Mumbai Court February 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.
Ambadas Gangadhar Shetye Vs. Malabai Ambadas Shetye and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-11-2013
Oral Judgment: Rule was issued on 30th Sept., 2010, with Ad interim relief. 2. The petitioner Ambadas has questioned the order of maintenance at the rate of Rs.1500/- per month to respondent Smt.Malabai, by order in Criminal Revision Application No.203/2009 dated 4th Dec., 2009. 3. The gravamen of submissions is, the petitioner and Smt. Malabai had already subsisting spouse, there being no severance of their earlier relations, Smt.Malabai could not stake a claim for maintenance allowance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 4. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, in paragraph no.11 of the order, evaluated and assessed the evidence which made him to decline maintenance as the respondents accepts her marital relations with Jagdish Hari Patil, 30 years prior to 30th Dec., 2007, and out of the said wedlock, she has delivered four children. She did not venture of its dissolution. 5. The learned Sessions Judge reversed the positive finding of fact, solely placing reliance to Exhs. 42 and 43...
Ashok S/O Sudam Patel (Patil) Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through It ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-11-2013
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. This writ petition takes exception to the order dated 21st June, 2012 passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nashik Region, Nashik in Appeal No. 3 of 2000. 3. The back ground facts for filing the writ petition, as disclosed in the petition, are as under: It is the case of the petitioner that, respondent No. 3 is the registered Educational Institution. The petitioner is working as a Peon in the said institution. It is the case of the petitioner that, he was appointed by respondent No.3, on 14th June, 1996 on the post of Peon. His services were orally terminated on 20th June, 1998. Being aggrieved by the oral termination, the petitioner approached to the School Tribunal, Nashik, by filing Appeal No. 3 of 2000. There was delay in filing the appeal. On 23rd February, 2006 the delay was condoned. The Presiding Officer, School Tribunal heard the appeal and decided the same on merits on 23rd ...
Shashikant @ Aba Vedu Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-11-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard extensively. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable and heard forthwith with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties. 3. The revision applicant was convicted in RCC No.70/1997, for offense under Section 377 of I.P.C., to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.4,000/-; in default, simple imprisonment for one month; for offense under Section 323 of I.P.C., to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-; in default, simple imprisonment for one week; for offense under Section 506 of I.P.C., to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-; in default, simple imprisonment for one month. The substantive sentence was directed to run concurrently. 4. In Criminal Appeal No.6/2006, the revision applicant failed and hence the present Criminal Revision questioning the conviction. Fine amount has been deposited and an amount of Rs.3,000/- was directed to be paid to the complainant as compensation. 5. Th...
Leena Prabhoo Vs. Raja Rani Travels Pvt Ltd. and Others
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-2013
1. This is a complaint filed by Ms. Leena Prabhoo against Raja Rani Travels Pvt. Ltd. and its Directors, Mr. Abhijit Patil and Mr.Vishwajeet Patil, under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service. 2. The facts can be summarized as under: It is stated that in the year 2010, Shri Barve of Veer Savarkar Kendras and the Complainants father Dr.Ramesh Prabhoo enlisted the Opponents to organize the special trip to Marseilles, France to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the historic jump of Shri Savarkar near the shores of Marseilles on 8th July, 2010. There were 250 people in the tour. After the programme the father of the Complainant, mother and herself decided to divert their itinerary from the group to Venice from whereon they were to take six nights cruise and return journey to Mumbai. This journey was also accepted and executed by the Opponents. The Complainants paid `1,65,000/- plus `12,000/- and `1,57,250/- each for the mother and the father. The Complainant ...
The Tadeshwar Wadi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. the State of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-2013
A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Respondents waive notice through their respective Counsel. 3. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in substance, is for issuance of directions to the officials of the Corporation to take follow-up action on the basis of notices issued u/s 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') and to facilitate the officials of the Corporation to do so, the police authorities be directed to provide necessary logistical support. 4. Briefly stated, the petitioner Society has been formed by the occupants of the tenaments in the building. There are 62 members in the petitioner Society out of which 51 members were residing in a building having four wings marked as A, B, C and D. The rest of the members of the petitioner Society were in chawl structures of ground floor in 11 rooms on land bearing C.S. Nos.781 (...
National Amnesty and Redemption Organisation International Trust Vs. R ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-2013
A.M. Khanwilkar, J. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2) This is second Public Interest Litigation filed with regard to the same subject matter, through the same Advocate but, by another so called non-government organisation. The First Writ Petition was filed by Press Group of Maharashtra being Criminal Writ Petition No. 1693 of 2009 for more or less similar reliefs. The reliefs claimed in that Writ Petition read thus:- (a) that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ and/or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 to conduct thorough investigation in all complaints filed against Sudhakar Pujari and such investigation agency may be directed to submit their report within such reasonable time as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to this Hon'ble Court and such investigation be monitored by this Hon'ble Court so as to ensure effective and objective investigation in the matter; (b) that...
Konkan Railway Corporation Limited Vs. M/S. Oriental Construction Comp ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. By this appeal petition filed under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short Arbitration Act), the appellant seeks to challenge an order and judgment dated 12th August, 2004 passed by the learned Joint District Judge, Ratnagiri rejecting Civil Misc. Arbitration Application (7 of 2001) filed by the appellant under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 challenging the impugned award dated 15th December, 2000 allowing various claims made by the respondent. (The appellant is hereinafter referred to as the owner and respondent is referred to as Contractor). 2. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this appeal are as under: (a) On 4th June, 1991, the owner invited tenders for the work of construction of major bridge on River Vashshiti at Chiplun. On 12th July, 1991, the contractor submitted a tender. The owner accepted the tender submitted by the contractor on 29th August, 1991 at the cost of Rs.1,59,94,060 with a stipulated dat...
Sabmiller India Limited (Formerly Skol Breweries Ltd.) Vs. Som Distill ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. In the above Notice of Motion, an urgent ad-interim ex-parte order was passed on December 18, 2012 in terms of prayer clause (a) of the Notice of Motion which reads thus: "(a) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, the Defendant by itself, its directors, servants, agents, stockists, distributors and dealers, be restrained by an order and permanent injunction of this Honble Court from infringing the Plaintiffs registered trade mark SABMiller India / SABMILLER INDIA bearing No. 1787321 in classes 21 and 32 by using bottles embossed with the trade mark SABMILLER INDIA or by the use of the trade mark SABMiller India / SABMILLER INDIA or any other trade mark deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs registered trade mark SABMiller India / SABMILLER INDIA upon or in relation to beer or any other goods for which the Plaintiffs said trade mark No.1787321 has been registered or in any other manner whatsoever;" 2. The Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Defe...
Shyamsunder Radheshyam Agarwal Adult Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-2013
NareshH. Patil, J. 1. Rule, returnable forthwith Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 16.10.2012 in Criminal Revision No. 142 of 2012 passed by the Ad-hoc District Judge 3 and Addl. Sessions Judge, Thane. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that he entered into an agreement with the respondent no. 2 Mr. Bhupendra Ghisulal Borana on 27.10.2009 in respect of plot of land bearing Old Survey No. 118, New Survey No. 113, Hissa No. 1, admeasuring about 2601 sq. yards of Village Bhayander, Taluka and District Thane. Under the agreement total consideration was fixed at Rupees Two Crores. According to the petitioner, the respondent no. 2 Mr. Bhupendra Ghisulal Borana paid certain amount to the petitioner from 26.10.2009 to 28.10.2009, details of which are mentioned in paragraph 2 of the petition. The petitioner placed on record a copy of agreement executed between the parties on 27.10.2009 at Exhibit 'A'. 4. The petitioner con...
Union of India, Through Central Public Works Department, Represented b ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-08-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri M. Amonkar, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent waives service. 3. The above petition challenges an order dated 15/01/2013 passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge, North Goa, Panaji in Civil Suit No.42/2006 whereby the evidence of the petitioner who is the plaintiff to the suit came to be closed. The petitioner seeks for the following relief: (a) For a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, calling for the records and proceedings of Civil Suit No.42/2006 pending before the trial Court i.e. the Ad-Hoc District Judge-I, (Fast Track), Panaji Goa and after perusing the legality of the impugned order dated 15/01/2013 the same be quashed and set aside and the Trial Court be directed to give opportuni...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »