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.
Mapusa Municipal Council Vs. Smt. Krupa Hallikar W/O Martui Hallikar a ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-12-2013
A.P. Lavande, J. Heard Mr. G. Sardessai, learned Advocate for the appellant, Mr. G. Agni, learned Advocate for respondent No.1 and Ms. N. Kholkar, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.2, 3 and 5. 2. By this appeal, the appellant takes exception to the judgment dated 7th May, 2013 passed by learned Single Judge by which Writ Petition No.76/13 preferred by the appellant challenging award dated 1st April, 2011 passed by the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court at Panaji in Reference No.IT/32/2000 has been dismissed. 3. By common judgment dated 7th May, 2013, learned Single Judge dismissed two Writ Petition Nos.76/2013 and 114/2013. 4. The above reference was made at the instance of respondent no.1 to challenge the termination by the appellant as Sweeper w.e.f. 21st August, 1997. Learned Tribunal, upon appreciation of material placed before it held that the termination was illegal and without complying with the provisions of Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes ...
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through Its Divisional Manager Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-12-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Award dated 31st March, 2005, whereby the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amravati granted compensation in the sum of Rs. 6,80,000/- inclusive of no fault liability with future interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization of the amount. 2. Facts briefly stated are as under: Claimants are widow and children of Dr. Ashok Rangrao More, Homeopathic Doctor practicing at Mangruli Peth, Karajgaon and Loni. Dr. Ashok More was going to Achalpur from Anjangaon by his motor cycle bearing registration No. MH-27/K-2234. The incident happened on 6/6/2000, when a Jeep bearing registration No. MH-27/D-592 came from opposite direction and forcefully dashed to the motor cycle of Dr. Ashok. In the result, Dr. Ashok More died. 3. It is not in dispute that on the date of accident, offending motor vehicle i.e. Jeep bearing registration no.MH-27/D-592 was covered by insurance policy with the appellant and fu...
NitIn Shankar Deshpande and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-2013
Oral Order (Per Chief Justice) 1. This petition purports to be Public Interest Litigation. The petitioners, two in number, have prayed for a direction to quash and set aside the impugned decision of respondent no.1 Union of India to provide security cover of Central Reserve Police Force to respondent no.2. Mr.Mukesh Ambani. 2. The petitioners have relied upon several newspaper reports indicating that the Government of India in the Home Ministry has approved an armed squad of Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) commandos for security of respondent no.2 after he received threats from certain terrorist organizations including threats of attack at his residence in Mumbai. The petitioners do not dispute the threat perception but the only ground of challenge to the impugned decision of the Government of India is that the decision is not supported by any statutory provisions. It is submitted that the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), provides for con...
Knowledge Infrastructure Systems Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Maharashtra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-2013
S.J. Vazifdar, J. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. Respondent No.1 is a public sector undertaking engaged in power generation and supply of electricity in the State of Maharashtra. Respondent No.2 is Adani Enterprises Limited. The petitioner and respondent No.2 are competitive bidders. 3. The interpretation of clause 20(c) of the tender documents falls for consideration. It provides that the offers would be evaluated considering, inter-alia, the Exchange rate as per RBI reference rate indicative on date of opening of bid (emphasis supplied). Respondent No.1 by the decision impugned in this petition considered the date of opening of the price bid as the date of opening of the bid for the purpose of clause 20(c) of the General Terms and Conditions. The petitioner, however, contended that the relevant date for the purpose of clause 20(c) ought to be the date of opening the techno-commercial bid i.e. 16th May, 2013. If 16th May, 2013, is considered to be the...
State of Goa (Through the Chief Secretary) and Others Vs. Ramchandra S ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-08-2013
Oral Judgment : These two appeals by the State question the judgments delivered by the learned Ad hoc District Judge, Panaji on References under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act ('the Act' for short) made by the occupants of tenanted agricultural lands in village Navelim in respect of which the acquisition proceedings were taken by notification no.22-21-2005-RD dated 07/10/2005. 2. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.5/- per square metre for the said property. The claimants sought a reference to be made claiming that they should be awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.150/- per square metre. After considering the evidence, the Reference Court awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.175/- per square metre. Aggrieved thereby the State has preferred these two appeals. 3. I have heard the learned Government Advocates in two appeals as well as the learned Counsel for the occupants. 4. There is no dispute that the lands acquired are the tenanted agricul...
Jenburkt Pharmaceuticals Limited Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-2013
S.J. Vazifdar, J. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and the Writ Petition is heard finally. 2. Respondent No.2 is the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (hereinafter referred to as the NPPA). The petitioner has challenged communications dated 22nd June, 2012, 26th September, 2012 and 6th December, 2012, addressed by the NPPA and a demand notice dated 29th January, 2013 calling upon the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.16,45,16,431/-. 3. The petitioner challenged the above communication and orders on various grounds, including on merits. We did not permit Mr. Hidayatullah to address us on the merits of the case as we find that the NPPA was not entitled to exercise the power of review. The case in short is this. (A) Prior to the impugned action, a show cause notice dated 16th March, 2010, read with a further notice dated 20th March, 2011, was issued to the petitioner alleging, inter-alia, that the petitioner had sold its formulation in excess of the price stipulated in S...
M/S. Ace International and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-2013
Oral Order: Dharmadhikari, J. 1] These petitions were heard on the earlier occasion and even today. After hearing the parties, we put it to the learned APP and the Deputy Controller of Rationing (Enforcement) who was present in court, as to how the respondents have invoked provisions of Essential Commodities Act against the petitioners. Though, there was no explanation forthcoming on this vital point so also as to whether the Commodity is an Essential Commodity within the meaning of the said Act, the learned APP stated that the action cannot be withdrawn and the court must pass orders, either upholding it or quashing and setting it aside. Hence, we pass the following order. 2] This order is passed in all the three matters as facts are stated to be common and in all cases seized commodity does not fall within the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the Control Orders issued thereunder. 3] What we have noticed is that the stand of these respondents repeatedly has been t...
Naseem Ahmed Salim Ahmed Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-2013
S.B. Shukre, J. This petition is directed against the order dated 23rd October, 2012 passed by respondent No.2 externing the petitioner from the limits of the Mumbai City and Mumbai Suburban Districts for a period of two years and also the order dated 14th May, 2013 passed by respondent No.4 confirming the order of externment. 2. With consent of the parties, we have heard this petition finally at the stage of admission. Hence Rule, returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service of notice. 3. We have heard Mr. Sandeep Maurya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J.P. Yagnik, learned A.P.P. for the state. 4. The petitioner submits that he is a law abiding citizen who has been subjected to some illegal action by the respondent Nos.2 to 4 thereby depriving him of his fundamental freedoms relating to his movement and choice of residence. He submits that on 8th March, 2011, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Saki Naka Division, Mumbai, the respondent No.3, issued a notice to him under ...
Kaushal Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through Public Prosecutor and O ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-2013
S.J. Vazifdar, J. 1. The petitioner has sought a declaration that the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate has no jurisdiction to pass an order under section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), and an order quashing the order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dated 16th April, 2013 under section 14 of the said Act. The petitioner has also sought an order quashing a notice dated 15th May, 2013, passed by the Assistant Registrar, Mumbai. 2. The question that falls for consideration is whether an application is sustainable under section 17 of the Act against any action taken by a secured creditor under section 14 of the Act prior to possession being taken pursuant to an order of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under section 14. In other words, can an application lie under section 17 only after possession is taken pursuant to an order under section 14. 3. The ...
Pepsico India Holding Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Nishiland Park Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-2013
Oral Judgment: (S.C. Gupte, J.) 1 The appeal arises from an order of a learned Single Judge setting aside and partially modifying an arbitration award. 2 The Appellant runs and manages a water park called Nishiland. The Respondent is a soft drinks produces, engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of beverages, inter alia, under the brand name Pepsi. On 6 February 1998, the Appellant and Respondent entered into an agreement (the 1998 Agreement) whereby the Appellant granted an exclusive licence to the Respondent to sell/promote Pepsi products at Nishiland for a licence fee of Rs. 47 Lac for a period of 3 years upto 17 January 2001. As a part of the consideration, the agreement also required the Respondent to promote Nishiland by advertising its inauguration on 50 truck backs for at least 30 days and publicize monthly events held at Nishiland on 25 truck backs for 15 days for each event. It is the case of the Appellant that before the expiry of the 1998 Agreement, the parties re-...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »