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 Nagindas Kasturchand and Others Vs. the Official Liquidator, High ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. By this application filed by Mr Shashikant Pasari who is a ex-Director of Rajan (Textile) Mills Pvt Ltd (in liquidation), Barshi, Taluka Barshi, District Sholapur, and a guarantor to the secured creditor and who is major shareholder and claims to be a creditor of the Company (in liquidation), seeks recall/review of the order dated 12th February, 2013 passed by this Court in Company Application No.653 of 2012. By the said order dated 12th February, 2013 passed by this Court in Company Application No. 653 of 2012 filed by the Central Bank of India one of the secured creditor, this Court allowed the Central Bank of India to release all claims on the leasehold rights in favour of the owners of the properties which were mortgaged with the Central Bank of India, being Block Nos. 400, 401, 402, 403, 405 and 427 situate at village Barshi, Taluka Barshi, District Sholapur (hereinafter referred to as the said properties) by accepting the sum of Rs.1.40 Crores from the owners of...
Mahanand Naik Vs. State Through P.P.
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-30-2013
U.V. Bakre, J. Heard Mr. Naik, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Amonkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (A.P.P.) on behalf of the State. 2. By impugned Judgment dated 30/06/2011, the appellant has been convicted by the Court of Session, North Goa Panaji in Session Case No. 48 of 2009 for the offenses punishable under Sections 364, 302, 392 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.). In respect of the offence under Section 364 of I.P.C. the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay the fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo imprisonment for two months. With regard to the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C., the sentence is to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay the fine of Rs. 50,000/- in default to undergo imprisonment for a term of one year. For the offence under Section 392 of I.P.C. punishment imposed upon the appellant is to undergo imprisonment for a term of five years and to pay the fi...
Vinit Dinkarrao Patankar Vs. Abhay Dinkarrao Patankar
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-30-2013
P.C. This appeal challenges interim order dated 4-7-2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, on the application Exhibit 33 in Special Civil Suit No.990 of 2011. Apparently, the application was moved by the respondent/plaintiff under the provisions of Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is very doubtful whether this application can be moved under these provisions. 2. The facts are as under : The respondent/plaintiff filed this suit for partition, possession, injunction, etc. It is his case that he and the appellant/defendant became the owners of the suit plot on which a structure was in existence. It is also the case of the respondent/plaintiff that after acquiring the title to the suit plot, he constructed first and second floors on the existing ground floor structure. A dispute arose between the parties and, therefore, this suit was filed for partition, possession, injunction, etc. It is common ground that the appell...
Manjula Bharat Kumar Banker and Others Vs. Kumari Salima Suleman Oomer ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud, J. Admit. Learned counsel for the Respondents waives service. The appeal is taken up for hearing and final disposal, by consent and on the request of the learned counsel. 2. The appeal arises from a judgment of a learned Single Judge by which the plaint has been rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Order VII Rule 11, CPC : 3. Order VII Rule 11(a) provides that the plaint shall be returned where it does not disclose a cause of action. While determining as to whether a case has been made out within the meaning of Order VII Rule 11(a), the plaint has to be considered as a whole for the purpose of determining as to whether a cause of action has been made out. The cause of action constitutes a bundle of facts which the plaintiff must prove in order to obtain relief. When the Court exercises the power under Order VII Rule 11(a), the defence to the suit is not material and it is only on the basis of the averments contained in the plain...
Bhaskar S/O Laxmanrao Kadam Vs. the Additional Collector and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
Heard Mr M.V. Ghatge, learned Counsel for the petitioner; Mr K.M. Suryawanshi, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 and 3; Mr B.G. Deshmukh, learned Counsel for respondent no.2; Mr V.J. Dixit, learned Senior Counsel with Mr P.B. Rakhunde for respondent nos. 4 to 12 and Mr M.R. Sonawane, learned Counsel for respondents no.13 to 15, at length. Rule. The learned Counsel for the respective respondents waive service. At the request and by consent of learned Counsel for the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 17th June, 2013, passed by the Additional Collector, Nanded, in dispute styled as an appeal preferred by him under section 35 (3-B) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (for short Act). By that order, the Additional Collector dismissed the dispute referred by the petitioner, challenging th...
Dhanpal Baburao Chougule and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Other ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
A.S. Oka, J. Following two questions mainly arise in these Petitions: (i) whether in the facts of the case, the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (for short "MSEDCL") is the Appropriate Authority within the meaning of Sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short "MRTP Act")? (ii) If answer to the aforesaid question is in the affirmative, whether a notice purporting to be a notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act which is not addressed to MSEDCL but which is addressed to the Managing Director can be said to be a legal and valid notice? FACTS OF THE CASE IN WRIT PETITION NO.346 OF 2013 2. With a view to appreciate the submissions, it will be necessary to make a reference to the facts of the cases. As far as Writ Petition No.346 of 2013 is concerned, the Petitioners are claiming to be the owners of the land bearing Revision Survey No.668/1 admeasuring 1 hectare and 57 Ares situated at Ichalkaranji, District-Kolha...
Sumeet Ganpat Bacchewar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
P.C. The applicant is the accused no.4 in C.R.No.67 of 2013, registered at Vashi Police Station, on 16.2.2013. Later, the case was investigated into by the Detection of Crime Branch, CID, Unit I, Mumbai. Investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed. However, some other accused are yet to be arrested, and further investigation under the provisions of Section 173(8) is going on. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, may be stated as follows : Sunil Kumar Lahoria, owner of S.K.Builders and Developers, was, on 16.2.2013, fired at, outside his office. It was at about 8.20 a.m. The assailants, who fired at him were two in number. The assailants also assaulted him by a knife. The assault was noticed by one Ganpat Chawda - an employee of Sunil Kumar Lahoria, on C.C.T.V., installed in the office of S.K.Builders and Developers. Ganpat Chawda, therefore, raised cries and came outside the office along with other employees, including the first informant Surjeet Singh Kabra - Manager of S.K.B...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sulbha and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard. 2. Admit. With consent of both the sides, heard the appeal finally at the stage of admission, since only issue of quantum of compensation in Motor Accident Claims Petition is involved. 3. Deceased Pappu Arun Karale died in motor vehicle accident, who was proved to be 19 years old at the time of his death. Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held that the deceased was earning Rs.3000/- per month. He was a bachelor. Present respondent Nos.1 and 2 being his parents are dependents. In the circumstances, learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal deducted 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses of the deceased and after applying multiplier of 18 to the loss of dependency granted compensation of Rs.4,32,000/-. Towards non-pecuniary damages, an amount of Rs.15,000/- was granted and thus total compensation came to Rs.4,47,000/-. 4. Mr. Deshpande, learned Counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that when deceased was admittedly a bachelor, in view of ratio laid d...
Commissioner of Police, Thane and Another Vs. Sanjay Giridhar Koli (Ta ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-2013
G.S. Patel, J. The Respondent was a Police Constable in Government Service. On 25th March 2008 a complaint was registered against the Respondent under Sections 302, 324 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The Respondent was arrested. He remained in police custody for more than 48 hours. On the basis of the criminal complaint, he was suspended by an order dated 4th April 2008. This order of suspension was issued on clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. A charge-sheet was filed against the Respondent before the Ad-hoc Sessions Judge, Thane. By an order dated 30th April 2010, the Sessions Judge acquitted the Respondent. He made a representation to the present Petitioner - the Commissioner of Police, Thane - for reinstatement. This representation was rejected, as was the Respondent's subsequent Appeal. It is against these orders, rejecting the Respondent' application for reinstatement and dismissing his Appeal, that the Respondent filed the Original...
Satish S/O Raghuvirchand Sood and Others Vs. Gujrat Tale Links Pvt. Lt ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-26-2013
B.R. Gavai, J. 1. Admit. Heard finally by consent. 2. The appeal takes an exception to the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 30th of January, 2013 thereby dismissing the petition filed by the present appellants, which was in turn filed challenging the order passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Nagpur dated 1st October, 2012 thereby allowing the application filed by the respondent no.1 under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter for short the Act) referring the dispute between the parties to the arbitration. 3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal, are as under:- The appellants so also the respondents 1 and 2, who was original plaintiffs and defendants 2 and 3 in the suit, are in the business of Cable Operation in different areas in the city of Nagpur. The appellants and respondents 2 and 3 are providing cable connections and rendering services to their respective customers. The appellants and respondents 2 and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »