Mumbai Court May 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.
Smt. Sudha Sumant Barve Since Deceased Through Her Legal Heirs and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-10-2013
The petition challenges the order passed by the learned Joint District Judge, Thane dated 21st June, 2002 thereby allowing civil appeal no. 145/1999 filed by the respondent-tenant and setting aside the decree of eviction as passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Thane in Regular Civil Suit No. 293/1995 dated 29th July, 1999. 2. The facts in brief giving rise to the present petition are as under: The original plaintiff is the owner of ground and first floor of a building known as Shrikrupa Building located at Gawand Peth at Thane. The husband of the defendant was the tenant of the plaintiff in respect of two rooms and kitchen with W.C./Bathroom admeasuring 650 sq. ft area on the ground floor on a monthly rent of Rs. 160/- per month exclusive of taxes since March 1974. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the suit premises were given on rent to the husband of the defendant only for residential purposes. The husband of the defendant-tenant died on 17th December, 1...
Chintan Upadhyay Vs. Hema Upadhyay and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-10-2013
Oral Order: 1] Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent rule made returnable forthwith. Heard parties. 2] By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner original accused is challenging the order dated 8th January 2013 issuing process, which order has been passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 21st Court, Bandra, Mumbai in C.C.No.3493/SS/2012. 3] The respondent No.1 complainant filed a complaint alleging offences punishable under section 4 read with 6 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 (hereinafter for short said Act) and section 292(2)(a) of the Indian Penal Code. 4] The complaint proceeds on the footing that the petitioner and the respondent No.1 were married but they are residing separately in the matrimonial home at 102, Mittal Ocean View, Juhu Tara Road, Santacruz (West), Mumbai 400 054. 5] They are co-owners of the said flat. The responde...
Siddhivinayak Realties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. V. Hotels Limited and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-10-2013
Oral Judgment: By this petition (667 of 2011) filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioners seek to challenge the impugned award dated 13th July, 2011 passed by the learned arbitrator holding that the agreement entered into between the petitioners and the respondents stood terminated by repudiation on the part of the petitioners and on acceptance thereof by the respondents and directing the respondents to refund of Rs.73,00,51,960/- to the petitioners within a period of 90 days of the said award. The learned arbitrator also awarded arbitration cost in favour of the respondents herein in the sum of Rs.33,00,000/-. The petitioners to this petition were respondents in the arbitration proceedings. By petition (629 of 2011) the petitioners seek interim measures. The respondents herein were claimants in the arbitration proceedings. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are set out hereinunder:- 2. By a Deed of Transfer of...
Lu. QIn (Hong Kong) Company Ltd. and Another Vs. Conros Steels Pvt. Lt ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-10-2013
P.C.: 1 Heard finally by consent in view of the urgency expressed. The Decree-holder a foreign entity, was the seller and the Judgment-debtor an Indian Company was the buyer. The consignment of materials were loaded from the port of China. The port of discharge was Mumbai-India. The Bankers were from both the countries. The Banking documents were; letters of credit, bill of loading, commercial invoices and shipping advice. There arose dispute. There was no specific agreed governing law of the contract dated 28.04.2010. The suit is filed by the Judgment-debtor in this Court. It will be governed by Indian laws. The matter was referred to the agreed Arbitral Tribunal, outside India. The award is in favour of the seller. 2 The applicant, who is decree-holder has taken out the Chamber Summons for various reliefs/orders, pending the Execution Application in view of Award dated 30th August, 2011 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, consists of three Arbitrators (including Chief Arbitrator and two...
The Ratnakar Bank Limited Vs. Usha Rajaram Nimbalkar and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-10-2013
1 Rule, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2 The writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked against the order dated 12/04/2012 passed by the Executing Court i.e. the learned 8th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division Kolhapur by which order Exhibit 163 filed in Civil Misc. Application No.1351 of 1980 for correction of the description of the boundaries of the property in question came to be rejected. 3 The facts necessary to be cited for the adjudication of the above Petition can be stated thus:- The Petitioner-Bank is the original Plaintiff who had filed Special Civil Suit No.22 of 1973 against one Rajaram Cement Pipes Company which was a partnership firm and its partners being Shri Dadasaheb Nimbalkar, Mrs.Radhabai Dadasaheb Nimbalkar and Shri Rajaram Nimbalkar for recovery of the amount due to it under a loan facility granted by it to the said partnership firm in the year 1969. The sa...
Nina Agarwalla Vs. Ashok Gupta and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-10-2013
M.S. Sanklecha, J. These two Appeals arise from a common order dated 13 March, 2013 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing:- (a) a Miscellaneous Petition seeking to recall/ cancel/ set aside the probate granted on 12 March, 1973 in respect of the Will dated 28 March, 1964 of one Devraj Gupta; and (b) a Notice of Motion taken out in a suit for partition bearing no.3069 of 2011 seeking appointment of Receiver in respect of the suit property described in Ex. B to the plaint and an injunction restraining the Defendants/ Respondents in the suit from in any way dealing with the suit properties mentioned in Ex. B to the plaint. 2 The Appellant and the Respondents in both the Appeals are essentially heirs of one Devraj Gupta who expired on 13 October, 1965 save and except Defendant No.8 in suit No.3069 of 2011 who is a transferee of the suit properties. 3 On 13 October, 1965 the said Devraj Gupta expired, having executed the Will dated 28th March, 1964. In terms of the Will dated 28 Mar...
Forbo SieglIn G Movement Systems India Pvt.Ltd. and Another Vs. Union ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-10-2013
Oral Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) Rule. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents waive service. With the consent of Counsel and on their request, the Petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. The challenge in these proceedings is to an order of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, GATT Valuation Cell, Mumbai dated 19 March 2013, assessing the bills of entry under Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 read with Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, after making an addition to the declared value. 3. The First Petitioner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Forbo Finanz AG, Switzerland. The First Petitioner imports raw material, semi-finished goods and finished goods from its group companies located abroad. In view of the fact that its transactions of import are between related parties, the case of the First Petitioner was registered with the Special Valuation Branch in pursuance of instructions set out in a Cir...
Sunil B. Naik Vs. Geowave Commander
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-10-2013
M.S. Sanklecha, J. This appeal challenges the order of the learned Single Judge dated 17 April 2013 vacating the arrest of the vessel Geowave Commander (GC), by following his decision dated 17 April 2013 in the matter of Yusuf Abdul Gani v. Geowave Commander in Notice of Motion No.613 of 2013 in Admiralty Suit (L) No.319 of 2013. Being aggrieved by the Order dated 17 April 2013 in Admiralty Suit(L) No. 230 of 2013 Yusuf Abdul Gani (supra) has preferred an appeal to this Court being Appeal (L) No.208/2013. We have today by our order dismissed the appeal being Appeal No.208 of 2013 filed by Yusuf Abdul Gani. 2) However the grievance of the appellant is that facts of this case are materially different on two counts from the facts existing in the case of Yusuf Abdul Gani(supra) in Admiralty suit (L) No.230 of 2013 and therefore, the learned Single Judge ought to have independently dealt with the two issues which are as under: (a) The Appellant in this case has specifically stated that the ...
ismail Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-10-2013
P.C. The Applicant is seeking discharge in Sessions Case No.38 of 2009. He filed an application (Exhibit-48) invoking the jurisdiction of the Trial Court under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which application has been rejected by the impugned order dated 16th March, 2012 and, therefore, this Criminal Revision Application has been filed. 2. This Criminal Revision Application was heard from time to time. At the request of the learned A.P.P., adjournment was granted to enable him to take instructions and file an affidavit. 3. Now, an affidavit has been filed and a copy of the Charge-Sheet also has been made available. 4. The Applicant states that he is carrying on business of sale of Kerosene. He is a Kerosene Dealer. The Applicant has been arraigned as an Accused on a complaint which has been made to the concerned Police Station regarding sale of Kerosene. In the complaint, an incident of 28th April, 2007 has been referred. An information was given on telephone by a...
Yusuf Abdul Gani Sole Proprietor of Jumbo Offshore Enterprises Vs. Geo ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-10-2013
M.S. Sanklecha, J. This is an appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 17 April 2013 vacating the arrest of the vessel Geowave Commender (GC), arrested by an exparte order on 15 March 2013. The arrest of the vessel GC was made at the instance of the appellant-plaintiff who claimed a maritime claim in respect of vessel GC arising out of charter party dated 1 October 2012 concerning its vessel Orion Laxmi (OL) which was chartered to Reflect Geophysical Pte Ltd. (M/s. Reflect).The vessel GC is owned by a Norwegian company M/s. Master and Commander AS and given on bare boat charter to M/s. Reflect under a charter party dated 29 June 2012 for a period of three years. The impugned order dated 17 April 2010 vacating the arrest was passed on the application of owners of the vessel GC i. e. M/s. Master and Commander AS Norway. 2) The brief facts leading to the present appeal are as under: a) On 29 June 2012, M/s. Master and Commander AS Norway the owner of vessel GC chartered ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »