Mumbai Court April 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. Sanjay B. Jawlekar Vs. General Manager, South Central Railway Sec ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-08-2013
1. This arbitration application is filed with a prayer to appoint Arbitral Tribunal to adjudicate upon the disputes interse the parties to the arbitration application. 2. The case of the applicant, in nutshell, is as follows:- It is the case of the applicant that the applicant is registered Government Contractor. In pursuance to the notice inviting tender by the respondents, the applicant being successful tenderer and complied with the eligibility criteria in all respects, was allotted to the work of Nanded Extension of PIT Line From 21 to 24 coaches and additional PIT line for 16 coaches length and provision of sick line facility agreement No. 5/Sr.Den/Co-Ord/Ned dated 9.5.2007. The said allotment of the work was in pursuance to the offer submitted by the applicant. It is further case of the applicant that details in nutshell of the afore mentioned work are as follows;- a. Date of Agreement : 09/07/2007. b. Agreement No. 5/Sr.DEN/Co-Ord/NED dated 09/05/07. c. Date of completion withou...
ing Vysa Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. State Represented by ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-08-2013
Oral Judgment: Rule returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties the petition is taken up on board for hearing. 2. Heard Shri N. Sardessai, the learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri M. Amonkar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 3. This petition seeks quashing of the complaint dated 15th October, 2009 filed by the respondent alleging that the petitioners have committed offence punishable under Section 10(1)(a) of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 ('the Act' for short). The respondent is the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central). The complaint is sought to be quashed on the ground that the respondent is not authorised to take any action under the Act. 4. Shri Sardessai, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners by making reference to Section 12 and Section 2(e) of the Act submits that the action, if any, could be taken only by the State government or by an officer authorised in this behalf by the State government. 5. Section 12 of the Act provid...
Santosh Umekant Jawadwar Vs. Tata Aig General Insurance Company Limite ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-2013
Narendra Kawde, Member 1. Complainant Shri Santosh Umakant Jawadwar, has filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service against the Opponent Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Insurance Company), for repudiation of the claim payable under the Insurance Policy on account of death of Complainants wife late Smt. Kalpana Santosh Jawadwar and also additional benefits of releasing educational allowance to the daughter of the Complainant available under the policy. 2. Factual matrix of the case is that the Complainant subscribed to Accident Guard policy bearing No. 020001364400 effective from 27th February, 2004 to 26th February, 2005. The Insurance Policy extended insurance cover to the family of Complainant including himself. Under the policy Complainant himself was insured to the extent of Rs.1 crore. Complainants wife Kalpana Santosh Jawadwar for Rs.50 lac and his daughter Ms.Manasi Santosh Jawadwar for Rs.10 lac. The policy issued by the Oppon...
Manoj Krishna S/O Banarsi Singh Vesus Union of India and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
P.C. The Applicant is a public servant and is facing prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for having sought illegal gratification during discharge of his official duty and for release of the consignment which was detained at the Customs, Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust, Mumbai. 2. After having heard Mr.Gupte, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Applicant and Mr.Venegavkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent/CBI and perusing with their assistance this Bail Application and the reply thereto and finding that the co-accused has been enlarged on bail, that I am inclined to release the present Applicant on bail. Additionally because his detention in custody is no longer required. The relevant documents in his custody have been seized. There is no apprehension that the Applicant will not be available to face the trial. The Applicant has been placed under suspension. The Applicant has assured that he will attend the office of the Investigating Agency as and when ...
Smt. Sakuran JamalluddIn Gori and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
P.C. Heard the Counsel for the applicants and the learned APP for State. 2. This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The facts of the case are that on 11/2/2013 Shri Ghisa Pawar lodged a report at Kandivali Police Station alleging therein that his daughter Nashima was married to Anwar Gori 12 years prior to the incident. The couple is blessed with two sons. It is alleged that Nashima was living in a joint family alongwith her parents in law, brothers in law and their respective spouses. According to the complainant, whenever she came to her matrimonial house she complained that she was harassed and ill-treated by the members of her matrimonial family as they were insistent upon her to bring cash amount to purchase a flat. That she had lost a golden chain and her mother-in-law and her brothers-in-law were insistent upon her to replace her chain either in cash or in kind. That they had decided to live separately and the house was divided by a wall...
Vov Cosmetics Private Limited and Others Vs. Union of India, Through G ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
S.J. Vazifdar, J. 1. Rule. With the consent of the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the Writ Petition is heard finally. 2. The petitioners have challenged an order dated 27th July, 2012, passed by the respondent No. 2 - The Regional Director under section 22 of the Companies Act, 1956, directing the petitioner No.1 to change its name within three months by deleting the words "VOV COSMETIC" from its name. 3. Petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are the directors/promoters of petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.2 - Pioneer Products is presently a partnership firm of which petitioner Nos.3 and 5 are the partners. Petitioner Nos. 3 to 5 are Dinesh Bastimal Jain, Smt. Sharmila Dinesh Jain and Bastimal K. Jain, respectively. The petitioner No. 3 is the son of petitioner No. 5. Respondent No. 3 is The Registrar of Companies. Respondent No. 4 is VOV Cosmetic Private Limited on whose application theSRPimpugned order was passed. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, Dharamshi Manji Patel and Ramji Bhikhabhai Ah...
United India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sureshkumar Parasnath Singh and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
1] This is an appeal under section 30 The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. 2] This being an appeal under The Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, the appellant has to substantiate the challenge on the substantial questions of law. This court had directed learned Advocate for the appellant to pin point and address the court on substantial question of law. 3] Learned Advocate for the appellant has presented substantial question of law as follows:- Whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Mumbai was right in awarding compensation to the complainant under The Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 inspite of admitted fact that the deceased was not employed by the appellant, and rather he was employed by the contractor? 4] Admittedly, the victim was not employed by Mahindra and Mahindra Limited the appellant - the owner of the vehicle. The victim was rather employed by 'M.G.M. Motors' to whom the work / contract for transport of the motor vehicle was entrusted by Mahindra and Mahindra...
Sunil Ladaku Tare Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
Oral Judgment: (Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.) This appeal is directed by the appellant-original accused against the judgment and order dated 7.5.2007 passed by the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in Sessions Case No.139 of 2006. 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.100/- in default RI for ten days. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under: The appellant was residing with his wife and children at Budhavali, Taluka Wada, District Thane. His paternal aunt PW-1 Bharti was residing in the adjoining house to the house of the appellant. The appellant and his wife had two children, one of them being a daughter aged 3-1/2 years who was named Najuka. Najuka was a handicapped child. Frequent quarrels used to take place between the appellant and his wife Sunanda. Due to this, whenever there used to be quarrels, the wife of the appellant used to go t...
Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. S.B.P. and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
Being aggrieved by award dated 25 January 2010 the Petitioner-original Respondent has challenged the same by invoking Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, "the Arbitration Act"). 2. The operative part of the award is as under:- "CLAIM NO.1:- "24.The claimant has claimed an amount of Rs.11,55,23,065/- being balance of the Award amount pertaining to Vol. I." "24.1 It is an admitted fact that, the Respondents have received Award amount of Rs.31,40,60,958/- towards Vol. I Award. As per the terms of the subcontract /piece work contract, the Respondent is entitled for margin /commission of 11.5 %. The same works out to Rs.3,61,17,010/-. Thereby the share of BTP/SBP together works out to Rs.27,79,43,948/-. Out of this BTP has received an amount of Rs.15,50,98,891/-, leaving balance payable by Respondent to BTP and SBP which works out to Rs.12,28,45,057/-. SBP has not at all received its share out of Vol. I Award and accordingly, in the claim statement, SBP has ...
S.R. Sale and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (General)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
Oral Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) The appeal arises from a decision of the CESTAT dated 2 January 2013. The Tribunal has held, following its decision in VetriImpex Vs. Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai, (Appeal No.C/451/11)dated 16 April 2012, that an appeal is not maintainable against an order passed under Regulation 21 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004, prohibiting a Customs House Agent from working in one or more sections of the Customs Station. 2. The Appellant has raised the following substantial questions of law: (a) Whether the CESTAT was justified in holding that in view of the provisions of Regulation 22(8) of the CHALR, 2004, no appeal lies to the CESTAT against an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs under Regulation 21; (b) Whether Regulation 22(8) of the CHALR, 2004 is ultra vires the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 inasmuch as the same takes away the substantive right of Appeal to the CESTAT as provided under Section 129A o...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »