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.
Bhagwat Namdeo Nirmal and Another Vs. Sub-divisional Officer, Shriramp ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-18-2013
Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 2. The application was filed by the present respondent Nos.3 to 5 under Section 5(2) of the Mamlatdar's Courts Act (hereinafter referred to as 'said Act' for short). It was rejected. In a revision filed by respondent Nos.3 to 5 before the Sub Divisional Officer, the Sub Divisional Officer remanded the matter back. After the remand, the Mamlatdar rejected the application under Section 5(2) of the said Act. The present respondent filed revision before the Sub Divisional Officer, the same is allowed. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners, submit that the application filed by the respondent Nos.3 to 5 under Section 5(2) of the said Act suffers from basic requirements of Section 7 of the said Act. There is an absence of cause of action, the Mamlatdar has got jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 5(2) only within six months of...
Dena Bank Vs. Lalit Kewalchand Bothra
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-2013
S.B. Mhase, President 1. Heard Mr. Anil G. Variath, Advocate for the appellant and Mr.F.M. Oswal, Advocate for the respondent. 2. This appeal is directed as against the order dated 10/08/2010 passed by Addl. District Forum, Pune in consumer complaint No.46/2009 filed by the respondent. 3. The factual matrix which are not in dispute are as follows:- The complainant/respondent is having bank account with the appellant/Bank. One Mr.Rakesh Pukhraj Jain is also having bank account with the appellant/Bank. Said Mr.Rakesh Jain had issued a cheque No.383603 of Rs.1 Lakh dated 30/10/2006 to the respondent/complainant. That cheque was presented by respondent/complainant on 19/04/2007 with the appellant/bank along with slip which usually required to be tagged when cheque is presented to the Bank. On the said slip, the Bank officers have put their seal and have also signed. So far as fact of presentation of said cheque is concerned, that is not in dispute. However, grievance of the respondent/comp...
M/S. Oricon Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Divisional Manager
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-2013
Narendra Kawde, Member 1. Complainant is a Public Limited Company engaged in business of manufacturing of chemicals and their factory is located at Khalapur near Khopoli. The Complainant Co. (herein after referred as Complainant Co.) has filed this consumer complaint alleging deficiency of service against the opponent-M/s.New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (herein after referred as Insurance Company) for not settling the payable insurance claim on account of loss of stock of Pentane due to subsidence (sinking of earth surface) causing damage to the tank and resultant leakage to the said tank emitting the stock of chemical Pentane. 2. Case in brief is that the tank at the factory site at Khalapur was insured under policy no.130600/11/06/11/ 00000030 with sum assured of Rs.9,44,00,000/- by paying the premium of Rs.2,76,745/- and the stock therein was also insured under policy no.130600/11/06/11/00000031 with sum assured at Rs.2,08,00,000/- by paying the premium of Rs.84,237/- covering the per...
Arun Kumar Mehta Vs. Yogi Laxmi Narayan Co. Operative Housing Society ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-2013
S.R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member) (1) This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 17/06/1994 in Consumer Complaint No.1294/93, Shri Arunkumar Mehta Vs. Yogi Laxmi Narayan CHS Ltd. and ors., passed by Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Mumbai (Forum in short). (2) By the said order, the consumer complaint stood dismissed for default with no order as to costs. Feeling aggrieved thereby, this appeal is preferred. (3) It was once decided by this Commission and disposed off by an order dated 18/12/1995 and it was successfully challenged in the revision before the National Commission as per the Revision Petition No.426/1996 and which stood disposed off by an order dated 26/03/1997 remanding back the matter for fresh hearing. Accordingly, the matter is placed before us. Admitted and heard forthwith with the consent of both the parties. (4) In the instant case, the facts as they reveal from the papers produced on behalf of the respondents remain uncontra...
Usha Munna Upadhyay Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-2013
Oral Order: (A.M. Thipsay, J.) Rule. 2. Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned APP waives service. 3. By consent, heard finally forthwith. 4. The petitioner, who is undergoing a sentence of Imprisonment for life on her conviction, in respect of an offence punishable under section 302 of the IPC read with section 34 of the IPC, by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the decision of the State Government in respect of benefit of premature release to be given to her. The petitioner is in prison since 10 February 1999, and has undergone 13 years of actual Imprisonment. 5. In exercise of the powers conferred by sections 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with section 433 and 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the State Government has framed guidelines in the matter of premature release of convicts. Under these guidelines, the convicts and the crimes committed by them are classified in different categories, and the minimum period of Impri...
M/S Silver Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-2013
1 On conclusion of the arguments, this matter is placed today for passing judgment. 2 Rule. 3 The Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 4 By this Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Applicants are seeking to quash and set aside the complaint dated 25.02.2011 filed by the Respondent No.2 (Mumbai Municipal Corporation) before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 42nd Court, Shindewadi, Mumbai being Case No.4200014/SW/2011 alleging the offence punishable under Section 475A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. 5 The complaint has been filed alleging that the premises Parvati Sada, Plot No.148, CTS No.5851, Town Planning Scheme III, Bhanushali Lane, Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai400077, were inspected and examined by the Junior Engineer/ SubEngineer/ Assistant Engineer on 17.09.2010. On that inspection and examination, it was found that there are various defects as set out in the notice and copy of which is annexed to th...
M/S.Vishnu Steels Vs. the Union of India and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-2013
Oral Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) 1 Rule; with the consent of Counsel for the parties returnable forthwith. With the consent of Counsel and at their request the Petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2 The Petitioner challenges an order passed by the Settlement Commission by which an application under Section 32E of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for settlement of the dispute arising out of a notice to show cause dated 24 June 2010 issued by the Additional Director General, DGCEI, Mumbai demanding differential duty of Rs.1.73 crores and CENVAT credit of Rs.8.77 lakhs has been dismissed on the ground that it is not maintainable. The order of the Settlement Commission is on a split verdict. Two members of the Settlement Commission have held that since the application for settlement was filed on 14 January 2011, a day after the order of adjudication dated 13 January 2011, it was not maintainable under Section 32E. The third member of the Settlement Commission has howev...
Vijay Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary Home Department a ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-15-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of parties. 2. The petitioner questions order of externment dated 10th March, 2012 passed by learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sangamner Division, Sangamner, externing him from Kopargaon, Sangamner, Shrirampur and Rahata in Ahmednagar district; Vaijapur in Aurangabad district and Yeola, Niphad and Sinnar in Nasik district, for a period of one year, confirmed by the Home Department on 11th June, 2012. 3. Smt.Ghanekar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, candidly accepts that by efflux of time, as one year has lapsed, nothing remains. However, she asserts, the petitioner has good ground to challenge the externment order, which qualifies to be an excessive and warrants interference in writ jurisdiction. According to her, the nature of operation in criminal activities of the petitioner is confined to Kopargaon and action of externing the petitioner from other talukas, referred above, violates his constitutional rights. 4. A s...
Smt. Bhavna W/O Ganesh Tarvekar Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Li ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-15-2013
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J). 1. Heard finally in the light of order dated 26.2.2013 by issuing Rule and making it returnable forthwith. The said order dated 26.2.2013 reads as under: After hearing respective learned Counsel for the parties for quite sometime, we find that the person placed at Sr. No.1 in empanelment list was given excessive marks though he was not entitled to same and the petitioner was given less marks. Accordingly, after verification of complaint made by the petitioner marks have been corrected. During argument learned Counsel Mr. Meghe for the respondents has submitted that select list was displayed without complied with of Rule 18, the merits panel was not scrutinized by a Senior Officer of the respondents. It is, therefore, obvious that merits panel to which the petitioner raised objection itself was not scrutinized by the Senior Officer. In this situation, placing the other person at Sr. No.1 cannot be said to be decisive. The said Senior Officer ought...
Teodolinda Dias Mandoly C. Viegas and Others Vs. Laurie Hermegeild Per ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-15-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri A.D. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners. None for the respondents though served. 2. Rule heard forthwith. The notice issued to the respondents was for disposal of the above petition at the stage of admission. 3. The above petition challenges an order passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division at Margao dated 22/08/2012 whereby an application for amendment filed by the petitioners came to be rejected. 4. Briefly, the facts as submitted by Shri A.D. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners are that the petitioners filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction with regard to the structure located in the property of the petitioners. 5. The respondent no.1 in his written statement disputed the claim of the petitioners and inter alia claimed that he is the mundkar of the disputed premises. It is further contended that before the affidavit evidence was filed in the Court the petitioners filed an application for amendment...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »