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. Celina Almeida Vs. Minister of Urban Development, State of Goa, w ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-19-2013
Oral Judgment:- Heard Shri J. E. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri A. F. Diniz, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2, Shri V. P. Thali, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.3 and Shri S. Dhargalkar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 1(a). 2. The above petition seeks to quash the judgment passed by the respondent no.1 dated 29.05.2007 whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent no.3 was allowed and order passed in Revocation Order No.4/18/TS/2006-CCP/5098 dated 10.11.2006 was set aside. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case as required for disposing of the above Writ Petition are that the petitioner raised an objection to the permissions granted by the respondent no.2 in favour of the respondent no.3 in respect of the development sought to be carried out in the property allegedly belonging to the petitioner. After issuing a show cause notice, the respondent no.2 revoked the licenc...
Wallace Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India, Through t ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-19-2013
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Kanade, J.) In this petition, Rule was granted by the Division Bench of this Court on 20th September, 1999. Thereafter, this Court was informed that the issue raised in this petition was pending before the Apex Court and, as such, the petitions, on this point, which were pending in various High Courts were adjourned sine die. Finally, Transfer Petition (Civil) No(s). 475-496 of 2003 were disposed of by the Apex Court by order dated 3rd May, 2010 and a direction was given by the Apex Court to dispose of the petitions without any undue delay. The following order was passed by the Apex Court: ORDER. The Transfer Petitions filed at the instance of the Union of India are of the years 2003 and 2006 respectively. The earlier one was last listed before the Court on October 18, 2005, when no effective order was passed. During the long pendency of these Transfer Petitions, it is reported that some of the cases pending before the different High Courts have been disposed of an...
Ms. Sarvinoz Buronova Vs. State and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-19-2013
Oral Order: (V.M. Kanade, J.) By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner who claims to be close friend of Ms. Nilufar Allabergenova who is citizen of Uzbekistan. The petitioner is seeking the following reliefs: (A) That a Writ of Habeas Corpus or any other Writ, direction or Order in the nature of Habeas Corpus be issued directing that the victim girl Ms. Nilufar Allabergenova be produced before this Hon'ble Court. (B) That a writ of Mandamus or any other writ, direction or Order in the nature of Mandamus directing respondent No.2 to release Ms. Nilufar Allabergenova from the Protective Home at Merces, Goa on her personal bond. (C) That necessary Orders/directions be issued to the Superintendent of the Protective Home at Merces, Goa to permit the petitioner to meet with her and her advocate Ms. Namrata Shirodkar. 2. After hearing the petition at length we have directed the respondents to produce the girl in the Court today at 10.30 a.m. Brief f...
Gangadhar Narsingdas Agrawal (Huf) Vs. T. K. Chatterjee and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-19-2013
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Kanade, J.) Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent heard forthwith. 3. The petitioner in this petition is challenging the order passed by respondent no.1 i.e Chief Commissioner of India and also for a appropriate writ directing respondent no.1 to withdraw and cancel order dated October, 2005 and to waive interest amounting to Rs.13,60,762/- ( Rupees thirteen lakhs sixty thousand seven hundred and sixty two only) levied under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act and restrain respondent no. 3 from recovering balance interest amount amounting to Rs.43,078/- (Rupees forty three thousand seventy eight only) and to refund sum of Rs.13,17,684/- (Rupees thirteen lakhs seventeen thousand six hundred eighty four only). 4. Brief facts which are necessary for the purpose of deciding this Writ Petition are as under:- Petitioner filed returns of i...
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Petroleum Employee's Union and O ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-2013
P.C. 1. These matters were mentioned in the morning session when we had ordered that the same be listed on 20th February, 2013, to be taken first on board. However, after the lunch break, the matters were once again mentioned by the petitioners pointing out that it will be too late to consider the said matters on 20th February, 2013 as the impending strike was scheduled on 20th February, 2013 itself and would commence with the first shift which starts at 7.45 a.m. Moreover, the management may be forced to completely stop the production activity with effect from 19th February, 2013 itself. Considering the fact that 19th February, 2013 is a public holiday and the court would be closed on that day, with some reluctance the petitioners mentioned the matters and requested the court to take the matter today itself, if possible. We acceded to the request as the respondents were given due notice about the said mentioning. Accordingly, we directed the office to call out the matters at 4.45 p.m....
M/S.Asian Power Controls Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Bubbles Goyal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-2013
Oral Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) These Appeals arise from orders of the learned Company Judge initially admitting a Company Petition for winding up on 12 March 2012 and allowing the Petition by an order dated 21 June 2012. 2. The Respondent advanced a loan in the amount of Rs.50 lakhs to the Appellant by a cheque dated 5 August 2008. A loan agreement was entered into between the company and the Respondent. A promissory note dated 5 August 2008 was executed by the Appellant agreeing to re-pay the loan of Rs.50 lakhs together with interest. The company, as security for the re-payment of the loan, pledged the title deeds of certain immovable property belonging to it and situate at Pondicherry with the Respondent. A post-dated cheque in the amount of Rs.50 lakhs was issued in favour of the Respondent. Six post-dated cheques each in the amount of Rs.1,33,005/- towards interest payable on the loan were honoured on presentation. Interest on the loan was paid until October 2009. On 14...
Jeevan Vikas Kendra Vs. the Government of Maharashtra, Through Office ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-2013
R.D. Dhanuka, J. By this petition under Article 226 read with Article-21 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ, direction or order for quashing and setting aside the impugned decision taken in meeting of the Monitoring Committee on 30th April 2012 and seeks permission to use the accumulated funds in the Indigent Patients Fund (for short 'IPF') maintained by the petitioner for the purpose of replacing dialysis machine and x-ray machine in its hospital. Petitioner also seeks a direction against the respondents to reconsider the application of the petitioner on merits under clause 19 of the Scheme framed by this Court in Writ Petition (PIL) No.3132 of 2004. 2. In the year 1971, the petitioner trust started a hospital for providing medical services at reasonable cost or free to poor persons. The petitioner is a trust registered under the provisions of Bombay Public Truct Act 1950 and manages a 62 bed hospital by name Sadanand Banait Hospital. O...
Chief Officer and First Appellate Officer, Nagpur Housing and Area Dev ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-18-2013
Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is heard finally at the stage of admission as a notice of final disposal was issued to the respondents by an order, dated 16.1.2013 and the respondents are duly served with the notice. 2. By this petition, the petitioners impugn an order passed by the State Information Commissioner on 27.3.2012, directing the petitioner to furnish the information to the respondent no.1 within a period of 15 days. 3. The respondent no.1 filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and requested for information about the declaration of income - wealth of two of its employees, namely Tushar Rathod and Smt. Kanta Kalnahke. The Public Information Officer sent a reply to the respondent no.1 stating therein that the details of the personal information in regard to the two employees cannot be furnished in view of the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act. Since the information was not furnished, the ...
Sonu Alias Madhu Dharma Porob and Others Vs. Rajaram Pandu Fadte, Sinc ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-18-2013
Oral Judgment:- Both the above Writ Petitions challenge a common order dated 16.01.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Panaji Goa, whereby the execution proceedings initiated by the petitioners herein came to be dismissed and execution proceedings initiated by the respondents were disposed of by directing the petitioners to maintain status quo. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents filed a suit against the petitioners inter-alia seeking for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from in any way interfering or demolishing the house occupied by the respondents in the property surveyed under no.52/10 of Diwar Village. In the said suit, the petitioners filed a counter claim inter-alia contending that there was an encroachment carried out by the respondents towards the northern and eastern side of the house. After the issues and trial came to be conducted by the learned Trial Judge, by judgment and decree dated 09.07.1996 the suit filed by the...
Aniruddha S/O. Vishnu Deodhar Vs. Smt. Meena W/O. Tilak Gupta
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-18-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by the consent of the learned Counsel for the applicant. Counsel for the respondent is absent. 2. In a pending Summary Case bearing Criminal Complaint Case No.5952 of 2010, at the instance of the Complainant, the trial Court made an order below Exh.66 on 27th March, 2012 accepting the submissions of the accused that the cheque in question was required to be examined by the Forensic Laboratory to find out the age of ink on the cheque etc. As a sequel to the said finding, the trial Court directed the accused to take hamdast and reach the same on the same day to the Forensic Laboratory at Nagpur. Needless to say that the trial Court did not first ascertain whether the expert opinion could be given by the Nagpur Forensic Laboratory or Hyderabad Laboratory and thus, putting cart before the horse, the said order came to be made. Obviously, the accused had to return back to the Magistrate with a letter from the Nagpur Forensic Laborat...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »