Mumbai Court August 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.
Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti, Through Its Leader Harish Ratanlal and Others ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
Z.A. HAQ, J. 1. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The issue, which falls for consideration in this petition is, Whether the Resolution No.1 passed in the Special General Meeting of Akola Municipal Corporation, Akola on 29.04.2013, nominating the eight members on the Standing Committee is proper and valid as per the provisions of Section 31A(2) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act. However, a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition is raised by respondent no.1 The Mayor of the Akola Municipal Corporation, Akola on the ground that the petitioner no.1Mahanagar Sudhar Samiti, Akola Municipal Corporation is not a registered Aghadi as contemplated by the provisions of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members' Disqualification Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Disqualification Rules, 1987) and, therefore, this issue also falls for our consideration. 3. We will first deal with the preliminary objectio...
Laxman Murlidhar Bhale Since Deceased by His L.Rs. Vs. Sudhakar S/O Ka ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard both sides. 2. Aggrieved by the order, dated 3rd May, 1993, passed by the learned IIIrd Additional District Judge, Aurangabad in M.A.R.J.I. Application No.62/1992, the present appeal is preferred by the original applicant. 3. In a proceeding for registering of the trust, namely, Shri Shukleshwar Mahadeo Mandir Devasthan Trust, Fazalpura, Aurangabad, the dispute has arisen as to whether it is a trust property or as to whether it was a property gifted to the present appellant by Radhabai who was the daughter of one Kashinath. Kashinath was admittedly owner of the property i.e. land Survey No.30, now Municipal No.124-41. Kashinath had no male issue. He has, however, adopted Sudhakar, the present respondent No.1 in the year 1946. Said Sudhakar, after the death of the adopted father Kashinath, filed a suit. The certified copy of the judgment in Civil Appeal No.319/4 of 1951 would show that he sought declaration that he was a adopted son of Kashinath against Radhabai, th...
The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Sunita Wd/O Sanjay Tayad ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
Oral Judgment: Learned advocate for the respondents made a grievance that except statutory deposit, the amount ordered by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was not deposited. This appeal was filed in order to challenge order dated 24.4.2008 passed by learned Member, M.A.C.T., Akola whereby the appellant along with other non-applicants were directed to pay compensation in the sum of Rs.50,000/- as joint and several liability in view of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The amount was directed to be paid within a period of 60 days from the date of the order, failing which the claimants were entitled to get interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of order till realization. The appellant has challenged the impugned order on the ground that there was collision between two motor vehicles tempo trax and truck while truck was standing on the road and driver, owner and insurer of the truck were also necessary parties in the matter as it is a case of contributory negligence, according to the...
Surendra S/O Laxman Nikose Vs. Chief Manager and Authorized Officer St ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Chandurkar, J.) 1. Heard Mr. P. S. Tiwari learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. N. Kumar learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard by consent of the parties. 3. The short question that arises for consideration in the present writ petition is whether a Banker has general lien over documents of security under Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 after the customer has fully repaid the amount of loan? 4. The aforesaid question arises on the following facts:- 5. The petitioner was in the employment in the respondent - Bank on the post of the Senior Assistant. During his course of employment, he had obtained a housing loan for a sum of Rs.6.56 lakhs. As a security for the said loan, the petitioner on 23-11-2001 had deposited title deeds of Plot No.605, House No.650 that was owned by him. During the course of employment, disciplinary proceedings were held against the petitioner on account of the alleged fraud...
Smt. Archana and Another Vs. Radhakishan Ramchandra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
This civil revision application takes exception to the judgment and order dated 10.08.2006 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Latur, in Rent Petition No.1/2003 and the judgment and order dated 26.11.2010 of the District Court, Latur, in Rent Appeal No.12/2006 thereby confirming the judgment and order passed by the Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Latur. 2. The facts of the case are extensively stated in the impugned judgment of the trial court as well as the appellate court and therefore, it is not necessary to repeat the same. As and when it is necessary to refer to the facts, the same will be referred from the judgment of the appellate court in Rent Appeal No.12/2006. 3. The present applicants are the tenants and the respondent is the landlord. The suit filed by the respondent landlord came to be decreed on two grounds. Firstly on the ground that the revision applicants herein i.e. tenants are in arrears of rent, and secondly the defendants have violated t...
Dashrath S/O Urkudaji Patale and Another Vs. Union of India, Through G ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-14-2013
This appeal is to challenge the legality and validity of the impugned judgment and order dated 22.11.2002 passed in Claim Application No. 11/OA II/RCT/NGP/01 whereby the learned Judicial Member of the Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the Claim Application on the ground that deceased Mukesh was not bonafide passenger of Howrah-Bombay Mail on 5.9.2000(8002 up) while it was running from Rajnandgaon to Gondia. It was alleged that said Mukesh Patale while travellling on 5.9.2000 by Howrah-Bombay Mail from Rajnandgaon to Gondia accidentally fell down at Gudma railway station and died on the spot. Dependents of said Mukesh had filed claim application for compensation on the ground that Mukesh met with untoward incident, as according to them he had accidentally fallen down from the train. The Tribunal held that Mukesh was not bonafide passenger on 5.9.2000 on Howrah-Bombay Mail and that there was no evidence to believe that he was travelling by second class mail/express ticket from Rajnandgao...
Kanchan Chodankar Vs. Miss. Lida Joao and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-13-2013
Oral Judgment By this petition, the petitioner questions the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 20/07/2011 in Criminal Revision Application No.7/2011 upholding the order dated 19/01/2011 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Margao whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the petitioner's application for cancellation of proclamation dated 05/10/2010. This proclamation was issued under Section 82 of Criminal Procedure Code because the accused / petitioner was stated to be absconding. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the proclamation was actually served upon the petitioner or came to the knowledge of the petitioner on 16/11/2010 i.e. a day after the petitioner was required to appear before the Court on 15/11/2010. 3. Respondent no.1/ complainant has filed an affidavit trying to suggest that the proclamation was in fact served upon the petitioner well before 12/11/2010. A copy of the proclamation which is made availab...
National Seed Association of India and Others Vs. the State of Maharas ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-13-2013
Oral Judgment: (AnoopV. Mohta, J.). 1] The petitioners the producers of the cotton seed have challenged the statutes and notifications of the State of Maharashtra (the State) of price control of cotton seed in Maharashtra. 2] In W.P. 2207 of 2008 (AICBA v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.), the petitioners challenged the validity of the Maharashtra Cotton Seed (Regulation of Supply, Distribution, Sale and Fixation of Sale Price) Ordinance, 2008 (the Ordinance) (published in the official Gazette on 23.05.2008) and Notification dated 23.05.2008 (the notification) fixing the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of Bt. Cotton seeds. An interim order was passed on 27.06.2008 ...whenever the Ordinance is issued or legislation is evolved by the Legislature, State cannot shirk its responsibility to make good the loss, if any caused in the event such Ordinance or Legislation is held to be unconstitutional and is quashed and set aside by the Courts. In the present case, if the petition succeeds appropriate o...
Union of India, Represented by the Secretary Vs. the Company Law Board ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. The Appellant Union of India, represented by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, through the Regional Director, Western Region, has filed the present Appeal under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 (the Act) seeking to set aside the Order dated 28th March, 2013, passed by Respondent No. 1 the Company Law Board, Mumbai Bench (the CLB), disposing of Company Petition No. 62 of 2009 under Sections 397, 398 and 402 of the Act, chiefly on the ground that notice under Section 400 of the Act was not served by the CLB on the Appellant. 2. The above Appeal was admitted on 11th June, 2013, and is now taken up for final hearing. 3. The following Questions of Law are framed for consideration in the present Appeal: (a) Whether the Order passed by the CLB, Mumbai Bench, dated 28th March, 2013 is nonest, ex facie not valid and the entire proceedings in Company Petition No. 62 of 2009, stand vitiated since the notice of the Application/Petition made by the Original Petitioner (Res...
Aakif Ateeque Nachan Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-2013
Oral Order: 1 The applicant is one of the six accused accused no.4 in M.C.O.C. Special Case No.10 of 2012, pending before the Special court under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (hereinafter referred to as M.C.O.C. Act), Thane. The said case is in respect of offences punishable under Sections 120B, 153A, 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), offences punishable under the Arms Act, apart from the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the M.C.O.C. Act. Additionally, the applicant and the other accused are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 16 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, as amended till 2008 (hereinafter referred to as U.A.P. Act). By the present application, the applicant seeks bail. 2 I have heard Mr.S.R.Pasbola, the learned counsel for the applicant, and Mrs.S.V.Sonawane, the learned APP for the State. I have also heard Mr.Subhash Jha, the learned counsel, who sought intervention in the matte...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »