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.
Dena Bank Vs. Apple Finance Limited and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-2013
By this Chamber Summons, plaintiff seeks amendment of the plaint in terms of schedule annexed thereto. 2. Plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants for a declaration that the sale under the agreement dated 31st December, 2005 executed between the plaintiff and the defendant nos. 1 and 2 in respect of the plaintiff's 14% and 15.5% AAA-III series debentures to the defendant no.2 is bad in law and not binding on the plaintiff on the ground that the tripartite agreement under which plaintiff's 14% and 15.5% AAA-III series fully secured non-convertible debentures were transferred to defendant no.2 which transfer was induced by gross misrepresentation by the defendants, resulting into a huge financial loss to the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff was the owner of 500 14% AAA-III secured redeemable non-convertible debentures issued by defendant no.1 on 30th December, 1997 and on or about 25th June, 1998 2000 15.5% AAA-III secured redeemable non-convertib...
Satish @ Sanjay Dagadu Padwal Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-26-2013
Oral Judgment: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner. 2 Rule. 3 By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 4 By consent, heard finally. 5 The Petitioner had filed a complaint against Respondent No.2 herein, alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 420 of the IPC and Section 406 of the IPC by him. Being aggrieved by the order issuing process, Respondent No.2 challenged the said order by filing an application for revision in the Court of Sessions. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad, who heard the revision application, allowed it, set aside the order issuing process and directed the complaint to be dismissed, as contemplated under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Sessions Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, the Petitioner has approached this Court, invoking its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 6 I have gone through the complaint, a copy of...
Mohammed Arshad Iqbal Abdul Rashid Vs. Divakar S/O Bhagwanrao Pawar an ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-26-2013
Oral Judgment: 1 Rule. 2 By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 3 The Petitioner is the Complainant in S.C.C. No.3630 of 2012, which was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aurangabad (Court No.1). Respondent No.1 is the sole accused in the said case. There are two other cases pending against Respondent No.1 herein, i.e. S.C.C. No.3699 of 2012 and S.C.C. No.3958 of 2012. All these three cases were pending in three difference Courts of Judicial Magistrates. All these cases are in respect of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 4 Respondent No.1 made an application before the learned Sessions Judge for directing all the said three cases to be tried by and before one and a single Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge, Aurangabad on 4th March, 2013, passed an order withdrawing the cases S.C.C. No.3630 of 2012 and S.C.C. No.3699 of 2012 from the Courts where they were pending and transferring the same to...
Rajani Vishwas Patil Vs. the Central Bureau of Investigation and Anoth ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-25-2013
Oral Order: 1. Heard Mr. V.D.Sapkal, the learned counsel for the applicant. Heard Mr. D.N.Salvi the learned counsel for respondent no.1-CBI. None appears for the respondent no.2, when called out. 2. The applicant is the widow of one Shri V.G.Patil who was murdered on 21.09.2005, at Jalgaon. On the basis of the First Information Report lodged by one Mr. Panditrao Mahajan in that regard, a crime was registered at Zilla Peth Police Station, Jalgaon and investigation commenced. The investigation was, thereafter, transferred to the State CID and two accused namely Raju Mali and Raju Chintaman Sonwane (respondent No.2 herein) were arrested by the CID. It appears that, the applicant was not satisfied with the investigation and therefore, approached this Court by filing a writ petition seeking a direction for transfer of the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the respondent no.1 herein. The said petition was allowed and that is how the investigation came to be transfer...
Walchandnagar Industries Limited, Through Its Authorized Representativ ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-2013
1. This writ petition filed by the original defendant No.1 takes exception to the order dated 28-11-2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, allowing Exhibit 68 the application for amendment under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code filed by the plaintiffs in Special Civil Suit No.590 of 2011, after conclusion of the cross-examination of one witness, viz. Mahendra Manilal Shah, examined by the plaintiffs. 2. It was a suit for declaration that there is a concluded conditional contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant No.1 for transfer of right, title and interest in the suit property in favour of the defendant No.2 and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.1 from dealing with the suit property in any manner prejudicial to the interest of the plaintiffs. By way of amendment, which has been allowed by the Trial Court, a relief of specific performance of contract and for possession of the suit property, has been asked for and certain...
Manoj Karam Vs. Ram Tuljiram Shahani and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-2013
Original Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) The appeal arises from a judgment of a Learned Single Judge dated 21 June 2013, which has been rendered in a Chamber Summons which was taken out by the Appellant for being brought on the record in execution proceedings arising out of a consent decree, in his capacity as an executor of a will alleged to have been executed by the original Third Defendant. The Third Defendant died and the Appellant has instituted proceedings for probate which are pending. The Learned Single Judge dismissed the Chamber Summons on the ground that unless the rights of the Appellant as sole executor are 'finalised' or decided by the Court upon the grant of probate, it was not open to the Appellant to seek to be joined in the execution proceedings. 2. In a partition suit of 1989, Consent Terms were arrived at on 7 February 2008. The suit was decreed in terms of the Consent Terms. Clause (1) of the Consent Terms related to a flat in a building called Shyam Nivas. Th...
Atul Sahebrao Patil Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-25-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. The petitioner is the accused in RCC No.459/2010 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Osmanabad. The said case arises on a complaint filed by the respondent No.2 herein and is in respect of an offence punishable u/s. 420 of the Indian Penal Code. After examining the respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred to as the complainant for the sake of convenience and clarity), the Chief Judicial Magistrate formed an opinion that a prima facie case of an offence p/u/s 420 of the Indian Penal Code was made out and hence, by his order dated 28.12.2010 directed issue of process requiring the petitioner to appear and answer to the charge of an offence p/u/s 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Being aggrieved by the order issuing process, the petitioner approached the Court of Sessions by filing an application for revision, but, the learned Additional Sessions Judge who heard the revision application was of the view that order issuing process was proper, legal and correct. Holdi...
Walchandnagar Industries Limited, Through Its Authorized Representativ ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-2013
Common Judgment: 1. Writ Petition No.722 of 2013 filed by the original defendant No.1 takes exception to the order dated 28-11-2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, allowing Exhibit 68 the application for amendment under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code filed by the plaintiffs in Special Civil Suit No.590 of 2011, after conclusion of the cross-examination of one witness, viz. Mahendra Maniklal Shah, examined by the plaintiffs. 2. It was a suit for declaration that there is a concluded conditional contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant No.1 for transfer of right, title and interest in the suit property in favour of the defendant No.2 and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.1 from dealing with the suit property in any manner prejudicial to the interest of the plaintiffs. By way of amendment, which has been allowed by the Trial Court, a relief of specific performance of contract and for possession of the suit property, ha...
Superintending Agriculture Officer Vs. Ramdas Sampatrao Puri
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-24-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 11.07.2003 passed by Member, Industrial Court, Amravati in Complaint ULP No.79 of 1991 ordering promotion of the respondent from the post of Peon to the post of Driver w.e.f. 11.07.1986 by an affirmative relief, the State of Maharashtra preferred this writ petition against the said judgment and order. 2. In support of the writ petition the learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms Jachak argued that the promotion to the post of driver is governed by the Drivers of Motor Cars and Jeeps in Government Office (Recruitment) Rules, 1980 published on 14th November, 1980, and conditions for appointment by promotion and in particular 2(a) read with (c)(iv) the condition of not less than three years experience of driving the motor vehicle other than motorcycle is the requirement. According to her, the respondent-complainant did not possess the experience of three years and therefore, was not qualified to claim promotion to the pos...
Mrs. Meenakshi Naresh Thakur Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through the ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-2013
G.S. Patel, J. 1. Rule. Mrs. Kantharia, learned APP waives service on behalf of the Respondents. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith and Petition called out for hearing and final disposal. 2. This is a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Petitioner is the wife of one Naresh Singh Sumer Singh Thakur (NareshSingh). The challenge in this Petition is to an Externment Order dated 18th June 2013 passed by the Respondent No. 2, and an Appellate Order passed by Mr. Vineet Agarwal, the 1st Respondent, confirming the Externment Order dated 28th August 2013, by which Naresh Singh has been externed from the limits of Greater Mumbai, Mumbai Suburban, Thane and Raigad districts for the period of two years. We have, with the able assistance of Mr. Khan, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, and Ms. Kantharia, Learned APP, considered the contents of the Petition and the annexures thereto. 3. The externment proceedings are under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Bombay Poli...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »