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.
Suresh Sakhabapu Deshmukh and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra Thro ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-23-2013
Oral Judgment: (Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith and the petitions are taken up for final disposal. 3. All these petitions question the decision taken in Cabinet Meeting by the State Government on 5.1.2009 to bifurcate Aurangabad Revenue Division and to create a separate Revenue Division for Nanded, Latur, Parbhani and Hingoli districts with it's headquarter at Nanded. The petitioners submit that this was not the subject scheduled on agenda of the Cabinet Meeting and was taken up at eleventh hour. The Cabinet decision expected administration to follow the legal provisions and to comply with the statutory requirements. However, without taking any such steps, directly, as if the Revenue Division stands created with headquarter at Nanded, the budgets were prepared. Our attention has also been invited to orders passed in present Writ Petitions on 15.1.2009 and order dated 10.11.2006 in Writ Petition ...
M/S.Ruby Organics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/S. Sai Mirra Innopharm Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-2013
P.C. By this Notice of Motion, defendants seek that dispute between the plaintiffs and the defendants be referred to the arbitration as per the provisions of section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this Notice of Motion are summarized as under:- 2. On 26th May, 2006, an agreement was entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendants for supply of products described as per Annexture 2. Annexture 2 to the said agreement refers to one product viz. Pepciflam Tablets of pack size 10 x 10 at transfer price of Rs.11.43. Clause 13 of the said agreement provides for arbitration in case of dispute or differences if arisen between the parties. Clause 13 of the said agreement is extracted as under:- 13. Any dispute or difference which may at any time arise between the parties hereto As to the construction meaning or effect hereof or as to any clause, matter or thing Herein contained or as to the rights or liabilities of t...
Vyankati Baliram Nilawad and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra and O ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-21-2013
Oral Order:- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant at length. Heard the learned counsel for the respondent No.3. Heard the learned APP. 2. The respondent no.3 is an employee of the Municipal Council, Beed. He has filed a complaint against the applicants who are the officers of the said Municipal Council. One of the accused is the Deputy Director of Health Services of Government of Maharashtra. The allegations levelled in the complaint are in respect of the offences punishable under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 166 of IPC, 323 of IPC, 504 of IPC and 506 of the IPC. After the complaint was filed, certain orders came to be passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Beed who is also a Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act. By an order dated 2.8.2013, the learned Special Judge directed the Police to investigate into the matter under the provisions of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicants have ...
Prashant Babusaheb Ghiramkar Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-2013
P.C. (S.C. Gupte, J.) 1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. By consent of Counsel, the Petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. By this Petition which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner is seeking an appropriate writ, order and direction, directing Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to shift the Headquarter and Sub-divisional Office at Daund as far as Daund and Purandar Taluka is concerned. 3 Petitioner is aggrieved by the Notification dated 26 June 2013 issued by Respondents in which the Headquarter and Sub-Divisional Office of Purandar and Daund Talukas is shown at Pune, though in the draft Notification, the Headquarter is shown at Purandar (Saswad). 4 Brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding this Petition are as under : On 26 June 2012, the State of Maharashtra issued a draft notification under Sub-section (4) of Section 4 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (the MLR Code) calling for objections and suggestions for constituting / modifying 18...
Mumbai Cricket Association Vs. Ratnakar Shivram Shetty and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-2013
Oral Judgment: Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent heard finally in view of an urgency. 2 Respondents 2 to 18 are supporting members of Appellant-original Defendant No.1 served privately and in view of averments made in para 4 and as the statement is made that they will file vakalatnama and as the same one Advocate appeared in the trial court, by Tuesday, 24 September 2013. They are formal parties. No separate reliefs claimed against these members. Mr. A.N. Narula, Advocate appeared for Respondent No.19. Respondent No.20 has now nominated Respondent No.1/original Plaintiff served. THE CASE 3 The Appellant-Mumbai Cricket Association (the MCA), Defendant No.1, has challenged Order dated 7 September 2013 passed by the Judge, City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai, in favour of Respondent No.1, Plaintiff, the operative part of which is as under : Notice of Motion No.2484/13 is partly made absolute. Defendant No.1 is restrained by way of temporary injunction from acting upon their decision to ...
Smt. Shobha Omprakash Agarwal and Others Vs. M/S Maganlal and Sons
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-2013
Oral Judgment: Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 2 The Appellants-original Defendants have challenged order dated 10 March 2011 passed by the Principal District Judge, Pune. The operative portion of the order reads as under: (1) The application is allowed with costs. (2) The non-applicants/defendants, their agents, servants and relatives are restrained from infringing the trade mark by selling the Chikki and other products at their shops by using the trade mark Maganlal and advertise the material. (3) The non-applicants/defendants, their servants, and relatives are directed to remove all the material, as detailed supra, during the pendency of the present suit. (4) The non-applicants/defendants are directed to destroy all the wrappers, cartons, advertisements and material. (5) The present order shall come into effect after a period of three weeks from the date of passing of the said order. (6) Application to grant...
Union of India Through General Manager Vs. Mrs. Usha Ramniklal Kamdar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-2013
1. By this Appeal, the appellant Railway Administration has challenged validity and legality of the judgment and award dated 17 July 2005 passed by Railway Accident Claims Tribunal in Original Application No.290 of 2003 whereby the Tribunal awarded sum of Rs.1,20,000/- to the claimant payable within 60 days from the date of the order failing which liable to pay interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the order till realization. 2. The facts stated briefly are that respondent claimant on the date of incident, was waiting to board the train at Platform No.4 at Borivali Station for MiyagamKarjan station. On the platform, there was chaos and overcrowding when the train arrived as passengers proceeded to board the train with their luggage. Due to commotion while boarding the train, claimant fell down between the gap of platform and the train and received serious injuries, as a result of which her two fingers, including index fingers were amputed, and she had to take long medical treatment....
Adarsh Water Parks and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Abdul Rashid ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-2013
By this chamber summons, applicants seek their impleadment as party defendant in a suit. 2. Plaintiffs have filed a suit (396/06) in this Court inter alia praying for specific performance of agreement entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendants on 16th August 2005 in respect of the properties described in the plaint. It is the case of the applicants that in respect of part of the property which is subject matter of the suit i.e. C.T.S. No.354, 354/1 to 56, 355, 355/1 to 17 of village Kanjur, Taluka Kurla, Bhandup (W), Mumbai 400 078, applicants have acquired right, title and interest in respect of the said part of land admeasuring about 4934.10 sq. meters from Eric Nocholas D'mello and others by a registered development agreement dated 22 April 2008. Applicants came to be in possession of the said part of the property under the said development agreement dated 22 April 2008. It is the case of the applicants that part of the suit property was encroached upon by the slum-dwell...
Macchindranath Adiwasi Masemari Sahkari Sanstha and Others Vs. the Sta ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-20-2013
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) Heard. 2. Admit. By consent of the parties, the appeal is taken up for final hearing. 3. Heard Smt. Sirpurkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Shri M.K.Pathan, learned AGP for respondents 1 to 5 and Smt. Sonali Saware, learned Advocate for respondent no.9. 4. This appeal takes exception to the Judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition, which was, in turn, filed challenging the order of the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies (Fisheries) thereby dismissing the appeal on the ground that it was not accompanied by an application for condonation of delay. 5. This Court in the case of Madhaos/o Somaji Sarode vs. Jotiba Dhyan Upasak Shikshan Sanstha,Dudhala and others, reported in (2004(3)Mh.L.J., 1078, relying on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. And another vs. Pradeep Kumar and another, reported in 2000(7) Supreme Court Cas...
Deepak Balkrishna Vahikar and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-2013
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. The present Public Interest Litigation has been instituted for the effective implementation of the provisions of the Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Protection and Preservation of Trees Act, 1975. In exercise of the powers conferred by the Act, the State Government has framed the Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Protection and Preservation of Trees Rules, 2009. 2. The city of Pune covers an area of 243.48 square kilometers. The city has expanded in the last several decades by leaps and bounds resulting in a reduction in the green cover. As the population has expanded, unregulated development has resulted in a rapid deterioration of green areas in the city. The Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Protection and Preservation of Trees Act, 1975 (`the Act') provides for the establishment of a Tree Authority in Section 3. The Tree Authority is to consist of a Chairperson who is to be the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation and not less than five and not more than fifteen persons ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »