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.
Smt. Maria Alda Fernandes Vs. Gabriel Coutinho, (Deceased Through Lega ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-07-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard Mrs. A. Agni, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri G. Shirodkar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waives service. 3. The above petition challenges an order dated 28/11/2012 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.123/2003/A by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Vasco da Gama, whereby an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code came to be rejected. 4. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner is claiming to be the owner of the property bearing survey no.69/1 of Thana, Cortalim village. The petitioner filed the suit on the premise that respondents have encroached into her property and extended the existing house. It is further the case of the petitioner that the respondents were not entitled to carry out any such extension and consequently the suit came to be filed for demolition of such extensio...
Dr. Sushil S/O Chandrabhan Rajbhut and Another Vs. National Board of E ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-07-2013
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, two Doctors are challenging the communication issued by respondent no.1 National Board of Examination, holding that their admission to Post Graduate Diploma of National Board (DNB) Course is, invalid and refusing to grant registration/enrollment. It is not in dispute that the last date for admission of petitioners was 30.06.2011 and respondent no.1 Board has found that they have been admitted thereafter. According to the petitioners as also their College (respondent no.3), petitioners have been admitted on 30.06.2011 itself and they have joined the course, which commenced from 01.07.2011. The impugned orders are dated 29.08.2011 and 18.11.2011 and present petition has been filed on 06.03.2012. 2. Looking to the nature of controversy involved, we have heard the matter finally by issuing Rule and making it returnable forthwith by consent of the parties. 3. The petitioner No.1 has passed his M.B...
Ashok P. Sarfare and Another Vs. Hemant Dhondu Sawant and Others
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-2013
S. B. Mhase, President. [1] Heard Adv. Nagaraj Hoskeri on behalf of the original Complainant, Mr. Hemant Dhondu Sawant; Adv. Prasad M. Gaonkar on behalf of the original Opponent No.1, Mr. Ashok P. Sarfare; and Adv. Deepak Poonamiya on behalf of the original Opponent No.2, Mr. Mangal Prabhat Lodha. [2] Both these appeals are directed against an order dated 31/5/2010 passed by the District Forum, Thane in Consumer Complaint No.642 of 2006. By the impugned order, the District Forum has directed the original Opponents Nos.1 and 2 to execute an agreement for sale on the basis of payment of an amount of Rs.10,000/- made by the Complainant on 11/7/1987. It is further directed that after the execution of agreement for sale, the Opponents shall accept the amounts which are payable by the Complainant and they shall not charge any interest on those amounts. It is further alternatively directed that in case the possession of the flat in question cannot be handed over to the Complainant then, in su...
Acit - 1 (3) Vs. Weizmann Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-2013
B. Ramakotaiah, A.M. 1. This is a Revenue appeal against the order of the CIT (A)-21 Mumbai, dated 24.06.2008. Assessee is a limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing and exports of textiles and other goods and also engaged in services like leasing, financing, money lending and borrowings, bill discounting, financial consultancy services and is a dealer in foreign exchange and is also engated in wind power generation. AO in the course of assessment made certain additions/disallowances which have been challenged before the CIT (A) who after considering the submissions and past records deleted the same. Revenue is aggrieved and raised the following four grounds: "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.23,31,963 against disallowances of lease rental, paid on windmill, ignoring the fact that assessee company with mutual understanding first purchased and then sold back to the manufacturer and against ...
Gajanfar Rafik Ahmed Mirajkar Vs. Mrs. Jakiyabegum Siddi-abdur Rehman ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
1 The Applicant (Gajanfar Rafik Ahmed Mirajkar) is the Plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No.3/1983 decided on 23.08.2006. 2 He filed an application being Miscellaneous Application No.63/2009 invoking the Order XX Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking an inquiry for determination of mesne profit. He relies upon the Decree passed in the suit and sets out that the property is valuable and has tremendous market potential. He, therefore, prays by this application that the Commissioner be appointed to take accounts of income received by the original Defendant Nos.1 to 4 from Supari, Banana and Coconut trees standing on the land admeasuring 35 Gunthas of Survey No.67, Hissa No.1, City Survey No.1693. He also prays that while deciding the quantum of mesne profit, all earnings from the sale of coconut, banana etc. be taken into account. This application has been filed on 03.08.2009 in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Alibag at Alibag. 3 Equally, what has been filed by th...
Union of India, Through General Manager Vs. R.S. Jiwani, Engineers and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner seeks to challenge the award dated 21st April, 2011 passed by the arbitral tribunal allowing some of the claims made by the respondent. 2. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under: (a) On 23rd November, 1992, the petitioner awarded contract to the respondent vide its acceptance letter at amount of Rs.16,23,524 with completion period of five months. The respondent could not complete the work within the originally stipulated period of time. An extension was granted by the petitioner to the respondents. The dispute arose between the parties. The respondent invoked arbitration clause vide letter dated 6th October, 1997. By award dated 21st April, 2011, the learned arbitrator allowed various claims made by the respondent and rejected the counter claim made by the petitioner. 3. Mr. Suresh Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitione...
Baba @ Ramjan RukmoddIn Shaikh Vs. Commissioner of Police and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Oka, J.) By this petition, the petitioner has taken an exception to the order dated 16th October, 2012, passed in exercise of powers conferred under Sub-section 2 of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders and Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 (Mah. Act No.LV of 1981) (Amendment 1996) (Mah. Ord. X of 2009) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1981). By the impugned order, the petitioner has been ordered to be detained. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has pressed into the service, two grounds of challenge which are set out as grounds (b) and (d). As far as ground (d) is concerned, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that admittedly, on the date of passing of the impugned order of detention, the petitioner was in judicial custody in connection with C.R. NO.I-135 of 2012 under Sections 307, 323, 506 (II) of I.P.C and under Sections 3 and 25 o...
Ramnath Kare and Another Vs. State Represented by Mr. Vivek Marathe, I ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri G.K. Sardessai, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri D. Lawande, learned Additional Public Prosecutor 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 11/07/2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, South Goa at Margao disposing of Criminal Revision Application No.63/2010. 4. During the course of the hearing of the above petition, it is pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties that in similar circumstances this Court by order dated 29/03/2012 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No.13/2012 has remanded the matter to the learned Revisional Court to decide the revision afresh. Shri D. Lawande, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent has also raised objection to the consideration of the documents produced by the petitioners duri...
Smt. Queteria Maria Pereira de Sa alias Rosa Maria D'sa and Others Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri Rohit Bras De Sa, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Shri Zeller D' Souza, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent nos. 5 to 10 and Shri Sagar Dhargalkar, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the Respondent nos. 1 to 4. 2. The above Petition seeks for the following relief: For a writ of Certiorari or any other writ, order or direction calling for the records and proceedings in Civil Suit no. 34/2009 on the file of the Adhoc District Judge I F, South Goa, at Margao, and after considering the legality, proprietary and correctness of the impugned Order dated 19.1.2011 and Order dated 20.6.2011, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the Impugned Order made on the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 and Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Petitioners filed a suit on the basis that they are owners in possession of the property which they had purchased pursuan...
Smt. Venubai Wd/O Natthu @ Devidas Mankar and Another Vs. Smt. Vimlaba ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard finally by consent of the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. 2. In Special Civil Suit No.38 of 1979 the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati passed a decree for partition and separate possession on 9-9-1986 with all other consequential orders. The plaintiff Vimalabai was held entitled to 1/8th share in the whole properties described in Part-I Schedule-B attached to the plaint, except the portion of field Survey Nos.51/1 and 53/1 situated at village Sonora Kakade Pragane Mangrul Dastgir, Tq. Chandur Rly, District Amravati sold by Motiram. Regular Civil Appeal Nos.496 of 1986 and 498 of 1986 preferred by both the parties were dismissed on 21-2-1995 with some modification to the extent of holding the plaintiff entitled to 1/24th share in the properties shown in Schedule-B (Part I and II), agricultural lands and house property except the property sold by Motiram during his life time. Hence, this second appeal by the original defendant Nos. 8 and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »