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.
Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. B.T. Patil and Sons Belgaum (Constructi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-2013
Oral Judgment: The Petitioner (Original Respondent) has challenged Award dated 25 January 2010, under section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short Arbitration Act). 2 The operative part of the award is as under:- CLAIM NO.1:- 25 The claimant has claimed an amount of Rs.11,55,23,065/- being balance of the Award amount pertaining to Vol. I. 25.1. 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 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 claimed its full share to the tune of Rs.5...
M/S. Hindustan Wires Limited Vs. R. Suresh, Sole Arbitrator, Dy. Gener ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-2013
1. By this petition filed under section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'Arbitration Act 1996), the petitioner seeks declaration that the mandate of the learned Arbitrator, respondent no.1 herein stood terminated under section 14 of the Arbitration Act 1996, and the petitioner is entitled to approach the Micro and Small Scale Scale Enterprises Facilitation Council constituted under the provisions of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (for short 'the Act of 2006) and the said Council is entitled in law to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. 2. The relevant facts for the purposes of deciding this petition are as under: (a) On 12.4.1999 and 4.5.2000, two separate contracts were entered into between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent for supply of LPG cylinders by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent for year 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. It is case of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent illegally and wrongly withheld/deducte...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Aslam Ajgarali Makrani and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-2013
1] This first appeal is taken up for final disposal by consent of the parties. 2] In the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai, the learned Tribunal awarded the compensation under various heads as follows:Pain and sufferingsRs. 2,50,000.00Medical BillsRs. 5,95,904.00Special DietRs. 25,000.00ConveyanceRs. 25,000.00Loss of future incomeRs. 2,00,000.00Future medical treatmentRs. 7,20,000.00TotalRs.18,15,904.00 3] The challenge in appeal is restricted by the appellant to Rs.9,00,000/- The heads of compensation under challenge are:- Loss of future income Rs. 2,00,000.00 Future medical treatment Rs. 7,20,000.00 4] Ground of challenge in relation to award of compensation for enabling the claimant to meet the recurring / future medical treatment, which reads as follows: (d) The Ld. Judge has wrongly awarded Rs.7,20,000/- to the Respondent No. 1 under Future Medical Treatment. There is no sufficient evidence to that effect. The treating doctor has stated that the patient was spending about Rs....
Vikas Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-04-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable and heard forthwith. 3. The applicant Vikas questions process issued, dated 21.1.2011 under Section 497 of IPC by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shegaon. Respondent Suresh alleged of illicit sexual relations between his wife Sangita and the petitioner. However, reading the complaint petition as a whole, it is explicit, he had not ventured to see such events, in the compromising position. He has canvassed, having learnt it from the villagers and his mother; which may be correct but, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at the time of recording verification, mother or independent witness is not put in. 4. The prosecution, indeed, has a prelude as the petitioner has, way back in the year 2010, initiated proceedings for offense under Sections 379, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC against respondent Suresh by Criminal complaint No.18/2010 wherein report under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was called. The acrimo...
Smt. Filomena Andrade Vs. Ganasham Xanu Arlekar
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-04-2013
Oral Judgment: Parties were put to notice that the appeal would be disposed of at the admission stage itself. 2. Heard Mr. Keni, learned counsel on behalf of the Appellant and Mr. Joshi, learned counsel on behalf of the Respondent. 3. This appeal arises out of the Judgment and Award dated 31/7/2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panaji in Claim Petition No. 46/2009, filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. 4. Case of the appellant was that on 24/10/2008 at about 9.30 a.m., when she was returning home after attending Mass at Archbishop's House at Altinho and while she was walking on the pavement in front of that building, near All India Radio building (Akashwani Kendra), a dash was given to her by TVS Victor motorcycle bearing registration no. GA-03-A-1375, ridden by the respondent, rashly and negligently, due to which she sustained grievous injuries, resulting into permanent disablement. She had filed the claim petition claiming total compensation of Rs.1,...
Rosario Rodrigues (Deceased) Through His Legal Heirs and Others Vs. Na ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-04-2013
U.V. Bakre, J. Heard Mr. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Costa, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. Admit. By consent, heard forthwith. 3. By this Letters Patent Appeal, the appellants have prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 15/4/2009 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 693/2008; order dated 4/9/2007 passed by the Administrative Tribunal in Eviction Appeal No. 61/2002 and order dated 4/3/2002 passed by the Additional Rent Controller in Eviction Case No. BLDG/162/ARC-I/85 (BLDG/24/ARC-II/95). 4. The Respondents had filed an application dated 31/10/1985, under Section 22(2) (a) and (g) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 (the Act, for short), for eviction of the appellants from the suit premises on the ground of nonpayment of rents, which they claimed to be Rs. 300/- per month and denial of the title of the appellants. Suit ...
Vishnu M. Harlalka Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-2013
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. Rule. Learned counsel for the Respondents waive service. By consent, the Rule is made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal, by consent and on the request of learned counsel. 2. The Settlement Commission by an order dated 9 November 2009 passed under Section 127C(5) of the Customs Act, 1962, directed as follows: (i) The customs duty was settled at Rs.5,48,381/- which was already paid; (ii) Interest of Rs.32,660/- was paid by the Petitioner; (iii) Immunity was granted from payment of a penalty in excess of Rs.50,000/-; and (iv) Immunity was granted from fine in lieu of confiscation in excess of Rs.1.00 lakh. 3. The Settlement Commission also granted an immunity from prosecution under the Customs Act, 1962 (`the Act'). The Settlement Commission further issued the following direction: "Release of Goods/Sale Proceeds : The Bench holds that the applicant is entitled to release of the seized goods on payment of fine and...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bajrang Shrirang Shinde and Anothe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-2013
Appeal is called out for admission hearing. The operative part contains directions to pay compensation of Rs.5,35,606/-. Sub clause (iii) of order reads as follows: "(iii) Respondent No.2 - Insurance Company shall be entitled to recover the amount deposited by it towards award from respondent No.1 M/s. Sandeep Transport Pvt. Ltd." 2. Oral submissions as well as perusal of the judgment reveals the appellant's contention to be as follows: (a) The Insurance company's plea that since the tanker lorry which was involved in the incident was not a passengers vehicle, passengers could not have legally travelled in it. Third party liability which was covered by the insurance policy, did not cover the indemnity of liability towards fare paying passenger. Thus the passenger was being carried in violation of the terms of policy (b) Notwithstanding accepting insurance company's plea, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal passed order on the principle of first pay and recover. 3. It is seen on perusal ...
Murgappa Sangappa Wale Since Deceased by His Heirs Vatsalabai Murgappa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Naik, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. Rane, learned Counsel for appellants and Mr. Datar, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.1(B) to 1(D) at length. 2. By this Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'C.P.C.'), the original plaintiff has challenged the judgment and decree dated 31.03.1987 passed by the learned 5th Additional District Judge, Solapur in Civil Appeal No.262 of 1983. By that order, the learned District Judge partly allowed the Appeal preferred by respondent Nos.1A to 1D. The learned District Judge has quashed and set aside the judgment and decree dated 08.11.1982 passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Mangalvedha in Regular Civil Suit No.36 of 1978 and decreed the Suit instituted by the appellant for refund of earnest money and rejected his prayer for specific performance of contract. The parties shall, hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the trial Court. 3. The Second Appeal was admitted by...
Rekha Mahindra Shah Vs. Gautam Umed Parmar and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-2013
1. The Applicant/Accused has approached this Court in revisional jurisdiction challenging the Judgment and Order dated 5th September, 2011 delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Criminal Appeal No.19 of 2008. By this Judgment and Order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has confirmed the Judgment and Order dated 12th December, 2007 of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 10th Court, Kolhapur in Summary Criminal Case No.2252 of 2005. The learned Magistrate had convicted and sentenced the Applicant/Original Accused for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (for short the N.I. Act). 2. It is common ground that the Original Complainant/Respondent No.1 before me carries on business in the name and style M/s. Parmar Steel at Kolhapur. It is alleged by the Respondent No.1/Original Complainant that the Applicant/Original Accused approached him in 2004-05 and purchased M.A. Structure goods on credit basis. Towards purchase...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »