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.
Konkola Copper Mines (Plc) Vs. Stewarts and Lloyds of India Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-2013
Oral Judgment: By this petition filed under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner seeks direction against the respondent to furnish security to secure the amounts awarded to the petitioner by the learned arbitrator by declaring an award on 9th January, 2013 in the sum of US # 3356203 equivalent to Rs.181234926/- approximately as on 18th January, 2013 and seeks appointment of the Court Receiver and injunction against respondents. 2. The respondents have filed affidavit dated 25th February, 2013 raising preliminary objection about territorial jurisdiction of this court to entertain this petition. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the respondent carries on business at Kolkata. The Petitioner is having its registered office at Jambia. The contracts dated 10th August, 2006 and 18th August, 2006 which were subject matter of arbitration were received and executed by the respondent at Kolkata. The transaction between th...
Dirk India Private Limited and Another Vs. Maharashtra State Electrici ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-2013
Oral Judgment: (Dr. Chandrachud, J.) These appeals arise from an order of a learned Single Judge dated 30 April 2012 on a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 2. An agreement was entered into on 4 October 2000 between Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB) and Dirk India Private Limited (DIPL). The agreement envisaged that Pulverized Fly Ash (PFA) that is generated from MSEB's Thermal Power Station at Nasik would be transported to four hoppers which were to be constructed by DIPL at site. DIPL was to utilise PFA in its PFA handling plant for the manufacture of POZZOCRETE concrete. This was to protect the environment against the degrading impact of PFA. An arbitration agreement was contained in the contract between the parties. Disputes and differences arose between the parties. These were referred to a three-member arbitral tribunal consisting of Mr.Justice B.N.Srikrishna, former Judge of the Supreme Court, Mr.Justice V.G.Palshikar and Mrs.Justice...
Shabina Anjum and Another Vs. Irshad Khan
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-19-2013
Oral Judgment: Admitted. Heard finally by consent of both the learned counsel. Mr. M.R.Khan, learned counsel is heard on behalf of the applicants and learned Advocate Mr. R.J.Mirza is heard on behalf of the non-applicant. 2. The limited grievance of the applicants is that it was not necessary for the trial Court (Family Court) to frame the following issue in the Application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 :- "1. Whether the non-applicant proves that he had given a legal and valid talaq." Learned counsel for applicants Mr. Khan has submitted that this issue could not have been decided in the proceedings u/s. 125 of the Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for non-applicant Mr. R.J. Mirza has submitted that the decision on this issue had nothing to do with the issue regarding maintenance and findings of the learned Court thereon, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported at AIR 2010 SC 305 in the matter of Shabana Bano vs. Imran Khan. Learned counsel Mr. Kha...
Parmeshwar S/O. Tanhaji Garje Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-19-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard. 2. Respondent received amount of Rs.7,384/of his provident fund which was credited in his account with Beed District Central Co-op. Bank of which, petitioner was Manager at the relevant time i.e. on 18th September, 1997. 3. The grievance of the respondent is, he did not avail said amount nor withdrawn it. However, debit note of Rs.7,250/- was made in the record of the bank and hence, the prosecution. 4. Learned Judicial Magistrate F.C. directed investigation in terms of Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Police report was negative. Thereafter, learned Judicial Magistrate F.C. issued process for offence under Sections 418, 420, 468, 471 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code against petitioner - Parmeshwar and two others i.e. D.M.Dongre and R.B.Sanap. The matter was carried in Criminal Revision Application No.14 of 2010 and on 14th July, 2010, the Revision was dismissed. 5. Basically, the deposit was dated 18th September, 1997 and there is entry of debit of Rs. 7,250/- in the ac...
State of Goa Through P.i. Vs. Ramakrishna Prabhu and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-19-2013
This appeal is by the State to challenge the correctness and legality of the judgment and order dated 10/09/2009 by which the Sessions Court acquitted the respondents of the offences punishable under Section 304-B, 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. 2. Rachana, the deceased, was married to respondent no.1 on 21/04/2003. Barely one year thereafter i.e. on 28/04/2004 she set herself on fire with petrol and died in the hospital on 5/05/2004. PW5, the brother of Rachana by his letter dated 18/05/2004 addressed to Sub-Divisional Magistrate (PW11) complained that Rachana had committed suicide on account of the harassment meted out to her by the respondents i.e. her husband, parents-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law. On 23/08/2004, PW11 addressed an order to the Police Inspector, Old Goa Police Station, Panaji-Goa that on perusal of the statements recorded by the police and the dying declaration of Rachana it was seen that Rachana had committed suicide on account of ...
Uma Janku Mohare Vs. Union of India, Through the Secretary, Railway Bo ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-2013
Order (Oral) R.C. Joshi, Member (A). Is the order passed by Respondent No.1 vide dated 28.11.2007 imposing cut of 10% pension on permanent basis from the Applicant illegal, vitiated or arbitrary? 2. The above question had come up for our consideration in the present case in the following facts and circumstances: The Applicant while working as Deputy Stores Keeper DSK-II during the period 1993-98 and subsequently promoted to the post of DSK-I, was issued a charge-sheet dated 30.08.1999 alleging following misconducts during the years 1993-98: 1. He demanded illegal gratification for him and the inspecting officials of EMU/Workshop/MX from a Firm viz. M/s. Swan Rubber Industries, Calcutta towards acceptance and release of receipt order for 20 sets of Rubber Components to price list No.35980163 received against Purchase Order No.0991-4013-3-04931 dt. 30.08.94. He has demanded illegal gratification through a letter written by him on 26.6.96 addressed to one Shri Shah who was the representat...
Aditya Birla Chemicals (i) Limited, (Earlier Known as Bihar Caustic an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-2013
Oral Judgment: By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the petitioner has impugned the award dated 24th October, 2011 made by the learned arbitrator allowing the claims made by the respondents and directing the petitioner to pay Rs.30,53,064/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. with effect from 19th June, 2006 till payment in respect of the claim having arisen in respect of dis-allowance of depreciation and also directing the petitioner to pay sum of Rs.26,18,000/- being penalty levied by the Income Tax Department along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a., on the respondents with effect from 30th January 2008 till payment. 2. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under: (a) The Petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing caustic soda and other chemicals. On 1 9th August, 1998, the respondent granted in principle sanction to extend the lease finance assistance to the petitioner for plant and m...
Bharat Infrastructure and Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Park Darshan Chs L ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-2013
By this petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act' for short), the petitioner seeks appointment of Court Receiver in respect of the flats occupied by respondent Nos.2 to 6c with a direction to take physical possession from them if necessary with police help and hand over the same to the petitioner for demolition and reconstruction of new buildings. The petitioner also seeks injunction against the said respondents from alienating, encumbering or parting with possession of their respective flats occupied by them except hand over possession to the respondent society. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under. 2. Petitioner is carrying on business as Builder and Developer. Respondent No.1 society is owner of a piece and parcel of land bearing CTS No.575 original plot No.1 and 2 and final plot No.22A and 22B admeasuring 2002.5 sq.mt. Vide a conveyance deed dated 10th September, 1968,...
inammuddIn Umrao Khan Vs. the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Zone-iv and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-2013
Oral Order: [A.R. Joshi, J.] 1. Heard. Rule. By consent of the parties taken up for final hearing and disposed of at the stage of admission. 2. The order of externment dated 27.2.2012 passed by the competent authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-VI, Mumbai is challenged in the present Petition by the petitioner/externee. Said impugned order was passed under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. Appeal was preferred against the said order before the Chief Secretary (Special), Home Department. However, the same was dismissed vide order dated 23.4.2012. This order is also challenged in the present Writ Petition. 3. Initially show cause notice under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 was issued against the petitioner. It was issued by the ACP, Deonar Division, Mumbai proposing externment of the petitioner for two years and for showing the cause as to why he shall not be externed. On such show-cause notice, the petitioner was heard. However, not satisfied w...
The Consulate General of Iran Vs. M/S. Baldota Brothers
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-2013
1. Rule. 2. Mr. Madon, Sr. Counsel, waives service on behalf of the Respondents/Original Plaintiffs. 3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 4. By this Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Applicants/Original Defendants the Consulate General of Iran, now known as the Consulate General of Islamic Republic of Iran, impugns and challenges the Judgment of the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai dated 8th November, 2012 in Appeal No.28 of 2007 in T.E.andR. Suit No.100/112 of 2004. 5. By the impugned order, the lower Appellate Court has reversed the Judgment and Order dated 16th October, 2006 of the Trial Judge and has passed a decree for possession in favour of the Respondents/Original Plaintiffs in respect of the suit premises, namely, Block No.4 situate on the First Floor of the building known as Baldota Bhavan, 117, Maharshi Karve Road, Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020 along with a Garage. The Appellate Court has ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »