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.
Merit Magnum Constructions Vs. Nand Kumar Anant Vaity and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-2013
M.S. Sonak, J. 1. Admit. With the consent of the learned Counsel, the appeal is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. This Appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 10 June 2013 as modified by an order dated 17 June 2013 (Notice of Motion No.1716 of 2010 in Suit No.2715 of 2007), rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Civil Procedure Code in respect of one of two properties involved in the suit. 3. The Appellant is the original Plaintiff. Respondent Nos.1 to 41 are the original Defendants. Accordingly, the parties shall be referred to by their respective position in the plaint. 4. The Plaintiff instituted Suit No.2715 of 2007, inter alia against Defendant Nos.1 to 39 (hereinafter referred to as Vaitys'), M/s. Shree Anjaneya Estates-Defendant No.40, which is a Partnership Firm represented by four partners, Defendant Nos.40A, 40B, 40C and 40D and Deonar Industrial Premises Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Defendant No.41, seeking inter alia following ...
Partha Ghosh Chartered Accountant of Mumbai and Others Vs. the Institu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-2013
K.R. Shriram, J. 1. The petitioners seek a blanket stay against the respondents in any manner whatsoever conducting, proceeding further with or passing any order in the enquiry initiated against them pursuant to two show cause notices dated 6th December 2006 and 23rd October 2007 till the decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6142/2012- P. Ramakrishna V/s. The Institute of Chartered Accounts of India (Ramkrishna's appeal). The petitioners are not parties to that case. 2. Petitioner no.1 is a partner of Price Waterhouse and Co., a firm of Chartered Accountants. (hereinafter referred to as PWC). PWC were the statutory auditors of the Global Trust Bank Ltd., of the respondents' firm. The petitioner no.2 is a Senior Manager of the said firm. Both the petitioners are members of the respondent no.1- the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. 3. Respondent no.1 is set up under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). Respondent no.2 is th...
Somnath Eshanchandra Ray and Others Vs. the Maharashtra University of ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-15-2013
Z.A. Haq, J. 1. Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of AshaV/s. Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences and Ors. reported in 2012 (6) SCALE 287 has observed that it is both the need of the hour and the demand of justice that the Court ensures elimination of colourable abuse and arbitrary exercise of power in the process of selection and admission to the professional courses. This is a 'classic case' which shows how the professional colleges have been abusing the process of law to give admissions to the students and then leave them to the mercy of the Courts. 3. Mr. Agnihotri, the learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that the respondent no.2 college was shown as the recognized college in the list published by the Association of Managements of Unaided Private Medical and Dental Colleges, Maharashtra (for short the Association) and therefore, the petitioners were under the bona fide impression that they can take admi...
John Francis Anthony Gonsalves of Mumbai Indian Christian and Another ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-2013
1 A question that arises in the Suit is whether the defendant, who according to the plaintiff was allowed to use the premises as a family member, can be termed as a gratuitous licensee, so as to oust the jurisdiction of the civil court. The issue of jurisdiction is to be tried as a preliminary issue. 2 The plaintiff No.1 and 2 are brothers. They are sons of one John Frederick Gonsalves. Julia was the wife of John Frederick Gonsalves and the mother of the plaintiff. The plaintiffs had a sister named -Agnes Mary Conception Rebello. The defendant is the stepson of Agnes. 3 John F. Gonsalves expired on 3 January 1983 leaving his last will and testament dated 1 April 1979. The will inter-alia dealt with two flats bearing no.501 and 502 in Joanna premises Cooperative Housing Society, Bandra Mumbai. The deceased bequeathed the two flats in the Will as under : I own and possess Flats No.501 and 502 in the Joanna Premises Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., I hereby give devise and bequeath my F...
Rabo Bank Vs. State Bank of Hyderabad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-2013
1. By this Summons for Judgment, plaintiffs seek that the judgment be entered for the plaintiffs in this suit against the defendants for a sum of USD 1,931,627.89 as per particulars of claims with further interest thereon as per provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act and/or under the Interest Act, and/or under the provisions of Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 at the rate of 9.75% per annum and/or at such other rate as the Hon'ble Court deem fit from the due date till payment and/or realization and for the costs of the suit. 2. Plaintiffs carries on business through its Singapore branch. Defendants are also the banking company, interalia, carrying on business in Mumbai through its various branches and has its registered office at Hyderabad. M/s.Gloland (Far East) Pte.Ltd. was a constituent of the plaintiffs which constituent was carrying on business of export of chick peas. The said constituent M/s.Gloland (Far East) Pte.Ltd. had transactions with M/s.Kothari Global Ltd. ...
Mohan S/O. Marotrao Patil-taklikar Vs. the State of Maharashtra Throug ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-15-2013
Oral Judgment: [B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1] Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing by consent of parties. The only question is whether election of Committee members of Subject Committees and election of chairman of these Committees, as contemplated by Section 81 and Section 83 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961, have been held in present matter, in accordance with law. 2] General elections of Zilla Parishad, Nanded took place on 7th February, 2012 and results were announced on 17.2.2012. The Sub-Divisional Officer, on 19.3.2012 issued communication convening special meeting of the newly elected Zilla Parishad members on 2.4.2012 for election of Chairman of various subject committees. In the meanwhile, i.e. on 23.1.2012, President and Vice President of the Zilla Parishad were elected in its first meeting by the Zilla Parishad. In the meeting conducted on 2/4/2012, no election for any post of Chairman took place on that day bu...
Ssud Ayurved Medical College and Hospital at Koli Vs. the Maharashtra ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-15-2013
Z.A. Haq, J. 1. Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. The petition raises the challenge to the order issued by the Registrar of the respondent the University on 12th June, 2013 by which it is informed that the affiliation of the petitioner college is permanently withdrawn for breach of the provisions of Section 63 of the Maharashtra Universities of Health Sciences Act, 1998 (for short the Act) by the resolution of the Management Council dated 10th January, 2013. 3. The respondent University has filed the preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the Society 'Maa Vaishnavi Mahila Mandal' bearing Registration No.Mah.78/93, Mumbai F10617, having its office at Sharda Apartment, A/4, Dr. R.P. Banerjee Road, Dhantoli, Nagpur is a necessary party to the writ petition and according to the respondent University the Society is the appropriate person which can maintain the writ petition in the matter. The respondent University has furth...
Dr. Vishwas Sapatnekar Vs. Dashrath N. Kangule
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-2013
Dhanraj Khamatkar, Presiding Member: [1] This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 06/05/2006 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum for the sake of brevity) in Consumer Complaint No.302 of 1995, Dasharath Kangule Vs. Dr. Vishwas Sapatnekar. Facts leading to this appeal can be summarized as under:- [2] Mr. Dasharath Kangule the Respondent/original Complainant (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant for the sake of brevity) was operated by Dr. Vishwas Sapatnekar the Appellant/original Opponent (hereinafter referred to as the Opponent Doctor for the sake of brevity) for the fractured femur on 30/06/1994 and the Complainant was discharged on 05/10/1994. However, as there was no relief to the Complainant, an X-ray was done on 10/01/1995 and thereafter; the Complainant consulted Dr. Subodh Mehta. As per the opinion of Dr. Subodh Mehta, the Complainant was suffering from non-union of fracture on right femur ...
S. Bharathi Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary, Ministry of Labo ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-2013
Mrs. Chameli Majumdar, Member (J). 1. The applicant presently working as Director Safety has challenged the letter dated 09.04.2013 rejecting the representation of the applicant for his posting at Mumbai. The said letter was issued pursuant to the order of this Tribunal passed on 22.02.2013 in OA No.456/2012 filed by the applicant. This Tribunal directed the concerned authority to consider the representation of the applicant and to pass a reasoned and speaking order. In the said OA, the applicant challenged the order of his transfer dated 09.08.2012 transferring him from Mumbai to Regional Labour Institute (for short RLI), Kanpur as in charge. 2. The grievance of the applicant is that he made a detailed representation pursuant to the order of this Tribunal, but major issues raised in the said representation were not disposed of, therefore, the impugned order is not a speaking order at all. The impugned order as well as the order of transfer have been issued with a malafide intention to...
Mrs. Shalu Agarwal and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through Inspec ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-2013
Oral Judgment: (Dharmadhikari, J) 1] Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. 2] The prayer in the first petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to call for the records and proceedings pertaining to an order dated 9th October 2012 passed in C.C.No.410/SW/2012 filed by the respondent No.2 and the subsequent F.I.R. No.311 of 2012 registered by the respondent No.1 and thereafter quash and set aside the order and F.I.R. No.311 of 2012. 3] The three petitioners before us are the original accused Nos. 1 to 3. The first respondent is Inspector of Police, Juhu Police Station. The second respondent is original informer/ complainant. A complaint was lodged by the second respondent in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 10th Court, Andheri, Mumbai alleging that the petitioner No.1 is married to the son of respondent No.2 on 2nd October 2006. The petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the brothers of petitioner No.1. All of them reside in Ludhiana in t...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »