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.
Deccan Chronicle Holdings Limited Vs. Landt Finance Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-2013
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. Admit. Learned counsel for the Respondents waive service. The appeals are taken up for hearing and final disposal, by consent and on the request of the learned counsel. 2. Both the appeals arise out of a judgment and order of a learned Single Judge dated 5 February 2013 on two petitions which were filed by Tata Capital Financial Services Limited and L and T Finance Limited against the Appellant. The Petitioners before the learned Single Judge under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are the Respondents to the appeals. 3. The claim of Tata Capital Financial Services Limited (`Tata Capital') is Rs.100.86 crores on which interest would be liable to be paid. The dues of L and T Finance Limited (`L and T Finance') are Rs.25.02 crores together with interest. These dues arise out of the credit facilities extended to the Appellant. Tata Capital has invoked the arbitration agreement between the parties and has submitted a claim in the arbitration...
Atul Pansare and Another Vs. Hindustan Lever Ltd. and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-2013
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Writ petition No.2102 of 2006 is filed by the employee challenging the order dated 20th July 2004 passed by the 7th Labour Court, Mumbai in complaint (ULP) No.236 of 1994 directing the respondent company to reinstate the petitioner original complainant with continuity of service but without back wages or they can pay lumpsum compensation of Rs. 2 lacs to the petitioner complainant excluding his legal dues. The same order is challenged by the respondent company by preferring cross writ petition No.2272 of 2006. The issues involved in both these petitions are same. Hence, this is a common order. 2. For the sake of convenience, the employee Atul Pansare hereinafter will be referred to as the petitioner and the Hindustan Lever Ltd. as the respondent. 3. The petitioner joined the respondent company on 10th October 1982 as an Instrumentation Mechanic. After some time, the respondent company declared lockout on 25th June 1988 which continued upto ...
Sangramsingh Babusingh Chavhan Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through I ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-07-2013
Oral Judgment: (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. Petitioner who was appointed on the basis of caste certificate belonging to Rajput Bhamta is in service since 1980. By the impugned notice/communication dated 16.7.2013, respondent no. 3 directed the petitioner to submit caste certificate by 31.7.2013. Petitioner has filed the present petition on 02.8.2013. 3. Considering the averments made and in view of judgment of this Court (Coram : Anoop V. Mohta and Z.A. Haq, JJ.) in the case of Ku. Vijaya Deorao Nandanwar v. Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Wardha, in W.P. No. 5530/12 and ors., dated 10.7.2013, on same line, we are inclined to extend protection to the petitioner at this stage, as prima facie case is made out. However, alternate remedy is available to the petitioner. Therefore, we are permitting the petitioner to withdraw the present petition with liberty to approach the appropriate forum within four weeks. 4. I...
Ms. Adeline Rodrigues and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-2013
Oral Judgment:(V.M. Kanade, J.) 1. By this Petition which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Petitioners are seeking an appropriate writ, order and direction, directing Respondents to implement the Shetty Commission Recommendation contained in its Report dated 11/11/1999 and also to implement the directions which were given by Hon'ble Chief Justice dated 11/11/2003 in exercise of the powers vested in him under Article 229 of the Constitution of India. 2. Brief facts which are necessary for the purpose of deciding this Petition are as under:- 3. The Central Government constituted the First National Judicial Pay Commission under the Chairmanship of Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Jagannath Shetty, popularly called the Shetty Commission on 21/04/1996. On 11/11/1999, the Shetty Commission submitted its Report making recommendations for revision of pay-scales of Judicial officers. On 21/03/2002, the Apex Court vide its judgment and order accepted the recommendations of the Shet...
Subhash Shivram Sawant and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-2013
Oral Order(Per Chief Justice) 1. In this petition, purporting to be public interest litigation, a trade-union leader (petitioner No.1) and a businessman (petitioner No.2) have prayed for following directions against the Union of India and six political parties: (i) To define the word Socialist in the Preamble of the Constitution of India. (ii) To declare and interpret the true and correct definition and meaning of the word Socialist in the Preamble of the Constitution of India. (iii) To direct the respondents to abide by the true and correct definition and meaning of the word Socialist in the Preamble of Constitution of India, as may be decided in the present proceedings. (iv) To restrain and refrain the respondents from suggesting, supporting and espousing actions and inactions contrary to the object sought to be achieved by the incorporation of the word Socialist in the Preamble of the Constitution of India. 2. Petitioners have relied upon the following words of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar befor...
Smt. Nalini Ramchandra Anpat Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-2013
Oral Judgment: (Mrs. Tahilramani, J.) 1. The appellant accused has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 23.10.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Satara in Sessions Case No.213 of 2007. By the said judgment and order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced her to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default, R.I. for one year. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated is as under: Deceased Sharda was residing at Anpatwadi, Taluka Koregaon, District Satara. She was residing there alongwith her husband and son Akshay. The appellant is the wife of the elder brother in law of Sharda i.e., she was the wife of the elder brother of the husband of Sharda. There were disputes in relation to partition between the family of Sharda and the family of the appellant. The incident occurred on 30.4.2007. At about 9pm, the minor son of Sharda had put on Television on loud vol...
Shashank Vyankatesh Manohar Vs. Union of India, Through Ministry of Fi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-2013
CavJudgment: (Chief Justice) This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges 11 Show Cause Notices all dated 25 November 2011 issued by the Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (in short the Act) to the petitioner to show cause against imposition of penalty on him in his capacity as the President of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (in short the Board) for the alleged violation of the Act, during the period 2008 to 2011. This Petition also challenges a Communication dated 6 June 2013 calling the petitioner for personal hearing before the Director of Enforcement, Directorate of Enforcement for adjudication of the impugned 11 Show Cause Notices. All the show cause notices are issued to the Board (BCCI) and to the petitioner and six other persons. 2. The challenge to the impugned 11 show cause notices by the petitioner is on the ground that the same has been issued to him without jurisdiction as under...
Mahanand Naik Vs. State Through P.P. High Court
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-07-2013
U.V. Bakre, J. Heard Mr. Naik, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Ms. Pinto, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the respondent. 2. By this appeal, the appellant/accused takes exception to the judgment and order dated 18th February, 2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, North Goa, Panaji in Sessions Case No. 33/2009 convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 302, 392 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (the I.P.C. for short). The accused has been sentenced to different periods of imprisonment as under:-Sr. NoSectionSentence1.364 of I.P.C.Rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default, to undergo imprisonment for two months.2.302 of I.P.C.Rigorous imprisonment for life and fine ofRs.50,000/- and in default, to undergo imprisonment for one year.3.392 of I.P.C.Rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default, to undergo imprisonment for one year.4.201 of I.P.C.Rigorous imprisonm...
Vishal Vijay Palyekar Vs. AshiwIn Naik S/O Chandrakant Naik and Anothe ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-07-2013
Oral Judgment: This revision is directed against the concurrent findings of the trial Magistrate and the Sessions Judge holding the applicant/original accused guilty of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a compensation of Rs.60,000/- and in default of payment of compensation to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months. 2. The facts which are material for deciding this revision are as under: The applicant and the complainant were admittedly friends, who were residing together at Mumbai for sometime. According to the complainant, the applicant approached him in middle of 2008 for a hand loan of Rs.1,75,000/-, since applicant's parents were to undergo some surgical operation. The complainant claims to have advanced this amount of Rs.1,75,000/- to the applicant. The applicant issued four cheques towards repayment of the amount borrowed bearing no.170431,...
Hermano De Souza (Deceased) Through His Heirs and Others Vs. Agostinho ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-07-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. C. Mascarenhas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. S. Redkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents waive service. 4. The above petition challenges an order passed by the learned Tribunal dated 09.04.2013 whereby an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal challenging the judgment passed by the learned Rent Controller of one month came to be dismissed. 5. Mr. Mascarenhas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the petitioners who have been asked to vacate the suit premises were anxious to challenge the impugned Judgment passed by the Rent Controller in appeal and as such the petitioners sought for an urgent certified copy. The learned counsel further pointed out that the petitioners had visited the office of the learned Rent Controller to coll...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »