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.
Dnyanesh Maharao, Editor, Chitralekha and Others Vs. Sanathan Sanstha ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: May-09-2013
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code and Article 227 of Constitution of India for quashing of Private Criminal Case No.131/2008/B filed alleging offences punishable under Sections 500, 501, 502 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. Petitioner Nos.1to 5 are original accused nos.1 to 5. Petitioner no.1 is the editor of petitioner no.2 magazine. Petitioner No.3 is its publisher and printer. Petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are some of the authors of the defamatory articles alleged in the complaint. By its order dated 8th December, 2008 the trial Court after its satisfaction that prima facie imputation made in magazine of petitioner no.2 are defamatory, issued process against petitioners herein and accused No.8. The trial Court found that there was no material to proceed against accused Nos.6 and 7. Therefore it did not issue process against them. 2. Being aggrieved by the order of issuance of process, the petitioners filed Criminal Revision Application No.51/2009 in the ...
Deepak Narayan Joshi Vs. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Limited and Other ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-08-2013
F.M. Reis, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Counsel for the Respondents. 2. The above Petition inter alia seeks for a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ in the nature of mandamus calling for the records and proceedings from the Respondent nos.1 to 3 in the matter of impugned orders dated 3.12.2011 at Exhibit A, 10.12.2011 at Exhibit B and 2.1.2012 at Exhibit F issued by Respondent nos. 1 to 3 in the matter of disciplinary proceedings being held in respect of the charges levelled against the Petitioner and on examining the legality therein to quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 3.12.2011, 10.12.2011 and 2.1.2012. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the Petitioner was employed by the Respondent no.1 in its employment w.e.f. 1.7.1987 to the post of Chemical Operator G.R.III. The Petitioner had already been granted promotions to the higher post from time to time and is presently he has been working in the post of Chemical Grade II (U) (U). It is...
Tanaji Baburao Khude Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-08-2013
Oral Judgment: (Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.) This appeal is directed by the appellant-original accused against the judgment and order dated 28th July, 2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Islampur, in Sessions Case No.5 of 2008. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as under: Mrs.Suvarnawas married to the appellant. They were residing at Nerle, Tal. Valva, Dist. Sangli. The appellant was addicted to the drinking liquor. Whenever he was intoxicated, he used to abuse people. The incident occurred on 28th October, 2007 at about 10.00 p.m. The appellant was heavily intoxicated. In the state of intoxication the appellant was abusing the persons in the lane. Suvarna told him why he was abusing people. On hearing this the appellant ...
Komalam Ramchandra Nair (Deleted, Since Deceased Represented by 2 and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-08-2013
A.A. Sayed, J. This Appeal impugns a common order dated 18 June 2012 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in a Notice of Motion taken out by the Appellants-Plaintiffs and on a Report of the Court Receiver. By the impugned order the Notice of Motion came to be dismissed and the prayer clause (a) of the Court Receiver's Report directing the Plaintiffs to pay royalty of Rs.18,400/- per month in respect of the suit flat was made absolute. For convenience of reference the Appellants shall hereinafter be referred to as the Plaintiffs, the Respondents as the Defendants and the original Appellant no.1 (since deceased) as Plaintiff no.1. 2. The Plaintiffs are occupying the suit flat as an agent of the Court Receiver. In a meeting held 5 April, 2006, the Court Receiver had fixed an ad-hoc royalty amount of Rs.3,000/- per month pending fixation of final royalty. By the above Notice of Motion, the Plaintiffs essentially sought an order to reduce the royalty at a rate not exceeding Rs.500...
Essar Steel India Limited Vs. the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-08-2013
The Applicant-Petitioner has invoked Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Arbitration Act) and prayed as under:- (a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to appoint an Arbitrator on behalf of the Respondent to enable the two Arbitrators to appoint a Presiding Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and differences between the Applicant and the Respondent regarding the claims raised by the Applicant under the Terrorism Insurance Policy No. 121400/11/09/06/00001 dated 20th November 2009 between the Applicant and the Respondent. 2 The basic particulars, as per the Applicant-Petitioner, are as under:- From 1 September 2008 to 31 August 2009, Megarisk Insurance Policy (for short, the Megarisk Policy) for Rs.16,187 Crores issued by the Respondent. The Applicant paid a premium of Rs.6,68,57,673/-. In the month of May 2009, an unknown person punctured the pipeline at village Rallegedda and Janbai during the currency of the Megarisk policy. The Applicant submitte...
Zawar Sales Limited Vs. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-08-2013
OralJudgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Counsel for the Respondents. 2. The above Petition inter alia seeks for a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent no.1 to properly adjudicate and calculate the water charges to be levied and collected from the Petitioner for the period from May 2005 to May, 2012 as per the details and information submitted by the Petitioner to the Respondent no.1. 3. Brief facts as stated by the Petitioner are that the Petitioner is running a small scale industry and is engaged in the business of manufacturing. The Respondent no.1 is the only authority from whom water supply can be obtained by the Petitioner for the said activity. It is further the contention of the Petitioner that the Respondent no.1 was charging Rs.16.50 per cubic mt for the supply of water but therein the sum was increased to Rs.51.10 per cubic mt without any rhyme or reason. The Petitioner thereafter entered i...
M/S. Om Enterprises Vs. the Collector (Ulc) and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-08-2013
1. This Notice of Motion is taken out by defendant No.5 society for the discharging/setting aside the injunction order dated 6th November, 2009 granted in favour of the plaintiff in Notice of Motion No. 3180 of 2009 in the above Suit, restraining defendant Nos.1 to 4 from allotting to defendant No.5 society the suit land and for discharging and setting aside the said order at least to the extent of the interest of defendant No.5 society. 2. The suit plot of land bear Survey No. 25 Hissa No.2 CTS No. 1250 and Survey No. 25 Hissa No.3 CTS No. 1251 in Kanjur village. The plaintiff sued for the declaration that it was the owner of the said land and the defendants had no right, title and interest thereto and for injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing the plaintiff's possession and declaring the notification issued under Sections 10(1) and 10(3) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (the ULC Act) illegal and for incidental reliefs relating to the panchnama and t...
Francis D'Sa Vs. State of Goa, Through Chief Secretary and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: May-08-2013
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. Petition is taken up for final hearing by consent of the parties. 3. The petitioner herein is serving sentence for offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. He had made an application for furlough on 11th March, 2013. That application came to be rejected by respondent no.2 by its order dated 19th April, 2013. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court. 4. Ms. P. Matkar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the two reasons given in the impugned order for rejecting the application for furlough are not substantiated by any material. One of the reasons stated in the order is that the possibility of the petitioner creating problems to the family members of the victim/ witnesses who had deposed in this case. The second reason is that the Superintendent of Jail reports that the conduct of the petitioner in jail is not satisfactory. 5. As regard the first reason of apprehension of harassment to the witnesses or fa...
Kashinath Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-08-2013
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. By consent heard both the sides for final disposal. 3. The petition is filed to challenge the order of externment made by S.D.M., Kinwat District Nanded on 22/03/2013. This proceeding was started on the basis of report given by Islapur Police Tq. Kinwat. Some persons (7 to 8) had applied to the Police Station for taking action against the petitioner. Show cause notice was issued against the petitioner and after taking explanation and considering the record produced by the petitioner, the order under challenge came to be made. 4. In the show cause notice, it was informed to the petitioner that from year 2011 three cases were filed against him and two cases were still pending. It was informed that in view of the record produced against him by the Police Station, he can be externed from four districts like Nanded (district of petitioner), Parbhani, Hingoli and Latur for a period of two years. The petitioner gave explanation and informed that he was...
Uttam Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary, Revenue and Fore ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-08-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties, heard finally at the stage of admission. 3. It is the contention of the present petitioner that he is owner and possessor of the land Gut No.34 to the extent of 24-R. According to the petitioner, his land has been acquired for public purpose, i.e. for construction of village tank. For acquisition of the land notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 was issued by the authorities concerned on 3rd September 2009. That was initiation of the acquisition of landed property owned by the petitioner which was followed by notice under Section 9(3) and (4) of the Land Acquisition Act dated 30th April 2010. Said copy of the notice Annex."A" is placed on record, which is pointed out by learned Counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner, after acquisition of land for public purpose, approached to the respondents, seeking certificate that petitioner is pro...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »