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.
Rafiq Hayachand Role Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-2013
Oral Judgment: (A.R. Joshi, J.) 1) Heard rival arguments on this criminal appeal preferred by the appellant-sole accused challenging the judgment and order of conviction passed in Sessions Case No. 72 of 2008. The impugned judgment and order was passed by Sessions Judge, Kolhapur vide order dated 10th March, 2010; wherein present appellant accused was convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 read with section 201 of IPC. 2) For the offence of murder he was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to suffer RI for three months. For the offence under Section 201 of the IPC he was sentenced to suffer RI for one year and to pay Rs.1000/- in default to suffer RI for three months The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3) Apparently, from the date of the arrest till date the appellant-accused is in custody. He is represented by Advocate Dr Yug Mohit Chaudhary. 4) The case of the prosecution in nut-shell, is as under; Vict...
The Official Liquidator as the Liquidator of M/S.Crown Maritime Compan ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-2013
Oral Judgment: (Dr. Chandrachud, J.) This appeal arises from the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge dated 5 February 2009 by which a summary suit instituted under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.) has been decreed as prayed. 2. The respondent instituted a suit on the Original Side of this Court on 17 July 1998 against the appellant for the recovery of an amount of Rs.38,73,530.43 together with interest on the principal amount of Rs.25,23,360.00 at the rate of 30% per annum from the date of the institution of the suit till decree and thereafter until payment or realization. The case of the respondent is that on 24 September 1996, the appellant sought a quotation for the supply of M.S.Flanges and Bolt-Nuts. The respondent allegedly furnished its quotation on 27 September 1996. According to the respondent, the appellant accepted the quotation by placing an order on 28 September 1996. The respondent claims to have supplied the material on 5 October 1996 and a...
Smt. Savitrabai Sureshchandra Khatod Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-24-2013
Oral Judgment: Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent heard finally. 2. The petitioner has filed a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad against four persons alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 409 of IPC and Section 420 of IPC by them. In the complaint, the petitioner prayed that an order under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Hereinafter referred to as the Code) be passed. The learned Magistrate, after considering the avernments in the complaint, came to the conclusion that it was not proper to direct investigation into the matter as contemplated under Section 156(3) of the Code but, it would be sufficient, if the complaint is proceeded further by examining the complainant on oath as contemplated under Section 200 of the Code. The petitioner was not happy with this view of the Magistrate and challenged the Magistrates order by approaching the Court of Sessions...
Ganesh Manik Funde Vs. Mumbai University Through Its Legal Department ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-2013
1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally, by consent. 2 The petitioner seeks an order directing respondent no.1 to issue the mark-sheet and passing certificate in respect of the B.E. Course that he attended and examination in respect whereof he passed. 3 Respondent No.2 is the Director of Technical Education, Maharashtra. The 3rd Respondent College-Shivajirao S. Jondhale College of Engineering for the B.E. is recognized by the Government of Maharashtra and by the All India Council of Technical Education, New Delhi and is affiliated to Respondent No.1 - University of Mumbai. Respondent No.4 is Vidya Prakashak Mandals which runs Dr.V.N.Bedekar, Institute of Management Studies. 4 On 24th July 2002, in round 1A the petitioner had initially secured provisional admission for the same course in Parshwanath College, Vadavali, Thane. The petitioner, however, obtained admission to the 3rd respondent College in round 3A on 8th September 2002. The petitioner only paid the fees on 3...
Maneklal N. Shah Alias Kothari Vs. Municipal Corporation of Gr.Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-2013
Oral Order: 1 This appeal is preferred against judgment and order dated 10.1.2013 in L.C.Suit No.2597 of 2010 decided by City Civil Court, Mumbai, whereby the suit was dismissed on the ground that plaintiff had failed to prove that the impugned notice issued by Municipal Corporation under Section 351 of the Act on 22.3.2007 and the order dated 29.10.2010 are illegal, null and void, in the result the plaintiff was non-suited. Thus, appellant (original plaintiff) is in appeal. 2 Heard submissions at the bar. Learned advocate for the appellant contended that the appellant (original plaintiff) is tenant of shop which is subject matter of the notice. The shop was in existence since prior to 1962. It was taken on rent by the father of the appellant / plaintiff and appellant is carrying on business of his livelihood in the shop. It is grievance of the appellant that at the instance of owner / landlord of the premises, Municipal Corporation had issued notice under Section 351 of the Act earlie...
Greave Cotton Limited Vs. Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation and O ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-2013
Oral Order: 1 Heard submissions at the bar. The appeal is against oral order below Exhibit 1 in Special Civil Suit No.459 of 2010 passed by 7th Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, on 18.7.2012, when preliminary issue was raised regarding jurisdiction of the Civil court to entertain and try the suit in view of specific remedy provided of appeal under Section 406 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as BPMC Act). Learned Judge after hearing submissions considered that efficacious remedy which is available to the plaintiff was not exhausted by the plaintiff and that there was no any other remedy to challenge the unlawful levy of octroi by the defendant. Learned Judge after making reference to a ruling in Abdulla Bin Ali vs. Galappa reported in AIR 1985 Supreme Court 577, scrutinized the plaint to note the averments about the dispute as to deficit payment of octroi for the period 1999 to 2001 on the basis of which Municipal Corporation of Pimpri-Chinc...
BipIn Kumar Ramsagar Pandit @ Saxena Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-2013
Oral Order: 1 The applicant is the accused in C.R.No.135 of 2012 registered at the Anti Narcotics Cell, Mumbai. The allegation against him is of his having committed an offence punishable under section 21 and 22 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, (hereinafter referred to as the N.D.P.S. Act) read with section 8(c) thereof. 2 By the present application, he is seeking bail. 3 The prosecution case as reflected from the Brief facts of the case in Column No.16 of the printed prescribed proforma of the chargesheet is as follows:- That, API Fulpagare attached to the Property Cell, Crime Branch CID, received secret information at about 9.00 a.m on 26 June 2012 that a person by name Bipin Kumar Ram Singh Saxena, aged 38 40 years, residing at Oshiwara, Bhagat Singh Nagar, Goregaon (West) deals in psychotropic substance viz. Amphetamine white crystal powder and sells huge quantities thereof to his customers in Mumbai and its suburbs. That, on 26 June 2012, at about 14.20 hrs...
Shantilal J. Shah and Others Vs. Jitendra Sanghavi and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-2013
Oral Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) 1. The Appeal arises from an order of a learned Single Judge declining relief in a Motion which was taken out by the Appellants in a suit for specific performance. The Plaintiffs are in Appeal. 2. Respondents 1 to 3 are the owners of a property known as Padmavati Sadan at Matunga, Mumbai. An agreement was entered into between the Appellants and Respondents 1 to 3 for development of the property on 25 September 2007. The agreement records that the building is a cessed building in the occupation of tenants/occupants and is in a dilapidated condition requiring heavy repairs and/or reconstruction or redevelopment. By the agreement, the owners conferred upon the Appellants full development rights. The total consideration for the agreement was Rs.1.38 Crores in addition to which, as stipulated in Clause 2(b) and Clause 2(c) of the agreement, the owners were entitled to ownership rights in a carpet area ad-measuring 2000 sq. ft. of residential accommo...
ShirIn Baman Faramarzi of Bombay Zoroastrian Iranian Inhabitant Vs. Zu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-2013
Oral Judgment: By this chamber summons petitioner/plaintiff seeks amendment of the petition, as per schedule appended to the chamber summons and seeks permission to convert the petition for probate into petition for letters of administration with the Will annexed dated 24th January, 2002. 2. Petitioner is widow of late Boman Dinyar Faramarzi who died on 29th August, 2007. According to the petitioner, the said deceased had executed his last will and testament dated 22nd January, 2002. The said deceased had appointed Mr. Diniar Darab Mehta and Mr. Himanshu Kode, Advocate as executors of the said will. It is the case of the petitioner that since executors appointed by the said deceased did not take any steps to file any probate petition and in view of the fact that the earlier advocate on record appearing for the petitioner inadvertently filed petition for probate of the last will and testament of the said deceased in this court, inspite of filing petition for letters of administration wi...
Cipla Limited Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-2013
K.R. Shriram, J. 1 Rule. By consent of parties, rule made returnable forthwith. 2 The petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the order of respondent no.1 removing from the register the petitioner's trade mark CIPLA and a writ of mandamus directing him to restore to the register the petitioner's said trade mark. 3 The mark was registered with effect from 6.11.1945 as evidenced by a certificate of registration dated 10.02.1949. The registration was renewed from time to time and was last renewed for a period of 7 years on 6.11.1995 till 6.11.2002. Thereafter due to inadvertence the registration was not renewed. 4 Sometime in the first quarter of 2012, the petitioner came to know that its mark had been removed from the register due to non-renewal. The petitioner however, had not received any notice as per Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) from respondent no.1 notifying it of the date of expiration and the conditions a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »