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.
Ankush Namdeo Thore and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Anothe ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-10-2013
NareshH. Patil, J. 1. The Appellants are life convicts. The charge was framed against six accused persons. During the pendency of the Appeal, original Appellant No.1/accused No.1 - Namdeo Kerba Thore died, therefore the Appeal abated against him. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that deceased Mahadeo Sitaram Thore and the Appellants who are related inter-se, were residing in the village Deo-Nandra, Tq-Pathri, Dist-Parbhani. They own agricultural lands adjacent to each others. There was boundary dispute between deceased Mahadeo and the accused persons due to that they use to quarrel. Prior to the incident in question, a complaint was lodged by the deceased Mahadeo against the accused persons in Pathri Police Station for an offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The Police had filed chargesheet against the Appellants/accused, under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. On 10th October 1993, deceased Mahadeo Sitaram Thore accompanied by his mother Dhrupatabai...
Life Insurance Corporation of India Through Its Kolhapur Branch and An ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-2013
Narednra Kawde, Member: 1. Present appeal is filed challenging the order in Consumer Complaint No.157/2004, (Anandrao Ramchandra Salunkhe V/s. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Anr.), passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangli (the District Forum in short) on 10.03.2005. The District Forum appreciating the contentions of the Respondent/Complainant partly allowed the consumer complaint holding deficiency in service against the Appellant/Opponent and directed the Appellant/Opponent Insurance Company to pay an amount of Rs.29,888/- together with interest @9% per annum effective from 21.07.2004 and costs of litigation of Rs.1,000/- to the Respondent/Complainant. 2. Heard both parties. Perused the record. 3. Undisputed facts are that the Respondent/Complainant obtained Policy bearing No.945237308 with sum insured of Rs.75,000/- for the period of 25 years on 11/11/1993. The policy stood lapsed as the premiums from August 2002 onwards were not paid and the said pol...
M/S. R.M. Cylinders Private Limited Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporatio ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-2013
The Petitioner (Claimant) has challenged award dated 30 August 2010, passed by the sole Arbitrator under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Arbitration Act). 2 The operative part of the award is as under:- 1 The imposition of Liquidated Damages Charges of Rs.24,06,885/- towards undelivered quantity of LPG Cylinders and Rs.1,25,361/- towards delayed supply of LPG Cylinders totaling to Rs.25,32,246/- on the Claimant by the Respondent Corporation is in accordance with clauses 8, 9 and 10 in the Attachment-I to Purchase Order M-2633/LPG/SB dated 07/06/2004 and Clauses 8,9 and 10 in Annexure-V of Tender HPCL/LPG-MKTG/E-030/SB/03-04 dated 25.04.2003 and the same is legal and valid. 2 The action of the Respondent Corporation in recovering Liquidated Damages Charges of Rs.1,25,361/- towards delayed supply of LPG Cylinders and Rs.23,81,861/- towards Liquidated Damages Charges for undelivered quantity of LPG Cylinders from the pending bills of the Claimant i...
Bombay Intelligence Security (India) Ltd. Vs. Oil and Natural Gs Corpo ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-2013
Oral Judgment: By this application filed under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996, the applicant seeks appointment of arbitrator in terms of clause 2.31 of the agreement dated 14th November, 1995 entered into between the applicants and the respondent which clause is extracted as under : 2.31. ARBITRATION : If any dispute, difference or question shall at any time, hereafter arise between the parties hereto or their respective representative concerning anything herein contained or arising out of these parties or as to the rights, liabilities, or duties of the said parties hereunder and cannot be mutually resolved, the same shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the person to be appointed by Director (Personnel) of the Corporation at the time of dispute. Such person shall be appointed by the Director (Personnel) within thirty (30) days of the receipt of the notice of any dispute. There will be no objection to any such appointment, that the arbitrator so appoi...
Harshad Jayprasad Bakshi Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-2013
Oral Order: Heard. Rule. By consent rule made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. 1] This criminal writ petition has been placed before me as it seeks to question the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court in C.C.No.585/SS/08. 2] By the order dated 21st January 2011, a copy of which is at page 69 of the paper-book, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has allowed the application filed by the accused Nos. 1 to 3 and discharged them of the offences punishable under section 138 read with 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 3] Mr.Mundargi, learned Counsel appearing for the original complainant petitioner before me submitted that the trial court has misconstrued and misapplied the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kusum Ingots Vs. Pennar Peterson Securities Ltd. and Ors. reported in (2000) 2 S.C.C. 745. He submits that the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of M/s.Aefloat Textiles (India) Ltd. and Anr. Vs. M/...
Shankar Parmeshwar Mistri Vs. Jagdish Makwana and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-2013
1] Heard learned Advocate for appellant. Perused impugned judgment, pleadings and records as produced at the time of hearing. 2] Plaintiff filed Short Cause Suit No. 885 of 2010 in the City Civil Court at Dindoshi (Borivali Division), Goregaon, Mumbai. 3] Gist of the plaint and reliefs sought are as follows:- Plaintiff and the defendant no. 1 reside in the same building and are next door neighbours. Defendant No.2 is the owner of the Building. Defendant No.1 is running the business of tailoring by use of three sewing machines. Plaintiff suffered nuisance due to sound of sewing machines. The plaintiff had filed complaint before the police towards said nuisance. Thereafter he had filed suit for injunction seeking a permanent injunction. Prayer clause (a) reads as follows:- (a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass the order directing the Defendant No. 1 to stop the activity of stitching cloths from his residence. (quoted prayer (a) of plaint page 29 of paper book) 4] Defendant No.1...
Madhur Pandey and Others Vs. M/S. Larsen and Toubro Infotech Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-2013
The Petitioners have challenged Award dated 7 September 2011 passed by the sole Arbitrator in view of the arbitration agreement in the letter of undertaking given by Petitioner No.1 (the trainee) for Software Engineer Trainee. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were the guarantors. 2 The operative part of the award is as under: A) The Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Claimants a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) together with interest thereon at the rate of 12% p. a from the date of absence of the Respondent No.1 from the services of the Claimants i.e. from 17.6.2010 till the date of payment / realization of the amount by the Claimants from the Respondents. B) The costs of the Arbitration and the Arbitrators Fees are fixed at Rs.5,500/- which shall be paid by the parties to the Arbitration. C) Initially the costs of the Arbitration and the Arbitrators Fees of Rs.5,500/- shall be paid by the claimants, who may recover the same from the Respondents. 3 The basic ...
M/S. Thakker Warehousing Agency Vs. Maharashtra Small Scale Industries ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-2013
The Petitioner has challenged Award dated 8 October, 2010 passed by the sole Arbitrator, based upon the arbitration clause in the warehousing agreement dated 6 February 2001. 2 The basic case of the Petitioner as alleged and the relevant orders passed by the Court arising out of the disputes/litigation between the parties revolving around the agreement as relevant are required to be noted. The Respondent was a tenant of Mumbai Port Trust (MPT) in respect of a godown premises known as TW2, I.A.F. Shed situated near Central Warehousing Corporation, Opp. Indian Air Force, Cotton Green (East), Mumbai 400 033 (the godown) which was lying vacant, unused since 1996. 3 On 6 February 2011, by the 1st Agreement, the Respondent allowed the Petitioner to utilize the godown for their warehousing business for 11 months, from 28 February, 2001 to 31 January, 2002. Since the Respondent was the tenant of MPT, the agreement was termed as Warehousing Agreement and the Petitioner was termed as Warehousing...
Kalpana Dilip Bahirat Vs. Pune Municipal Corporation and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-2013
Oral Judgment: Yesterday we have heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties at some length. The challenge in this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 26th March, 2013 passed by the second respondent (the Commissioner of the Pune Municipal Corporation). The question involved in this petition is whether writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be allowed to be invoked by the petitioner who has produced a fabricated caste validity certificate for contesting election of a reserved post. 2. The petitioner claims that she belongs to a caste 'Kunbi'. The claim of the petitioner is that the caste Kunbi is recognized as 'Other Backward Class'. Reliance is placed by the petitioner on the caste certificate dated 3rd July, 2008 and the caste validity certificate dated 26th August, 2010 bearing sr. No.31456. 3. The General Ward Election of the first respondent-Pune Municipal Corporation...
M/S.Shree Kamal Constructions and Others Vs. Kamlakar Jiwan Patil and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-2013
Oral Judgment: (Dr. Chandrachud, J.) Admit. With the consent of learned Counsel for the Appellants and the Respondents, the appeal is taken up for final hearing. Counsel for Respondents 1 to 7, 9 to 28 and 50 to 55 waives service. 2. The appeal arises from a judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 18 April 2012 by which the Chamber Summons that was taken out by the Appellants, who were the original Plaintiffs, for the amendment of a plaint in a suit for specific performance has been dismissed. 3. The Appellants instituted a suit in July 2011 seeking specific performance of an agreement dated 7 December 1984 under which Respondents 1 to 28 agreed to sell the suit property to the Appellants. The Appellants claimed that in pursuance of the agreement, they were put in possession of the property and paid an amount of Rs.50.33 lakhs to Respondents 1 to 28. The Appellants also claimed to have prosecuted three suits pending in the City Civil Court at their own costs and expenses. According to...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »