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.
Dinesh Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-24-2013
Oral Judgment: Rule was issued on October 18, 2011 and protection was granted to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was appointed as District Social Welfare Officer in the year 1992. He was promoted as Divisional Social Welfare Officer and consequently, was nominated as a member of Divisional Caste Certificate Verification Committee No.2, Latur, effective from 2009 and remained as such, till 2012. 3. There was controversy in respect of caste claim of one Farah Mubin Mohammed Jafar Ali Khan, asserted to be belonging to "Chhapparbandh", N.T. Category. The petitioner did not approve caste claim of said Farah. Mohd. Jaffar Ali Khan, father of said Farah, felt estranged with the conduct of the petitioner. He even misbehaved with the members of the committee, resultantly, police were called in the office and communicated about the misbehavior of Mohd. Jaffar. Petitioner had negated caste claim relating to daughter of Mohd. Jaffar. 4. Respondent no.3 is an employee in the said Office, however,...
Ram Sajivan Gupta and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-2013
By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the State Government Resolution dated 15th November 2007 as well as Government Resolution dated 12th March 2009. The Government Resolution dated 15th November 2007 has been purportedly issued on the basis of the directions issued by the Full Bench of this Court on 1st November 2007 in Writ Petition no.1326 of 2007. Under the said Notification, a committee described therein as High Level Committee or High Power Committee (in short 'HPC') was constituted. The HPC was constituted to look into the illegalities under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme in relation to a property known as Tulsiwadi in Mumbai. On the basis of the order dated 18th December 2008 passed by this Court on Notice of Motion no.126 of 2007 taken out in the said Writ Petition no.1326 of 2007, another HPC was constituted. The HPC was empowered to look into all the grievances of the slum dwellers in relation to Slum Rehabilitation...
T.C.i. Finance Limited and Another Vs. Shaan Interwell (i) Ltd. and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-2013
P.C.: 1. The applicant, is wife of defendant/judgment debtor-respondent no.3, who along with other respondent's took loan/finance from the plaintiff sometime in 1994. There were defaults, therefore the suit came to be filed to recover the amount. By the judgment dated 1st August 2006, decree was passed against all. 2. Plaintiff filed this Execution Application at Mumbai based upon the decree at Secunderabad (Andhra Pradesh) under Order 21, Rule 11(2) Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.). The requirements of Rule 1 to 14 which need to be ascertained by the Court before taking any action as prayed. The sufficient reason and detail must be provided for attachment of movable or immovable property, specially when it is not in judgment debtor's possession. For attachment of immovable property, more caution and care must be taken. The decree-holder can not attach immovable property without providing documents and details of ownership. An execution application should be clear and with details as r...
Tci Financial Limited Another Vs. Nicon Fabricators (P) Ltd. and Anoth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Plaintiff has taken out this Execution Application in the year 2008 based upon the arbitration award of the year 2001 against the defendants including defendant no.2, who is husband of the applicant. This court, based upon the execution application issued warrant of attachment of immovable, as well as, movable property as contemplated under Order 41, Rule 43 of Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) and in that proceedings, the immovable as well as movable property of the applicant got attached. Therefore, this applicants Chamber Summons. 2. Plaintiff, the decree holder, can attach movable and immovable property of the judgment debtor and the property, though in the name of third person, if it is averred and supported by documents that holding is in Trust and has right to dispose of it, therefore, entitled to attach and sell those properties, as contemplated under Section 60 C.P.C. and/or even otherwise. 3. The property in question, as averred, and not denied by the plainti...
Subir Anukul Majumdar Vs. Sunayana S. Majumdar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-2013
P.C. Though several attempts have been made to amicably resolve the dispute between the parties and despite best efforts taken by the Mediator and also by this court, it appears that settlement is not possible. Heard learned counsel for both the sides. In Civil Application No.139/12 In F.C.A.No.70/11. 2. This Civil Application No.139/12 In F.C.A.No.70/11 is filed seeking stay of the order of maintenance granted by the Family Court while dismissing the petition for divorce filed by the applicant. Brief facts are as under:- 3. The applicant - Subir filed M.J.Petition No.A-508 Of 2008 in the Family Court Mumbai at Bandra for divorce on various grounds. The respondent - Sunayana / wife filed her Counter-Claim and Petition No.B-111 Of 2007 seeking following reliefs :- (a) that this court be pleased to forthwith restrain the respondent, his family members, relatives, agents, servants or any person/s claiming through him from dispossessing her from her matrimonial home bearing A/9, Blue Nile ...
Mohammed AmIn Haroon Solkar Vs. Asgar Mohammed Dabir and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard finally by consent of parties at the admission stage in view of urgency shown. 2 The Petitioner, who is a member of Respondent No.4Kokan Mercantile Co-operative Bank Limited (The Bank) has challenged Award dated 18 March 2013 passed by a sole Arbitrator (Respondent No.2), appointed by the Central Registrar of Co-operative Society under the Multi-State Co-operative societies Act, 2002 (for short, Act of 2002). 3 The operative part of the Award is as under: The Application allowed. The acceptance of nomination of Adv. Amin Solkar is set aside with no order as to costs. 4 The Petitioner is a Member of Respondent No.4-Bank. Respondent No.1 is a sitting Director. Respondent No.2 is the Arbitrator. Respondent No.3 was the Returning Officer. 5 On 27 September 2012, Dr. Dalvi Ali Abdul Quadar and Yusufkhan Fakhrookhan Tadvi members and Ex-Directors of the Bank were removed by a common decision by the present Board of Directors. On 30 October, 2012, they (The Disputants) fi...
Priya Vidyadhar Kalas @ Naaz Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-2013
Oral Order: Rule. 2. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. The learned APP waives service of notice on the respondents. 3. By consent, heard finally forthwith. 4. The petitioner is one of the two accused in C.C.No.884 of 2010 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Vashi, Navi Mumbai. The petitioner made an application for discharge as contemplated under section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Magistrate, contending that there was absolutely no material against her, and that the accusation against her, was groundless. The learned Magistrate, on this, passed the following order:- "ORDER Perused application. Heard both sides. Prima facie there is sufficient material to frame charge. Hence application stand as rejected." 5. Aggrieved by the decision of the Magistrate, to the effect that there was sufficient material to frame charge, the petitioner moved the Court of Sessions invoking its revisional jurisdiction. The Revisional Court dismissed the re...
Raghunath B. Desai Vs. State of Goa, Through Its Chief Secretary and A ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-18-2013
U.V. Bakre, J. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought following reliefs: a. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, to quash and set aside the Impugned Communications dated 6/12/2004 and 20/12/2004 (ANNEXURE H collectively to this Petition); b. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the Respondents to award the Petitioner benefit of ACPS in terms of Memorandum dated 22/2/2001 with effect from 22/2/2001 or at least 1/6/2001 along with all consequential benefits like arrears, re-fixation of pension, etc.; c. In the alternative, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant the Petitioner re-fixation of the Petitioner's last pay drawn by carrying on the exercise of stepping up of pay under FR 22 or principles analogous thereto, from such date as the Petitioner's juniors were placed in the Pay Scale of Rs. 10000-325-15200, i.e. with effect f...
Sohel Sheikh and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-18-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. J.M. Gandhi, learned Advocate for the applicants and Mr.S.S. Doiphode, learned Addl. P.P. for the respondent-State. 2. This Revision impugns the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No.51/2009 of Nagpur District. The said Appeal was filed against the judgment and order passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial No.237/2008 on 7th March, 2009. Both the applicants were convicted for the offences punishable under section 489-B read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 489-C read with sec. 34 of the IPC. They have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, on each of the count. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. It was contended before the Appellate Court that since all the Panch witnesses were hostile, the evidence of the Investigating Officer should have been examined with great caution and care....
Balkrishna Kondiba Pingale Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-2013
Oral Judgment: (Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.) The appellant-original accused has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 30.04.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No.601 of 2005. 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. 500/-IDRI for three months. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under: (a) The appellant was married to Shakuntala (deceased). They had one son and one daughter. The daughter was PW 2 Nanda. Nanda lost her husband about 1 and 1/2 years prior to the incident, hence, she came to reside with her parents i.e the appellant and the deceased. Nanda was residing with the appellant and the deceased along with her daughter Yogita. Shakuntala was working as a maid servant and the appellant was doing labour work. The appellant was addicted to liquor. Everyday evening, he used to return home aft...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »