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.
Mrs. Maria a Silveira Since Deceased Represented by L.Rs. Vs. State of ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Kanade, J.) Heard learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate on behalf of respondents no.1 to 4. 2. It is to be noted that Rule was issued and respondent no.5 was served. Thereafter, he had appointed Advocate. Neither Advocate nor the members of respondent no.5 appear before this Court. 3. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are seeking the following reliefs : "(i) That this Court may be pleased to issue writ in the nature of Mandamus/ writ in the nature of Certiorari directing respondent nos.1 to 4 to take immediate action against respondent no.5 and others and preventing inundation of the Khazan lands. (ii) That this Court may be pleased to issue writ of Mandamus/ Certiorari directing to respondents no.1 to 4 to see that no pisciculture activities are carried out in the paddy fields marked in green shading. (iii) That this Court may be pleased to issue writ of Mandamus...
Vinod S/O Gopichand Rathod Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Urban Develop ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
R.M. Borde, J. 1 Heard Mr.N.L.Jadhav, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 to 3, Mr.S.S.Rathi, learned Counsel for Respondent No.4 and Mr.S.T.Veer, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.5 and 7 to 12. None appears for Respondent No.6, though served. 2 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. 3 The petitioner is praying for issuance of writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction in the like nature to Respondent No.2-Collector, Parbhani, to declare him as a nominated Councilor of Municipal Council, Jintur, Tq. Jintur, District Parbhani. The petitioner also prays for quashing Rules 3 and 5 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils and Nagar Panchayats (Qualifications and Procedure for Appointment of Nominated Councillors) Rules, 2010. 4 The elections to Respondent No.4-Jintur Municipal Council were held in December, 2011. The total strength of the elected councilors of the Municipal Council...
Pushpabai W/O Deelip Mahankale and Others Vs. Deeliprao S/O Madhukarra ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard. On 4th June, 2003, Rule was issued and R. and P. was called. 2. Learned JMFC, Udgir, by order dated 11.7.2001 awarded maintenance allowance @ Rs. 300/- to the petitioner wife and at the same rate to the children - Namrata and Aakash. Same was questioned by Deelip, the Respondent before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir in Criminal Revision No.134/2001. The learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 11.7.2001 and hence the petitioner wife is before this Court. 3. The Respondent Deelip has disputed his matrimonial relation with Pushpa and also disputed paternity to the children Namrata and Aakash. Learned JMFC, Osmanabad disapproved the same and awarded maintenance. However, learned Additional Sessions Judge held that marital tie of Smt. Pushpa with her earlier husband Somnath Shahir, was not legally terminated in a divorce or otherwise; and secondly, she could not stake claim to maintenance. He refused maintenanc...
Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City Mumbai. Navi Mumbai - 400 710 Vs. Pan ...
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
R.S. Syal (AM): 1. This appeal by the assessee arises out of the order passed by the CIT u/s. 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act') on 30.3.2012 in relation to the assessment year 2007-08. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessment in this case was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act on 11.6.2009 computing the total income at Rs.Nil after allowing set off of brought forward business loss to the tune of Rs.244.93 crore and unabsorbed depreciation amounting to Rs.2615.92 crore. On perusal of the assessment records, it was observed by ld CIT that: (1) the assessee company claimed to have raised funds to the tune of Rs.6485 crores by way of Foreign Currency Convertible Bonds (FCCBs) during the year under consideration. No investigation was carried out by the AO to establish the name and address, genuineness and creditworthiness of the actual subscribers to such FCCBs in terms of Section 68 of the Act. (2) Out of the proceeds of the said FCCB funds, ...
Rushab Ship International Llc Vs. the Bunkers Onboard the Ship M.V. Af ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-2013
1. By the above Suit, the Plaintiff Rushab Ship International LLC seeks arrest, sequestration, condemnation and sale of the bunkers on board Defendant No.2 - M.V. African Eagle and arrest and deposit of freight due for transportation of cargo laden on Defendant No. 2 at the port of Mumbai, for securing the Plaintiff's claim in arbitration proceedings for a sum of US $ 816,531.22 and accrued interest of US $ 9684.96 and cost in the sum of US $ 826,216.18 for the present proceedings. The Plaintiff has undertaken to invoke arbitration under the Charterparty Agreement dated 16th March 2012. In the meanwhile, as the Defendant No.2 vessel has entered the Mumbai Port, the Plaintiff has filed the present action seeking security for the arbitration. 2. A Judges Order being No. 07 of 2013 was moved before this Court on 7th January 2013, when this Court passed an order for arrest of Bunkers on board the Defendant No.2 vessel M.V. African Eagle along with freight due for transportation of cargo ...
Devaji Rama Padave Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-2013
Oral Judgment: (Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.) The Appellant/Original Accused has preferred this Appeal against the Judgment and order dated 12th April, 2004, passed by the learned Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No.750 of 2002. By the said Judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the Appellant for the offence under Sections 376 and 506II of Indian Penal Code. For the offence punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code the Appellant was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- (Rs.Two Thousand only) in default R.I. for six months. For the offence punishable under Section 506-II the Appellant was sentenced to suffer R.I. for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- (Rs.Two Thousand only) in default R.I. for six months. The learned Judge further directed both the substantive sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as under: P.W.1 the prosecutrix was residing at Shivshakti Rahivashi Sangh...
Salma Asgarali Makati and Others Vs. Raj Bucket Factory and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-2013
Oral Judgment: 1 Rule, with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2 The Writ Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order dated 22-10-2012 passed by the 9th Civil Judge Junior Division, Thane, by which order, the application Exhibit 56 filed by the Respondent No.4 herein for amendment of the Written Statement came to be allowed and resultantly the Written Statement was permitted to be amended in terms of the schedule to the said application so as to incorporate paragraphs 4(a) to 4(d). 3 The facts necessary to be cited for adjudication of the above Petition can be stated thus: The Suit in question i.e. Special Civil Suit No.379 of 2006 came to be filed challenging the consent decree dated 21-3-2001 passed in Civil Suit No.11 of 2001. The said Regular Civil Suit No.11 of 2001 came to be decreed in terms of the consent terms. The said consent decree was signed by the Respondent No.4 herein and the Power of Attorney of one Sarabai Pachorawala who expir...
Ghadigaonkar Vijay Maruti Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-2013
Oral Judgment: (P.V. Hardas, J.) The appellant, who stands convicted for an office punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of which to undergo further RI for one month, by the District Judge, Sindhudurg, by Judgment dated 12/4/2004, in Sessions Case No.43 of 2003, by this appeal questions the correctness of his conviction and sentence. 2. Facts, as are necessary for the decision of this appeal, may briefly be stated thus:- PW 8 - Police Head Constable Satyawan Babu Kadam, who was attached to Kankavali Police Station on 12/5/2003, received a message on phone at about 1.30 p.m. from PW 1 - Mahadeo Ghadigaonkar that the appellant had assaulted deceased - Shridhar by a scythe. Accordingly, an entry was effected in the station diary at Exh. 35. PW 6 - PSI Mahadik, who was also attached to Kankavali Police Station, immediately proceeded to the scene of the incident. On reaching the scene of the inci...
Roger Rodrigues and Others Vs. Russel Pereira and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-2013
Oral Order: 1. The Plaintiffs have applied for judgment on admission essentially in respect of one of the properties of their deceased parents. The Plaintiffs together have one share. Defendant No.1 has another share. The defendant Nos.1 to 5 have one share each. The shares of the Plaintiffs are specifically admitted. Consequently a judgment on admission in respect of Flat No.22 in Sandelle Apartments of Perry Road, Bandra (W) Mumbai is required to be passed. 2. Defendant No. 1 claims that though the shares are admitted, the property be not sold but be given on license because it would fetch a decent amount each year. The suit is for determination and division of the respective shares. The shares having been admitted, a final Judgment is required to be passed. In the final judgment no property can be ordered to be given on license. A license is essentially a temporary measure. A sale of the property can alone be ordered upon partition. 3. Defendant No.2, who is the real contesting defe...
Mrs. Seema Subhash Shrigondekar Vs. Subhash Gunaji Shrigondekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-2013
NareshH. Patil, J. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. By the present appeal the appellant had challenged the judgment and decree dated 17.10.2002 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court No. 5, Pune in Petition No. C-16/1999, whereby the petition was partly allowed with costs and the respondent Subhash was directed to pay maintenance @ Rs.500/- per month to the petitioner / appellant from the month of filing of the petition i.e. from February 1999 on wards. 3. The appellant filed a petition under section 18 B and 20 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. The contention of the appellant is that she was married to respondent Subhash on 2.5.1980 at Rahuri, District Ahmednagar. Two children Sandip and Sumit were born out of the wedlock. Both the children were residing with the respondent Subhash, who is native of Ahmednagar. Respondent is serving in the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. The parties got separated from each other in the month of September 19...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »