Mumbai Court July 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.
M/S.Bombay Railways Engineering Co. Vs. General Manager, Central Railw ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-2013
Oral Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) The learned Single Judge has dismissed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The challenge was to an arbitral award dated 12 August 2011. 2 The Appellant was awarded the work of Shallow Screening of Track by a contract dated 10 April 2000 at a total cost of Rs.37.80 lakhs. The period of completion was six months commencing from January 2000 (the date of issuance of a letter of authority). Work was completed on 13 March 2002. The Appellant was paid an amount of Rs.42 lakhs. 3 The Appellant challenged the award insofar as the arbitral tribunal had declined to award claims 1, 10 and 11, namely those for (i) Under utilization of labour force; (ii) overhead charges, and (iii) loss of profits occasioned by an extension of the contract. Clause 17(iii) of the General conditions provided as follows : In the event of any failure or delay by the Railway to hand over to the Contractor possession of the lands necessary f...
Shekhar @ Shankar Hanmant â Hosmani Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-2013
Oral Judgment: (Mrs. Tahilramani, J.) 1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 30.3.2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Satara in Sessions Case No.22 of 2004. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000, in default, R.I. for three months. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated is as under: Deceased Shobha was a sex worker. The appellant was known to her. Shobha had sexual relations with him. Since about 1 months prior to the incident, the appellant was residing with Shobha. PW3 Poonam was residing in the house adjacent to Shobha's house. On 19.6.2003, at about 9 pm, a quarrel took place between the appellant and Shobha as the appellant demanded Rs.2,000/- from Shobha and Shobha refused to give the said amount. This was heard by her neighbour PW3 Punam. In the course of the quarrel, the appellant poured...
Rauf Vs. Manager, Midas Care Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-10-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard both sides. 2. Admit. 3. Substantial question of law that has arisen in the first appeal is - whether respondent can be termed as "principal employer" under the provisions of section 12 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. 4. Present appellant came with a case before learned Commissioner that he was regular employee with the present respondent in Electrical Department. On 13.05.2004, while carrying out electrical work of roof of godown, he fell down on the ground and suffered injuries as detailed in the petition. In the circumstances, he claimed compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. Present respondent came with a case that there was no employee-employer relationship between the parties. In-fact, appellant/ workman was employed by one M/s. B.S. Thakur, Aurangabad, who had undertaken contract of change of sheets of roof of present respondent. Said roof contractor had employed present appellant under hire and when under his supervision said work was continued, during tha...
Shanta Mirchandani and Others Vs. Rajendra Kumar Shahani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-2013
Oral Judgment: By this Chamber Summons, applicant seeks his impleadment as respondent no.2 to the Misc.Petition No. 87 of 2011 on the ground that the deceased had bequeathed the property known as Gurdasmal Mansion situated at National Library Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai 400 050 in equal shares to the applicant alongwith the 1st respondent. 2. Mr.Kapadia, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that if probate granted by this Court in respect of the last Will of the deceased is revoked, applicant who is one of the beneficiary under the said Will, would be seriously affected and is thus necessary and proper party to the revocation petition filed by the petitioner and should be impleaded. The learned counsel also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of State Bank of India vs. Rajendra Kumar Singh and others reported in 1969 Mh.L.J. 527 and in particular paragraph (3) thereof which reads thus:- "3. In support of this appeal, it was contended in the...
Vice-chancellor, Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth and Others V ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-09-2013
Oral Judgment: This petition challenges the order dated 13-2-2012 passed by the learned 6th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, in Special Civil Suit No.1163 of 2010 on the petitioner-defendants' application seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. 2. The petitioner-defendants suggested to the learned Judge of the lower Court that the plaint ought to be rejected for the two reasons, viz. (i) that the suit is barred by limitation, on the respondent No.2/plaintiff's own saying and pleadings; and (ii) that the suit is not maintainable in the Court at Nagpur, because the petitioner-defendants are the residents of Akola and so the suit ought to be filed there. Both these objections were overruled by the learned Judge of the lower Court. However, the first objection appears to be quite substantive. The respondent No.2/plaintiff, in para 36 of the plaint, has stated as under : "36) The cause of action for this suit arose in 1994 when the pl...
Private Nursing Schools and Colleges Management Association and Others ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-2013
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1 The Public Interest Litigation and Writ Petitions were heard together. Since common arguments were canvassed and the issues for consideration are also common, all these matters are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2 Rule. 3 The Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. 4 The facts in the Public Interest Litigation No.72/2013 shall now be noted. 5 Before noting them, what one finds and which is distressing and disturbing to note, is that by our order dated 30th April, 2013 we had granted leave to the Intervener to file brief written submissions. That was only because of paucity of time and since the Intervener's Advocate could not be given time as sought by him for oral argument. However, we find that while filing the Written Submissions, the Intervener has also annexed documents styled as additional documents to the written submissions. The Registry has, without verification and scrutiny and particularly in the light of ou...
Mohammad Musa Ibrahimsaheb Ghante Vs. M/S Gajanan Prabhuappa Bidwe
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-09-2013
1. Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. This revision application takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the Principal District Judge, Latur in Rent Appeal No.10/2005 decided on 20th April, 20012. 3. Since the facts of the case are extensively stated in paragraphs 1 to 9 of the judgment of the District Court, the same are not repeated herein. As and when it is necessary to refer to the facts, same will be referred from the said paragraphs of the impugned judgment. 4. The revision applicant herein is the landlord and respondent is tenant. Upon perusal of the proceedings initiated before the Rent Controller, it appears that principally those proceedings for eviction of the respondent were initiated firstly, on the ground that the existing premises for the business are not sufficient and, therefore, the suit premises are required for bonafide need of the applicant - landlord, and also the same are required to start new business...
The Director of Education Vs. Bhatikar Model High School, Represented ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-09-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri Noorani, learned Addl. Government Advocate, appearing for the Petitioner and Shri V. R. Tamba, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent nos. 1 and 2. 2. The above Petition challenges the Judgment/Order dated 24.06.2008, whereby the preliminary objection raised by the Petitioner herein to the maintainability of the Appeal preferred by the Respondent no.1, came to be rejected. 3. Shri Noorani, learned Addl. Government Advocate, appearing for the Petitioner, has pointed out that in terms of Section 22 of the Goa, Daman and Diu School Education Act, 1984, (herein after referred to as the 'said Act'), the Management is not entitled to pursue an appeal whereby the permission to grant major penalty has been refused. Learned Addl. Government Advocate further pointed out that, as in the present case, the Respondent no.1/Management has preferred such Appeal, the learned Tribunal was not justified to come to the conclusion that the Appeal preferred by the Respondent ...
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (Msedcl) Vs ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-09-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Respondent No.1 is not a contesting party hence its presence is not required for disposal of this appeal. Learned advocate Mr. C.V. Kale waives service on behalf of respondent No.2. The petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioners have challenged order dated 30.10.2012 passed by the Electricity Ombudsman, Nagpur in Representation No. 72/2012. 3. Few facts necessary for disposal of this petition are as under:- One Mr. Parse was the proprietor of a firm by namely M/s Himalaya Ice Factory and was in possession of plot No. W-4/4 situate at MIDC, Hingna, Nagpur. Said Mr. Parse enjoyed electricity supply duly supplied by the petitioners. As the bills raised by the petitioners were not paid from time to time, there was arrears to the extent of Rs.5,31,470/-. On account of non-payment of the electricity charges, the electricity connection was disconnected on 19.3.1991. At the instance of the Maharashtra State Financial Corpo...
Janardhan Kashinath Pal Vs. Harishchandra Ladu Naik and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-09-2013
Oral Judgment: This revision by original complainant is directed against the revisional order passed by learned Sessions Judge, North Goa allowing the revision preferred by the accused whereby the learned Judge quashed and set aside the complaint filed by the present applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 181, 463 and 464 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. 2. It was the applicant's case that the non-applicants accused persons as well as the applicant claim through one Shankar Pal. The applicant claims to be grandson of Shankar. The accused persons, suppressing existence of the applicant, made a declaration before the Notary Ex-Officio Sub-Registrar omitting to show that the applicant is one of the heirs of Shankar. This declaration was sought to be used by the accused nos.4 to 6 for applying for getting their names mutated in the properties. The applicant, therefore, filed complaint before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bicholim. Learned Magistrate examined the com...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »