Mumbai Court June 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.
E-city Entertainment (i) Pvt. Limited Vs. Imax Corporation
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-2013
The Petitioner, E-City Entertainment (I) Pvt. Limited (original respondent), (E-city) a private limited company (E-(III), having place of business at Mumbai, India, has invoked Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Arbitration Act) and prayed to set aside Partial Awards dated 9 February 2006 and 24 August 2007 and Final Award dated 27 March 2008 passed by the International Court of Arbitration under the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC Rules). Basic Events:- 2 The basic events are as under: On 28 September 2000, Imax Ltd and E-city signed in Mumbai, a letter of intent dated 28 September 2000 (The agreement) leasing of 6 IMAX systems to be installed in India. On 22 November 2000, they executed a contract under which Imax agreed to sell to E-city an IMAX 37 GT Projection system. On 21 December 2000, Imax entered into an agreement with Electronic Media Ltd (EML) and agreed to sell a single Imax cinema system. As alleged,...
Bombay Construction and Engineering Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Mehta Finstock Pvt.Lt ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-2013
The Petitioner-original Respondent has invoked Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Arbitration Act) and thereby challenged Award dated 24 February 2010 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal consisting of three learned Arbitrators of National Stock Exchange of India Limited (NSEIL). The operative part of the Award is as under: 1 The Respondent is directed to pay to the Applicant a sum of Rs.53,76,751.46p together within interest @ 12% p.a from 20.2.2008 till realization. 2 The counter claim stands rejected. 3 The Respondent to bear its own cost and also the cost of the Applicant No.1 after the remand of the matter. 4 We authorize the National Stock Exchange of India Limited, to file the Original Award and forward a copy of the Award each to the parties. 2 The Petitioner appointed the Respondent to effect transactions on the Futures and Options Segment of NSEIL. The Respondent squared off the outstanding positions of the Petitioner on 22 January 2008. The d...
Vimal Builders Vs. Nand Kumar Anant Vaity and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-2013
1. This Notice of Motion is taken out by Defendant No.41 for 3 reliefs: For setting aside an order passed in the earlier Notice of Motion No.3679 of 2001, for deciding the preliminary issue under Section 9A and for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC. 2. The relief claimed under Order 7 Rule 11(d) is upon the bar created by the law of limitation. It must first be seen whether from the plaint itself the suit is seen to be barred by the law of limitation. If that is seen, the other two prayers would not come up for consideration; Neither would the issue be required to be framed nor would any order in any notice of motion being required to be granted or set aside. 3. The plaint is in respect of two properties: The first property described in Exhibit-A1 to the plaint and the second property described in Exhibit-A2 to the plaint. The main suit property is the first property. The second property is a small adjacent land-locked property. The arguments are advanced esse...
Khurshid Alam (Shaikh) Khan Abdul Rauf @ Khurshid Alam Khan Vs. State ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-2013
Oral Judgment: (Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.) The appellant-original accused has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 21.04.2007 passed by the 8th Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Sewree, Mumbai in Sessions Case No.857 of 2006. 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.2000/- IDSI for six months. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under: (a) The appellant was married to Majida (deceased) some years prior to the incident. They had two children i.e daughter Rashida aged about 3 years and son Maifus aged about 5 years. About 3-4 months prior to the incident, the appellant had given Talaq to Majida and he was residing separately from her. Majida was residing at Room No.27, Badami Koyla Chawl, Dharavi Main Road, Mumbai. The said room was of her deceased brother. Majida was residing there along with two children of her deceased brot...
Sicom Limited Vs. the Shamrao Vithal Co-operative Bank Limited and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-2013
The Petitioners, Sicom Limited, in view of Assignment Deed dated 31 March 2010, continued to challenge impugned award dated 24 July 2009, passed by the sole Arbitrator appointed under Section 84 of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 (for short, MSCS Act) by invoking Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Arbitration Act). 2 The operative part of the award is as under: Order: a) The Opponent No.1 namely Tim Tim Far East Export Trading Pvt. Ltd. is liable to pay to The Shamrao Vithal Co-operative Bank Ltd. a sum of Rs.1,83,03,147/- as on 31.03.2004 together with simple interest @ 8% p.a. from 01.04.2004 till full realisation along with Arbitration Fee Rs.18,980/- inclusive of administrative cost. b) It is further declared that above dues of the Disputant Bank are secured by a first charge on High Tech Plant and Equipment acquired by Opponent No.1 out of Disputant Bank's loan of Rs.1,41,00,000/-. As such the Disputant Bank is entitled to tak...
M/S Crescent Property Developers Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-2013
Heard Mr. Thorat, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Kamdar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the matter is taken for up final hearing. 3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the legality, validity and propriety of stop work notice dated 2nd March, 2012, issued under Section 354-A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 ( for short the Act) by the Corporation. 4. The brief facts leading to the present petition are as follows: The property known as Gora Gandhi Chawl situated at C.S No. 337(Part) and 1/337 (Part) of Malbar Hill, Tardeo Division, Belasis Road, Tardeo (Mumbai) ( for short the said property) was acquired by the Corporation under the Slum Clearance Scheme. The property consisted of old structures having 168 tenements, out of which, 165 were residential tenements and 3 were commercial tenements. I...
Yeshwant Maruti Lonkar, Since Deceased, by His Legal Heirs Shri Kalida ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-2013
1. Heard Mr. A.V. Anturkar, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. V.S.Kapse, learned counsel for respondent nos.1(g),1(h) and 1(i), Mr. A.Y.Sakhare, learned Senior Counsel for respondent no.2 in both the Appeals at length. 2. The short question that falls for determination in these Appeals is as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is sub-section(1) or sub-section(2) of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short, 'Act') applies. In that context, it is appropriate to quote the observations made by Honourable Mr. Justice P.N.Bhagwati (as the learned Chief Justice of India then was) in paragraph 67 of V. Tulasamma Vs. Sesha Reddy, (1977) 3 Supreme Court Cases 99):- The question is of some complexity and it has evoked wide diversity of judicial opinion not only amongst the different High Courts but also within some of the High Courts themselves. It is indeed unfortunate that though it became evident as far back as 1967 that Sub-sections (1) and (...
Rambhau Ganpat Koshire Since Deceased Through His Heirs and Legal Repr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-2013
1. Heard Ms. Gaidhani, learned Counsel for the appellant and applicant, Mr. Joshi, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 8 and Mr. Karnik, learned Counsel for respondent No.9B both in Second Appeal as also Civil Revision Application at length. Office remark shows that as per the order dated 16.01.2006 in Second Appeal, the appellant has filed affidavit of service stating therein that respondent No.9-A, among others is served by R.P.A.D. Respondent Nos.9C to 9F being minors are represented by their guardian Respondent No.9-B. Perusal of the writ issued by this Court shows that respondent No.9E accepted service for himself and on behalf of respondent Nos.9A, 9C and 9D. Thus, respondent Nos.9A to 9F are duly served. At the request of Ms Gaidhani, names of respondent Nos.10 to 20 are deleted from Second Appeal. Amendment shall be carried out forthwith. 2. Second Appeal No.1208 of 2004 is preferred by the appellant, hereinafter referred to as the auction purchaser under Section 100 of th...
Gopi Gorwani Vs. Ideal Co-operative Housing Society Limited and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-2013
1. By the above suit, the Plaintiff has sought a declaration that there is a subsisting lawful and binding contract between the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 for redevelopment of the building situated at Juhu Circle, Gulmohar Road, Juhu Scheme, Mumbai (the suit property), under the management of the Defendant No.1 and that the Plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the said contract based on the Expression of Interest, being Exhibit-C annexed to the Plaint. The Plaintiff has also sought an order and direction against Defendant No.1 through their Office-bearers to execute a Development Agreement and pass appropriate Resolutions approving the revised plan (being Exhibit-P to the Plaint) submitted by the Plaintiff to Defendant No.1 on 20th December 2010. In the alternative, the Plaintiff has sought damages in the sum of Rs. 15 crores as per particulars of claim, being Exhibit-U to the Plaint. 2. The Plaintiff has also taken out the above Notice of Motion for appointment of a Cou...
Sandeep Ram Meghe and Others Vs. Pundlikrao Balaji Gohad (Dead) and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-10-2013
1. These two second appeals impugn the judgment and order passed by District Judge-1, Amravati while disposing of Misc. Civil Application Nos. 21 of 2012 and 40 of 2012 by common judgment and order dated 22nd June, 2012. Said two Misc.Civil Applications arose out of a common judgment and order dated 13th December, 2011 passed by learned Joint Charity Commissioner in Appeal Nos. 3 of 2010 and 4 of 2010. Appeal No. 3 of 2010 and 4 of 2010 had arisen out of the order passed by Deputy Charity Commissioner, Amravati in Enquiry No.135 of 2007 under Section 22 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. 2. The said enquiry under Section 22 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act was initiated on the change report submitted by appellant No.1 Shri Sandeep Ram Meghe in Second Appeal No. 408 of 2012 (hereinafter referred to as appellant No.1). The said change report was in respect of the change in the Executive Committee of Vidarbha Youth Welfare Society, Amravati. Vidarbha Youth Welfare Society, Amravati is ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »