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.
M/S.Goldstar Metal Solutions Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Dattaram Gajanan Kavtankar a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-2013
By these two appeals filed under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (for short Arbitration Act, 1996) the appellant seeks to challenge the order dated 30th January, 2013 passed by the Learned District Judge 1, Sindhudurg allowing the application filed by the 1st respondent, Mr.Dattataram Gajanan Kavtankar under section 9 of the Arbitration Act, 1996, and granting injunction against the applicants (hereinafter referred to as Mr.Kavtankar). M/s.Goldstar Metal Solutions Pvt. Ltd., the appellant in Arbitration Appeal No. 12 of 2013 is hereinafter referred to as M/s.Goldstar. M/s.Vidharbh Mining Pvt. Ltd., the appellant in Arbitration Appeal No. 13 of 2013 is hereinafter referred to as M/s.Vidharbh. Mr.Ravindra Sadanand Phatak, the 2nd respondent in these two appeals is hereinafter referred to as Mr.Phatak. 2. As both these appeals arise from the same order, by consent of parties, both these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. 3. ...
Osho International Foundation and Another Vs. Maharashtra Electricity ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-2013
P.C. Rule, returnable forthwith. 2 Heard finally by consent of the parties. 3 The Petitioners herein claim to be Educational Institution and/or Spiritual Institutions. Both the Petitioners had approached the Appellate Tribunal by filing Appeal Nos. 81 and 82 of 2010, alongwith the other Institutions like Hospitals and Educational Institutions contending that the respective Institutions should not be treated as Commercial for the purpose of the electricity tariff in their Judgment dated 20 October, 2011 the Appellant Tribunal held as under: 57 Summary of Our Findings : (i) The State Commission in the present case wrongly placed all the consumers including the Appellant who were neither domestic nor industrial nor filling under any of the categories under the Commercial Category. The purpose for which the supply is required by the Appellants can not be equated at par with other consumers in the Commercial Category. The Appellants are seeking separate categorization on the basis of purpos...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Navinchandra Brijratnlal Shah and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-2013
P.C.: 1. These Review Petitions have been filed by the State of Maharashtra to recall the common order dated 25.9.2012 passed in the respective petitions. In that decision, we have held that the Writ Petitioners are entitled for benefit of gratuity amounts having tendered resignation. For taking that view, we have primarily relied on the provisions contained in the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, in particular, section 4 thereof, which was pressed into service by the Writ Petitioners. 2. We are pained to place on record that Counsel appearing for the State of Maharashtra during the hearing of Writ Petitions did not even remotely argue the question now posed to us in the present review petitions. On the contrary, the arguments of both sides proceeded on the basis that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 was applicable to the case on hand. It is on that premise the judgment was delivered and in support of the opinion, reliance was placed on the exposition of the Apex Court in the case of M/...
Smt. Sunita Sudam Ranaware and Others Vs. Sou Rama Vijay Oberoi Throug ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-2013
Oral Order: 1 At the outset the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners seeks deletion of all the Respondents except the Respondent No.1 in the above Petitions. Leave granted. Amendment to be carried out by 15/3/2013. 2 Rule, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 3 The Writ Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the common order dated 11/9/2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panvel by which order the Applications Exhibits 160, 178 and 182 filed by the Defendants in Regular Civil Suit No.766 of 2012 came to be rejected. 4 It is not necessary to burden this order with unnecessary details. Suffice it to say that in the suit in question the Plaintiff has challenged the Sale Deed dated 30/05/1996 executed in favour of the Defendant No.4 by the Defendant No.1. The Defendants therefore questioned the maintainability of the suit on the ground of it being barred by limitation, and therefore filed an ...
Dhanaji Digambar Gaikwad Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-2013
Oral Judgment: (Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.) This appeal is directed by the appellant-original accused against the judgment and order dated 31.8.2005 passed by the learned 4th Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Gr. Bombay at Seweree in Sessions Case No.250 of 2004. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to RI for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default RI for six months. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under: The appellant was married to Sakharabai (deceased). The appellant and Sakharabai were residing on the road near Kaju Pada Junction, Link Road, Jogeshwari, Mumbai. PW-1 Sugandha was residing across the road from where the appellant and deceased were residing. The appellant and his wife used to make 'Gajaras' from flowers and earn their livelihood. At the time of the incident, Sakharabai was eight months pregnant. On 11.9.2003 at about 5.30 a.m. the appellant assaulted his wife w...
Haridas Bhanudas Kale Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-2013
Oral Judgment: [Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.] 1. This appeal is directed by the appellant-original accused against the judgment and order dated 26.09.2001 passed by the learned 1st Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No. 390 of 2000. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 15000/- in default imprisonment for 2 years. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under: (a) Rehana Shaikh (deceased) was married to the appellant. Thereafter, she was named as Kalinda. Rehana had one son from her previous marriage i.e PW 4 Farukh. At the time of the incident, the appellant, his wife Kalinda and Kalinda's son PW 4 Farukh were residing at Pathare Vasti, Loni-Kalbhor, Tal. Haveli, Dist. Pune. The appellant was addicted to drinking liquor. There used to be frequent quarrels between the appellant and Kalinda. (b) On 05.02.1999, the appellant came ...
Kshitij Co-op Hsg Society Ltd. K.. S. Shetty Vs. M/S. Gac Construction ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-2013
S.R.Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member 1.This consumer complaint filed by the Co-operative Housing Society of the flat purchasers, namely, Kshitij Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (herein after referred as Society) against the builder/developer basically to get the conveyance and also for other monetary reliefs. The reliefs claimed are as under:- a. To hold and declare the Opposite Parties to be guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. b. To direct the Opposite Parties to comply with their statutory obligations and to execute the Conveyance Deed in favour of the Complainant Society to transfer the rights, title and interest along with structures standing thereon in respect of the property bearing Survey No.259, C.T.S.No.661, admeasuring about 4983.6 sq.meters or thereabouts situate, lying and being at Goregaon, Village Malad, Taluka Borivali the Registration Sub-District of Mumbai Suburban, within 3 months ...
Nagpur District Central Co-operative Bank Limited Vs. State of Maharas ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-13-2013
Heard. Rule was issued on 23rd March, 2005 with interim stay to the order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Osmanabad dated 9th December, 2004. 2. In Crime No.106 of 2002 of Police Station, Osmanabad, the Investigation Officer, on 28th August, 2002, issued notice to the petitioner under Section 102 of Code of Criminal Procedure to freeze the amount of Rs.29,99,34,591/- (hereinafter referred as "said amount") lying with it. Same was communicated to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (C.J.M.) below Exhibit 105 on 11th November, 2002. A compliance report Exhibit 131 in the said crime was also forwarded, upon which, C.J.M. directed notices to the two banks and the accused. 3. The petitioner - Nagpur District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd (for short "N.D.C.C. Bank") claimed to have purchased Government Securities bearing No.9.81 worth Rs.20 crores and bearing No.10.03 worth Rs.15 Crores through M/s.Home Trade. The contract notes and confirmation was received in that behalf on 8th Sep...
Babasaheb Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-13-2013
Oral Judgment: Rule was issued on 17.7.2007. 2. Revision applicant Babasaheb and original complainant - prosecutrix present, identified by the Advocates. 3. Conviction was recorded against revision applicant in SCC No.883/2002 on 10.10.2006 for offence under Section 354 of IPC, directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- with default clause. Same was confirmed in appeal. 4. A request is made by present application to compound the matter by leave of the Court. Photostat copy of election card, duly signed by the Advocate, is tendered on record. 5. Hon'ble Supreme Court (three Judges Bench) in the matter of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303) indicated parameters and guidelines in order to ensure compounding of cases by exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by High Courts. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Lordships have observed situations wherein such powers are to be exercised, and if the Court comes to a primary c...
Dr. Kalpna W/O Pundlik Jamdade Vs. Assistant Municipal Commissioner, N ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-13-2013
Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioner's sonography centre is registered under provisions of the Pre-conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act (hereinafter referred as to the "P.C.P.N.D.T Act" for the sake of brevity). The respondent No.1 on 17.07.2011 sealed the sonography machine of the petitioner and on 19.07.2011 suspended the registration of the petitioner's sonography centre. The petitioner assailed said orders before the Appellate Authority, however, the said appeal came to be dismissed. Aggrieved thereby present petition. 3. Shri Dhorde, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the order sealing the machine does not satisfy the test as laid down U/Sec. 30 of the P.C.P.N.D.T Act. read with Rule 11 and 12 of the P.C.P.N.D.T Rules. According to the learned Senior Counsel the authority sealing the machine had no reason to believe that the said machine may ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »