Mumbai Court March 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.
Hi Tech India Construction Vs. Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilit ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-2013
S.J. Vazifdar, J. Respondent No.1 is the Chief Executive Officer of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (hereinafter referred to as "SRA"), respondent No.2 is the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, SRA, respondent No.3 is the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "MHADA"), respondent No.4 is Aman (Kurla) SRA Co-operative Housing Society (Proposed), respondent No.5 is a firm of developers M/s. Dani Builders and Developers and respondent No.6 is the Vinoba Bhave Co-operative Housing Society (Proposed). 2. The petitioners have challenged a show cause-notice dated 7th June, 2010, an order dated 28th September, 2010 passed by the SRA and an order dated 21st May, 2011, passed by the High Power Committee (hereinafter referred to as "HPC"). By the order dated 28th September, 2010, passed under section 13(2) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, the SRA terminated the petitioners appointment as the d...
Vinod Agarwal Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-2013
M.S. Sanklecha, J. This appeal challenges the order of the learned Single Judge dated 6th March, 2012 dismissing the Writ Petition by the Appellant challenging the order dated 17th October, 2011 of the Respondent No.1 (Divisional Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Mumbai Division). The learned Single Judge refused to issue a writ to set aside the order dated 17th October, 2011 of Respondent No.1. The learned Single Judge refused to direct Respondent No.3 (Satyam-I Co-operative Societies Ltd.) to transfer the shares in the Respondent No.3-Society, attributable to Flat No.602 in 'A' wing of the Respondent No.3-Society (subject flat) to the name of the Appellant from the owners of the subject flat i.e. Appellant's brother and sister-in-law viz. Respondent Nos.5 and 6. This was in view of the fact that the Respondent No.4 (The Deccan Merchant Co-operative Bank Ltd.) had an interest in the subject flat due to non-satisfaction of the amounts decreed by the Co-operative Court by its o...
The Institute of Cost Accountants of India Vs. the Registrar of Trade ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-2013
S.J. Vazifdar, J. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and the writ petition is heard finally. 2. The petitioner is a body corporate constituted under the provisions of The Institute of Cost and Works Accountants Act, 1959. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the Registrars of Trade Marks at Mumbai and Kolkata respectively. 3. The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.1 to fix a date of hearing in respect of its application for registration of a trade mark CMA in class 41. 4. On 01.10.2010, the petitioner applied for registration of the said mark for goods and services. The petitioner by a letter dated 30.03.2011, inter-alia stated that it had not received any response from the respondents in respect of its application for registration despite several enquiries having been made from time to time and that as a result thereof, it was unable to provide training and award degrees / certificates on the newest branches of management and accountancy. 5. On 13.03.2012, the p...
M/S.Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Centr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-2013
P.C. : This Appeal by the assessee arises from an order of the CESTAT dated 29 November 2012 in an appeal arising from an order of adjudication of the Commissioner of Central Excise. 2. The Appellant, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, operates a large number of oil wells and ten process platforms which are situated in different oil fields at Mumbai Offshore. Petroleum oil in the belly of the earth is a mixture of hydrocarbons ranging from methane to larger hydrocarbon molecules. Under extremely high pressures obtaining in the reservoirs beneath the ocean floor, the lighter hydrocarbons remain dissolved in the oil, comprising of a mixture of heavier hydrocarbons. During the process of extraction of hydrocarbon from the reservoirs, the hydrocarbon mix rises through pipes which are sunk into the reservoirs, due to the high pressure therein. As the hydrocarbon mix rises upwards, the pressure progressively decreases resulting in the lighter hydrocarbons hitherto dissolved in the liqu...
Pintu @ Shamsunder Marutrao Bhujaji Rankhambe Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-2013
Oral Judgment: (Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.) This appeal is directed by the appellant-original accused No.1 against the judgment and order dated 02.12.2005 passed by the learned 12th Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No.459 of 2004. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 506(2) of IPC and sentenced him as follow:-Convicted UnderSentenced toSection 302 of IPCImprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000 IDRI for 3 Months.Section 506(2) of IPCTo suffer RI for 1 Year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- IDSI for 1 Month. The learned Sessions Judge also directed that the substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under: (i) PW 1 Shivaji was residing at Jambhulwadi, Pune in the room of one Jambhale. Deceased Namdeo, original accused No.3 Kalu and PW 4 Santosh also used to reside in the said room. Deceased Namdeo was having affair with Kavita w...
Diamond and Gem Development Corporation Limited Vs. M/S. Morex Petroch ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-2013
1. The Revisionary Jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is invoked against the order dated 09/05/2012 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Dindoshi, Mumbai by which order the learned Judge has decided the preliminary issue and has come to a conclusion that the said Court would have jurisdiction. 2. The facts necessary to be cited for adjudication of the above Civil Revision Application can in brief be stated thus:- Applicant herein is the original Defendant No.1 whereas the Respondent No.1 herein is the original Plaintiff in the Short Cause Suit No.818 of 2011. Respondent No.2 herein is the original Defendant No.2 in the said Suit. The said suit has been filed inter alia for the following substantive reliefs. (a) that it be declared that the Defendant No.1 have no right to implement any such exit policy contrary to the terms of the Agreement being the Agreement dated 21st July 2005 in respect of reassignment of the rights in respect of t...
Atul S/O. Bhaskarrao Thakre (Deshmukh) Vs. Sau. Anuja W/O. Atul Thakre ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-01-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard. 2. Admit. 3. Heard finally by consent. 4. The applicant is aggrieved by the order passed by learned Family Court in Petition No.E-11/2011 directing the applicant to pay a sum of Rs.8,300/- per month to respondent No.1 by way of maintenance. Respondent No.1 is wife of the applicant. Respondent No.1 has filed an application for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Family Court. The said application was finally decided by the impugned order. 5. During the course of hearing it was pointed out by learned counsel Mr. Bhide that the application filed by non-applicant under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not served upon the applicant in accordance with law. He has brought to my notice contents of the impugned judgment at paragraph No.10 which can be reproduced as under : "10. The non applicant had filed the petition for divorce which was pending in this Court. His advocate received the service of the notice...
Sanjay and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-01-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard. 2. ADMIT. 3. Heard finally by consent of both the parties. 4. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the original complainant / injured in Regular Criminal Case No.231 of 2008 and the accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 of the same case. Applicant Nos.1, 2 and 3 are the accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 respectively and applicant No.4 is original complainant/ injured person. Applicant Nos.1, 2 and 3 have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of rupees one thousand each by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. An appeal was filed before the Sessions Court by applicants/accused. The said appeal is pending vide Criminal Appeal No.191 of 2009 in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-7 at Nagpur. In the meantime, the dispute between applicant Nos.1, 2 and 3 on one hand and applicant No.4 on...
Sadannand Vaman Sadekar Vs. Manju Avinash Wardekar and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-01-2013
Oral Judgment:- Heard Shri M. B. Da Costa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri V. P. Thali, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The above appeal challenges the judgment dated 23.09.2009 passed by the learned District Judge, North Goa, Panaji, whereby the objections raised by the respondents herein to the award passed by the learned Arbitrator under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 came to be allowed (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1996). 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant claiming to be a partner of the partnership firm known as M/s Western India Service Centre filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge Senior Division, Ponda, inter-alia claiming that the letter of retirement obtained by the respondents from him was taken by undue influence at the time when the appellant was suffering from a heart ailment. The respondents disputed the said claim and inter-alia contended that there was an arbitr...
Harishkumar Sachdeva Vs. Smt. Madhavi JaIn and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-01-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri A. R. Kantak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri P. P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Shane Dias Sapeco, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.3. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith by the consent of the learned counsel. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents waive service. 4. The above petition challenges an order passed by the leaned Civil Judge Senior Division, Mapusa, dated 30.11.2012 whereby an application for amendment filed by the petitioner to amend the plaint came to be rejected. 5. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit against the respondents inter-alia seeking a direction to execute a deed of rectification to the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner and other reliefs. The suit came to be decreed by an ex-parte decree dated 12.01.1996. Thereafter, the respondents filed an application to set aside the ex-parte decree and ultimatel...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »