Mumbai Court September 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.
Dilipkumar Hirachand JaIn Vs. Dena Bank and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-04-2013
1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal. 3. The petitioner, vide this petition, has impugned order dated 2.8.2007 passed by the learned II Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalgaon in Special Darkhast No.105 of 2007 below Exhibit 7. Vide the said order, learned lower Court has issued an attachment warrant under Order XXI Rule 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for the sake of brevity, hereinafter, referred to as "the Code"). 4. The petitioner has narrated the facts, which, in brief, are as follows:- The petitioner was original plaintiff No.2 in Special Civil Suit No.332 of 1996. The subject matter of the said suit was a claim for compensation on the ground that the defendants therein had defamed the petitioner by publishing a defamatory notice in daily news paper "Lokmat". Damages to the tune of Rs. Ten Crores were claimed before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Divisio...
Mrs. PerIn Hoshang Davierwalla and Another Vs. Kobad Dorabji Davierwal ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-2013
1. This is an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act). The parties are partners in the partnership business of running IL PALAZZO HOTEL. There are 5 partners in the partnership. The parties entered into a Partnership Deed on 06.03.1992. The partnership is at will but if a partner desires to retire, he/she would require to give 3 months notice in writing to the other partners. The applicants have sought to dissolve the partnership. They have given notice of dissolution. 2. The partnership agreement contains an arbitration clause being clause No.29 thereof, the relevant part of which runs thus: All disputed and differences whatsoever which shall either during the partnership or after the termination thereof arise, between the partners or their representative or between any partner and the legal heirs/representatives of the other partner touching these presents or the construction or application thereof, or any clause or thing herein contain...
Subhash Hiralal Bhosale Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-2013
Oral Order: (Dharmadhikari, J.) 1] Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent rule made returnable forwith. 2] A very short question is involved in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is directed against an order passed by the Competent Authority exercising powers under Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. 3] The petitioner is the original accused No.1 in Sessions case No.489 of 2010. He was arrested on 3rd April 2010 by Hinjewadi Police Station for offences punishable under section 376(2), 366, 342, 506(II) read with 120(B) of Indian Penal Code. On 21st October he was convicted and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment by the Sessions Court, Pune. He preferred an appeal before this Court. It appears from the record that his appeal is pending. 4] The petitioner has referred to the prosecution case in some details but what we find is that it is not relevant as the conviction and sentence has been recorded for the offences punishable inter alia ...
Rajwardhan Babaso Patil and Others Vs. Vijaysinha Jadhav and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-2013
G.S. Patel, J. 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr. Saste, Learned AGP, waives service on behalf of the Respondents. By consent, taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No.399 of 2013 is the first of the four Petitioners in Writ Petition 459 of 2013. The facts are common to both petitions, as are the orders under challenge; hence, both Petitions were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. 3. These Petitions are directed against the Appellate Order dated 30th November 2012 passed by the SecretarySpecial, Home Department, Government of Maharashtra (the 3rd Respondent in Writ Petition No.459 of 2012) in Appeal No. EXT-2012/110/SPL-3(B). That appellate order confirms an Externment Order No. 22-LCB/Externment/276/2012 dated 6th February 2012 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Kolhapur (the 1st Respondent in Writ Petition 399 of 2013 and the 2nd Respondent in Writ Petition 459 of 2013), by which the Petitioners in both matters were ...
Seema Santosh Jadhav and Others Vs. Maharashtra Housing Area Developme ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-2013
Oral Judgment: Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. The common issues, facts and the law are interlinked, therefore, this common Judgment. The common factual background 2 All these Appeals from Order are arising out of common and similar action initiated by the Defendant-Respondent-Maharashtra Housing And Area Development Authority (MHADA), invoking Section 95A(3) of Maharashtra Housing And Area Development Act 1976 (for short MHADA Act) and directed individual occupants/Plaintiffs in all these matters to file reply and then the Executive Engineer C-3 of MHADA unilateral orders dated 1 to 8 June 2013 passed the eviction, thereby directed all the occupants/Plaintiffs to vacate the premises, which they are in their occupation (since year 1979-1986) for more than 25 years. The Plaintiffs are also paying the monthly rent (compensatory costs) to the MHADA since long. 3 The Plaintiffs therefore filed separate Suits in the...
Suresh S/O Shivram Naiknaware and Others Vs. the Joint Charity Commiss ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-04-2013
1. Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. This writ petition takes exception to the order passed by the In-charge Joint Charity Commissioner, Latur dated 13th June, 2011. 3. The background facts as disclosed in the petition are, as under: The petitioners are the residents of village Hinglajwadi and devotees of the Dattatraya Devi Math Sanstha, Hinglajwadi and therefore, they are interested persons as per Section 2(10) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (for short, referred to as the said Act) and therefore, they are having locus to approach before this Court and file the writ petition and to challenge the order passed by the In-charge Joint Charity Commissioner, Latur dated 13th June, 2011 under Section 36(1)(a) of the said Act. 4. The respondent No.1 without considering the fact that, the application was filed by the respondent No.2 and the land admeasuring 117 Hectares 43 Ares was given on rent for a period of 30 years for which the re...
Nandu S/O Sambaji Nagarkar Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through Its Secre ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-04-2013
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner, who claims to be a Social worker, has approached this Court seeking a direction to quash and set aside the tender notice published in the daily Nav Bharat dated 21.04.2008 and the whole process undertaken by the respondents in pursuance of the aforesaid tender notice. The petitioner further seeks a direction to constitute a High Power Committee consisting of experts in the field, so as to properly estimate the cost of the Project namely Four laning of Warora-Chandrapur-Ballarpur-Bamani road and bridges on SH 264, Part Warora to Chandrapur km 40/100 to 83/409, Part Chandrapur to Bamani km 94/00 to 107/800 including Chandrapur bypass road (SH 266) km 0/00 to 5/200 and 2 km length of SH 267 in Chandrapur district, total length 64.40 kms and direct the aforesaid High Power Committee to monitor and supervise the work of the aforesaid pro...
Mohd. Hashim Ajmullah Khan Vs. Vasiullah Nasibullah Khan and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-2013
Oral Judgment: Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally. The Appellant-original Plaintiff has challenged order passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court dated 2 May 2013 whereby, his Notice of Motion stands dismissed, filed in a Suit by the Plaintiff referring to the property having Survey No.49, 49/1 to 49/6, area admeasuring about 3838.46 sq. fts. Known as Fojdar Compound, situated at L.B.S. Marg, Opposite Kurla Bus Depot, Kurla (West) Mumbai-400 070, with a prayer to grant relief under Order-2 Rule-2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, CPC) to file substantive Suit in accordance with law. The Suit is basically filed for protecting the possession with a specific prayer against the Defendants and/or its servants from dispossessing from the Suit property, except the due process of law. The prayer is also made to appoint a Commissioner to visit the Suit property and to submit a report in respect thereof. Both the parties have contested the matter by filing their ...
Dr. Syed Abdul Wahab Abdul Aziz Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Direc ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-03-2013
Oral Judgment: (Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, an employee with respondent No.1 State of Maharashtra, has assailed the norms laid down for the purposes of availing the benefit of 3% reservation provided for physically handicapped persons. Submission is, barring a person suffering from visual impairment is not in consonance with the provisions of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the "1995 Act") and also it violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 2. The basic facts are not in dispute. The petitioner has passed his M.B.B.S. course as a physically handicapped person from Government Medical College and Hospital at Aurangabad in 2003. He had taken admission in 1998-99. The petitioner then completed compulsory internship and joined employment as a Medical Officer in 2006. In 2009 he passed M.P.S.C. examination...
Sunita Gajanan Gulawe Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-03-2013
Oral Order:- 1. By consent, heard finally. 2. The applicant is the accused in S.C.C.No.361 of 2011, pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Jintur, District Parbhani. The said case arises on a complaint filed by the respondent no.2 herein and is in respect of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The applicant is aggrieved by the order issuing process as passed by the learned Magistrate. As according to her, on receipt of the notice of demand, the applicant has paid the entire amount of cheque within the stipulated time by depositing the same in the account of the respondent no.2 i.e. the original complainant. According to the applicant, therefore, the prosecution of the applicant is totally mis-conceived and liable to be quashed. 3. I have perused the complaint, the order issuing process as passed by the Magistrate, the application for discharge made by the applicant before the Magistrate, the reply thereto given by the respondent no....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »