Mumbai Court April 2013 Judgments
Pranav Vs. State of Goa and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-29-2013
Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Shri M. Amonkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service on behalf of respondent no.1. Notice to respondent no.2 is dispensed with for the reasons stated hereinafter. 2. This petition is filed under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code for quashing of criminal case no.37/S/2011/B pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class at Quepem. The petitioner is facing charge for offences punishable under Section 279 and 338 Indian Penal Code. It is a State prosecution. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 14th January, 2011 an accident occurred at Paddi Bus Stop between two vehicles i.e. the car being driven by the petitioner and the motorcycle being driven by respondent no.2. A complaint was then filed against the petitioner of driving his car in a rash and negligent manner and dashing it against the motorcycle causing grievous injury to the motorcycle driver. It is the case of the petitioner that he is serving as a su...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner, Akola Municipal Corporation Vs. Bhalchandra S/O Govi ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-29-2013
1. In Regular Civil Suit No.902 of 2012 challenging the communication dated 3-10-2012 and the notice dated 29-10-2012 issued by the applicant/defendant Akola Municipal Corporation under Sections 260 and 267 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, calling upon the non-applicant/plaintiff to furnish an explanation as to why an unauthorized construction carried out by him should not be pulled down, the Trial Court, on 4-1-2013, has rejected the application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code by an order dated 4-1-2013, claiming dismissal of suit on the ground that there is a bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Section of the said Act to entertain, try and decide the suit. Hence, the original defendant Akola Municipal Corporation has preferred this civil revision application. 2. Though the provisions of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act are referred to in the communication and the notice challenged in the suit, the learned counsels appearing fo...
Tag this Judgment!Bank of Baroda Vs. Dnyandeo Sadashiv Gawande and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-29-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard learned Counsel Shri C.S. Samudra for the petitioner, learned Counsel Shri H.R. Gadhia for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri A.S. Fulzele for respondent No.3. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith by consent of learned counsel for the parties. 3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were summoned by the learned Magistrate to answer the charge for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged by the petitioner Bank of Baroda, Akola Branch that respondent Nos.1 and 2 had taken loan from the bank to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- by mortgaging the property, which was already mortgaged to Akola Urban Co-operative Bank, A.P.M.C. Branch, Akola. The learned Magistrate after hearing the petitioner found prima facie case for the offences of forgery and cheating. He also found prima facie case of using forged document as genuine document and accordingly issued process. 4. The said order of ...
Tag this Judgment!Pradeep Pandurang Kadam and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-26-2013
P.C. Not on board. Taken on board. Heard. Perused the papers. This is an application under section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The applicants are apprehending their arrest in crime No.49/2013 registered at Bibwewadi Police Station, Pune on 27/3/2013 for offences punishable under sections 498(A), 406, 323, 504, 506 r.w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The applicant No.2 is the wife of applicant No.1. The applicant No.3 is the sister of applicant No.2. The son of the applicant No.1 and 2 namely Kiran Kadam was married to Sheetal on 23/5/2011. It is the case of the prosecution that soon after marriage, a discordant note has struck between Sheetal and her husband as well as the other members of the family. On 5/11/12 the applicant No.1 had lodged a report at Bibwewadi Police Station contending therein that his son Kiran and his wife Sheetal were perpetually quarreling in the house. The elder members of the family and the relatives had made several efforts to convince them to n...
Tag this Judgment!Vithal Rana Bhopi and Another Vs. City and Industrial Development Corp ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-26-2013
By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside the acquisition proceedings in respect of the lands more particularly set out in the notification at Exhibit-H (hereinafter referred to as "the said lands") to the petition. The acquisition is under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). The petitioners have also prayed for a declaration that section 117 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act,1966 (hereinafter referred to as "the MRTP Act") is hit by Part III of the Constitution of India and is unreasonable, ultra virus and discriminatory. 2. With a view to appreciate the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the first respondent and the learned Advocate General appearing for the second and third respondents, it will be necessary to make a reference to the facts of the case in brief. 3. The first respond...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Neptune Marine Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/S. Meecon Private Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-26-2013
The Petitioner (Original Respondent) has challenged award dated 18 August 2008 and subsequent modified award dated 30 January 2012 by invoking Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Arbitration Act) passed by the Sole Arbitrator. 2 The operative parts of the awards are as under:- 18 AUGUST 2008: a) The Claimants are held to be entitled to recover from the Respondents a sum of Rs.45,55,000/- being the balance value/price of the machinery, worked out after deducting a sum of Rs.21,00,000/- realized towards the sale proceeds of the retrieved machinery; b) The Claimants are held to be entitled to the interest @ 10% per annum as under from the Respondents: i) For the period with effect from 14.1.2005 to 28.11.2005 on Rs.66,55,000/-. ii) For the period with effect from 29.11.2005 to 12.4.2006 on Rs.44,55,000/- iii) For the period with effect from 18.08.2008 (i.e. date of the Award) till realization on Rs.44,55,000/-. c) The Claimants are held to be entitled ...
Tag this Judgment!Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. S.D. Rane
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-26-2013
Mrs. Mridula Bhatkar, J. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 23rd March, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.8129 of 2006. 2. The respondent was an employee in the appellant company. He was charged for misconduct due to absentism of 188 days without leave and good reason and was terminated on 3rd March, 1998. The respondent challenged the termination on the ground of illegality, adopting unfair labour practices under section 28(1) of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short MRTU and PULP Act). In the complaint, he challenged the fairness of the inquiry and the findings of the enquiry held against him. The Labour Court declared the enquiry as unfair, perverse and not in accordance with the principles of natural justice and directed the appellant company to prove the misconduct before the Court by leading evidence and to substantiate the punishment of termination. 3. The said ...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Seema Dattatraya Phuge Vs. Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corp ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-25-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. The question before us is whether a litigant who is a party to a fraud can be allowed to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. 2. The General Ward Elections of the Municipal Corporation of Pimpri Chinchwad were declared in December, 2011. The petitioner contested the election from Bhosari Gaothan (Ward No.35A) constituency which was admittedly reserved for Backward Class of citizens Women. It is not in dispute that the caste certificate and caste validity certificate for showing that she belongs to Backward Class of citizens produced by the petitioner along with nomination form were fabricated and admittedly, the petitioner had neither applied to the Competent Authority for grant of caste certificate nor had applied to any Caste Scrutiny Committee for grant of caste validity certificate. It is not in dispute that as per the provisions of Section 5B of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (hereinaft...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjay Madhukar Ubale and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-25-2013
P.C. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for State. Perused papers. 2. This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The applicants herein are apprending their arrest in Crime No.199 of 2013 registered at Haveli Police Station against them for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306, 323, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. On 22nd March, 2013 Avinash Baban Bhosale lodged a report at Haveli Police Station alleging therein that his sister Sadhana was married to the applicant No.1 on 12th May, 2004. She was residing in a joint family. The couple is blessed with two sons. According to the complainant, the present applicants did not allow her to visit her maternal house on the ground that she did not live in a decent locality and that they did not desire to visit her maternal house. It is further alleged that although his father was ill, Sadhana was not permitted to come and see him during his life time. ...
Tag this Judgment!East India Construction Company Vs. Union of India, Through the Chief ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-25-2013
Oral Judgment: The Petitioner/original claimant has challenged Award dated 7 August, 2009 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal consisting of three Arbitrators, pursuance to the arbitration clauses in the contract dated 21.03.1986 between the parties, which was for the earth work in formation and construction of minor bridges in Section IX for Rail Infrastructure facilities to Nhava-Sheva Port Trust. The Petitioner did led oral evidence in support of the documents. The Respondent did not lead any evidence. Note No.2 is also relevant for deciding Claim No.4A as it is directly connected with the slushy soil. 2 The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has restricted the arguments to Claim Nos. 1, 2, 4, 4A, 5 and counter claim Nos. 1 and 9. There is no counter Petition filed by the Respondent. 3 The parties are definitely bound by the terms and conditions of the contract, but if there is any change in the terms and conditions including the drawings and designs, the claimant/contractor is...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »