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.
Louella Fernandes and Another Vs. Rajan Chawla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-2013
Oral Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) These Appeals arise from a judgment of a Learned Single Judge on two petitions for guardianship filed under the Guardians and Wards Act 1890. The Appellants before the Court are the father (Lisbon John Miranda) and paternal aunt (Louella Wilson Fernandes) of the minor child Angelina. 2. The parents of the minor, Lisbon and Bindiya married on 5 October 2008. Lisbon is a Roman Catholic. Bindiya was a Hindu belonging to the Sindhi community. Angelina was born on 13 March 2009. A residential flat being 401 Neelgagan at D.N. Nagar, Andheri (West), Mumbai was purchased on 29 February 2012. The mother of the minor died an unnatural death on 25 May 2012. The father was arrested and has been charged of the offence of murder under Section 302 of the Penal Code and of an offence under Section 498A. Bail has been denied to him. Angelina who was living with her parents and was three years old when her mother died has since then been in the care of her mater...
Ashok Magaswargiya Sah. Bhadekaru Malki Griha Nirman Sanstha Ltd. Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-08-2013
Oral Judgment:- 1. This appeal from order takes an exception to the judgment and order passed by the District Judge-1 Beed in R.C.A.No.117/2007 dated 8.10.2012. Since the facts of case are extensively stated in R.C.S.No.52/2000, it is not necessary to repeat the same. As and when it is necessary, this Court will refer the relevant facts. 2. By way of the impugned judgment and order, the lower Appellate Court remanded the matter to the trial court for deciding it a fresh by framing appropriate issues as discussed in reasoning part of the Lower Appellate Courts Judgment. Applications Exh.35 and Exh. 47 filed by the original appellant are allowed subject to costs of Rs.500/-. Liberty is given to the trial Court to decide the issues by giving opportunity of leading further evidence to both the parties as per law. Both the parties were directed as to remain present before the Trial Court on 1.11.2012. There are other directions as well given by the District Court, Beed. 3. Learned counsel a...
Rakesh Rai Vs. M/S National Aviation Company of India and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-2013
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Kanade, J.) 1. Petitioner, by this Petition, is invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking appropriate writ, order and direction for quashing and setting aside the order dated 17/06/2000 passed by the Respondents accepting the Petitioner's resignation with effect from 01/06/2000 and for further direction, directing that the Petitioner may be deemed to be in service during the aforesaid period and for all consequential benefits. 2. Brief facts which are necessary for the purpose of deciding this Petition are as under:- 3. Respondent No.1 is a Company fully owned by the Government of India and it is admittedly the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner, initially, was an Officer in the Indian Air Force which he joined in 1983 and after meritorious service in Indian Air Force, Petitioner took premature retirement and took training in commercial flying and, thereafter, he joi...
Satish Vasant Holkar and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-2013
RevatiMohite Dere, J. 1. This Appeal is being re-heard by us, pursuant to the order dated 19th February, 2013, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal no.787 of 2008. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 19th February, 2013 in Criminal Appeal no.787 of 2008 was pleased to set aside the Judgment dated 20th December, 2006 passed by this Court and while remitting the matter back requested this Court to appoint an amicus curiae to argue the aforesaid appeal on behalf of the appellants and to re-hear the appeal and dispose of the same in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. 2. Before adverting to the facts of the case, it would be useful to place on record the manner in which the said case has travelled to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and now back to this Court for re-hearing of the aforesaid Appeal, preferred by the appellants. 3. The aforesaid appellants-Satish and Nandu along with seven co-accused were arrested in connection with an alleged incident of assa...
Diamond Jubilee High School Through Its Principal and Another Vs. Stat ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-2013
M.S. Sonak, J. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable with the consent of all the parties forthwith. 2. The petitioners challenge the order dated 27th November, 2012 passed by the Principal Secretary (S.E.A.S.D.) directing the refund of fees from the academic year 2006-07 to 2011-12 to respondent Nos.4 to 7 and report compliance within a period of one month. 3. The issue raised in this petition is covered in the petitioners' favour by a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Association of International Schools and Principal Foundation Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another in Writ Petition (L) No.1876 of 2010 decided on 1st September, 2010. We will however, refer to facts as they establish the petitioners bonafide. There is nothing to indicate that the petitioners acted mala-fide. The facts set out in the petition have not been disputed by the respondents. In fact, no counter has been filed by any of the respondents. The facts, relevant for the purposes of the decision ...
The Akola Pravasi Va Malvahtuk Sahakari Sanstah Maryadit Vs. the Munic ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-05-2013
Oral Judgment: The application is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The applicant has invoked Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and prayed for appointment of an arbitrator in view of the Arbitration Clause, which is as under: 21. ARBITRATION:- In case of any dispute, the same shall be referred to the committee appointed by the commissioner consisting of 5 persons which will comprise of commissioner or his representative, Divisional Controller, MSRTC, Amravati, agent's representative, RTO and Incharge Engineer (Automobile) and the decision of the committee shall be final and binding on the Agent. If the Agent is dissatisfied with such decision, the Agent within a period of 30 days from the receipt of the decision, shall indicate his intention to refer the dispute to the arbitration, failing which the said decision shall be conclusive and the same shall not be questioned. Within 30 days of the receipt of notice from the Agent...
Nirmal Nagori Vs. Sagarmal and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-05-2013
Heard Mr. Nitin Lalwani, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Ahmad, learned counsel for non-applicant no.1 and Mr. C.N. Adgokar, learned A.P.P. for non-applicant no.2/State. The matter is taken up for final disposal by admitting the same. 2. By the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the applicant is challenging the order of issuance of process passed by the learned 13th Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.4, Nagpur, dated 03.03.2009 in Summary Criminal Complaint Case No.17435/2008. 3. The brief facts giving rise to the present application are as follows : The applicant is dealing in the business of sale and purchase of electrical and electronic items. The respondent no.1 is also dealing in the same business. The applicant had purchased some old and new computer monitors from the respondent no.1 to the tune of Rs.9,35,700/- during the period from October,2006 to January, 2007. In discharge of his liabi...
Kumar Gorakhnath Shinde Vs. Wider Church Ministries and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-2013
P.C. 1 The challenge in this Revision Application is to a decree passed on 4.7.2012 by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Satara in Special Civil Suit No.179 of 2010 for restoration of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The Defendant is directed to vacate the 'Norheim Bungalow' standing on C.T.S No.67 Mahabaleshwar Taluka Mahabaleshwar District Satara (Hereinafter referred to as the Suit property) and to hand over the vacant physical possession to the Plaintiff-trust within a period of 90 days from the date of the order. Hence, the Original Defendant is before this Court and the Respondents are the original Plaintiffs. The parties shall hereinafter be referred according to their status as plaintiffs and the defendant. 2 The Plaintiffs filed Special Civil Suit No.179 of 2010 for restoration of possession of the suit property under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act with an averment that the Suit property is owned by Plaintiff No.1 viz the Wider C...
Abhijeet Infrastructure Ltd. and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and O ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-05-2013
Oral Judgment: Since the identical issue arises in these miscellaneous civil applications, these applications are heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. These are applications under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short Arbitration Act), whereby applicants pray to appoint arbitrator pursuant to their agreements as the other side has failed to take steps and/or appoint arbitrator though demanded within prescribed period/time. In all these matters after hearing both the parties, the designate Judge has allowed the applications and appointed the arbitrators. However, all the applicants have been directed to deposit the process fee ranging from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.7,500/- in the respective matters. 2. In Miscellaneous Civil Application No.142/2012 order is dated 12.10.2012, in Miscellaneous Civil Application No.791/2012 order is dated 05.04.2013 and in Miscellaneous Civil Application No.1090/2012 order is dated 03.05.2013 by which,...
Bhaskar S/O Ramrao Bengal and Others Vs. Vidyashakti Shikshan Sanstha ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-05-2013
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. The Writ Petition No. 6105 of 2012 is filed by the original respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in Appeal No. 43 of 2010 decided by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Latur Region, Latur on 2nd December, 2011. The Writ Petition No. 3100 of 2012 only takes exception to the clause (3) of the operative part of the judgment and order dated 2nd December, 2011 in Appeal No. 43 of 2010 passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Latur. By the clause (3), the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal has ordered that, the appellant shall be treated under suspension from the date of order i.e. 2nd December, 2011 passed by the School Tribunal till the completion of the enquiry and shall be entitled to subsistence allowance as per Rule for the said period. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3100 of 2012 who is the respondent No.1 in Writ Petition No. 6105 of 2012, is the original appellant before the School Tribunal,...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »