Adv. Mr. M.V. Ghatge for the petitioner, learned ASGI Mr. Alok Sharma for respondent no.1, and Adv. Mr. H.D. Marathe for respondent nos.2 and 3. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 3. Petitioner, a student seeking admission to first year of Bachelor of Engineering course, has approached this Court with a grievance that he was not allotted any seat in second round on 16-7-2013 and he was also not permitted to participate in further rounds thereafter. It is not in dispute, that he belongs to O.B.C. category and in JEE-Main (AIEEE) conducted by respondent no.2 / Board, he scored 146.30 marks and his All India rank was accordingly 37797. Respondent no.3 / Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology, Nagpur, was reporting centre for him. 4. First round of seat allotment was conducted on or about 10-7-2013 and second round list was published on 16-7-2013. Petitioner claims that he logged in on that day and found that no seat wa...
The Maharashtra Executor and Trustee Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-2013
Oral Judgment: The matter is placed on board for marking of Will dated 9th August, 1995 executed by the testator Mr. Raju M. Shetty. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of marking this Will are as under : 2. It is the case of the petitioner that Raju Shetty, the testator who died on 29th November, 1996 had executed will and testament dated 9th August, 1995. Petitioner was named as sole executor in the said Will. It is the case of the petitioner that the said will was attested by two attesting witnesses. The said will has been marked as X2 for identification. 3. The caveators have disputed the execution of the said will. According to the petitioners, the said Will was attested by Mr. Dayanand Karkera and Mr. Mangesh Mulye, Officer of the petitioner. Mr. Dayanand Karkera died on 23rd April, 1999 which is prior to the filing of this petition. Mr. Mangesh Mulye had filed his affidavit regarding attestation on 10th December, 1997. On behalf of the petitioner, 5 witnesses have been ex...
Naresh Lachmandas Aswani Vs. Haridas Alias Hardas Lachmandas and Other ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-2013
By an order dated 26th July, 2012 passed by this court, two issues were framed under section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in Notice of Motion NO. 1157 of 2011. In view of the issues framed under section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to be tried as jurisdictional issue, both parties were given opportunity to lead oral evidence on the jurisdictional issues framed by this court. Learned counsel have addressed on those issues which are answered by this court in the later part of the judgment. 2. Plaintiff is the brother of defendant no.1. defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the companies incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. According to the plaintiff, defendant nos. 2 and 3 have been impleaded as party defendants as they were unlawfully claiming their purported respective rights and/or claims in the suit property consisting of immoveable property situated in Mumbai and described in Ex.A to A2 of the plaint. 3. The plaintiff and the 1st defendants are the...
M/S Mahavir Associates Vs. Ravindra Jagannath Patil and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-2013
Oral Judgment: Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 2 Since there are common facts and issues, so also arguments are revolving around the same subject and as the Trial Court has passed a common order, hence this common judgment. 3 The Appellant ( Defendant No.6) being aggrieved by the order below Exhibit5 in all Suits, dated 9 May 2012, passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, S.D., Thane, filed these separate Appeals. The operative part of the impugned order as under: 1 .Every application, Exh.5, in Spl. Civil Suit No.200/2012, 201/2012 and 202/2012 is allowed. 2. All the defendants of above said respective suits are hereby restrained, temporarily, from entering over the respective suit property, till the date of decision of these respective suits. 3. All the defendants of above said respective suits, are restrained, temporarily, till the date of decision of these respective suits from creating third party interest in any ...
Damodar Mangalji Mining Co. Vs. Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-18-2013
Oral Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) The appeal arises from a decision of the ITAT dated 02.01.2006 for Assessment Year 1997-98. The appeal filed by the assessee has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law : (a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the liability to pay additional barge freight arose in the subsequent year on the basis of the letter from GMOEA, even though the appellant follows mercantile system of accounting? (b) Whether the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the higher rate of depreciation is available only to trucks given on hire basis and not to trucks given on lease? (c) Whether on a proper interpretation, the Tribunal has misdirected itself in not following the guidelines laid down by the Bombay High Court in Bangalore Clothing Co. 260 ITR 371 which decision was rendered after Explanation (baa) was inserted in section 80HHC and subsequent to decision in 246 ITR 439 ? 2. Re ...
Trustees Co. Ltd. Vs. Ashok Raju Shetty and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-2013
Oral Judgment : By this chamber summons, defendant nos,. 4 and 5 seeks permission to examine Dr. Shri. R.V. Adyanthaya who had alleged to have examined deceased at the time of execution of the Will of the deceased and who had alleged to have put signature on the Will dated 9th August, 1995. Defendant nos. 4 and 5 are claiming to be the beneficiaries under the alleged Will dated 9th August, 1995 executed by the deceased testator. 2. Petitioners who are appointed as executors of the Will left by the deceased filed testamentary petition in this court (308 of 1997) inter alia praying for probate of the said will dated 9th August, 1995. The caveator filed caveat and affidavit in support. Testamentary petition was converted into suit. Defendant nos. 4 and 5 are claiming to be beneficiaries under the said will and are supporting the petitioners. 3. Petitioners examined five witnesses. On 1st December, 2009, defendant nos. 4 and 5 made statement that they were not intending to file any written...
Maria Benvinda Severina Dias Costa Vs. Lilia Kher and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-18-2013
Oral Judgment:(Naresh H. Patil, J.) 1. This Second Appeal is filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 5th November 2004 passed by the IInd Ad-hoc Additional District Judge at Panaji in Regular Civil Appeal No. 56 of 2001. 2. The appellant is the original defendant. In the present case, the Plaintiffs filed a suit with substantive prayer clauses: (a) For a declaration that the Plaintiffs are the owners in possession of the suit property. (b) For a direction to the Enquiry Officer, City Survey at Panjim, to delete the name of the Defendant from the records maintained by the same officer under the Land Revenue Court and to insert the names of the Plaintiffs in the said records. 3. The plaintiffs contended that they are the owners in possession of a property situated at Alto de Pilotos bearing Chalta Nos. 87 to 91 of P.T. Sheet No. 44 of City Survey of Panjim bounded on the east with the lane of steps, on the West with the hill and property of Leonardo Fernandes and others, on the North...
Dena Bank Vs. Thomas Salvador Menezes @ Salvador Menezes and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-18-2013
Oral Judgment: Rule. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked against the order dated 24/10/2011 passed by the Executing Court i.e. the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Panaji by which order the application filed by the respondent no.1 herein for directing the petitioner herein i.e. the Judgment Debtor No.2 to deposit an amount of Rs.3 lacs (Rupees three lacs only) in the Executing Court came to be allowed. The second order under challenge is the order dated 9/04/2012 by which order the review application filed by the petitioner came to be rejected. 3. The facts necessary to be cited for adjudication of the above Petition in brief can be stated thus: The petitioner herein was the defendant no.2 in the suit filed by the respondent no.1 being Special Civil Suit No.100/2007. The substantive reliefs sought in the said suit are as follows: ...
Sagar S/O. Mallikarjun Mehetre and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-18-2013
1. The appeals are filed against judgment and order of Sessions Case No. 19/2011, which was pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Omerga, District Osmanabad. All the appellants are convicted and sentenced for offence punishable under section 395 of Indian Penal Code and each of them is sentenced to suffer R.I. for seven years. Each appellant is also directed to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo S.I. for one year. Both the sides are heard. 2. In short, the facts leading to the institution of the appeals, can be stated as follows:- The original complainant - Usman Khan owns a jeep of Qualis company bearing AP-13/Q-7494 and at the relevant time, he was using this jeep as taxi. He is resident of Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh) and he used to collect passengers from Railway Station of Hyderabad. 3. On 2.6.2011 after 12.00 noon, five persons came to stop of tax and they were searching for taxi as they wanted to go to Gulbarga, Karnataka State. They...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »