Mumbai Court January 2014 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.
M/S. Sandeep Gas Agency Vs. Sakharam Tatoba Sutar and Another
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
Dhanraj Khamatkar, Member: 1. This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 11.07.2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolhapur in Consumer Complaint No.210/2012. 2. The facts leading to this appeal can be summarized as under: œThe Complainant/Respondent is a Gas connection holder of the Opponent No.1. He had applied for the gas cylinder on 20.01.2012 and according to Complainant the cylinder should have been delivered to him within 48 hours. On enquiring with the Opponent No.1 he could not get the proper response and was asked to take delivery from Opponent No.1s shop. The Opponent No.1 delivered the cylinder on 09.03.2012 i.e. after a gap of 48 days. On 17.03.2012 also he had booked the cylinder, however, the cylinder was delivered after a gap of 47 days. It is contended by the Complainant that after the booking within 48 hours the cylinder is to be delivered. Alleging non-supply of the cylinder within a reasonable time amounts to deficiency in serv...
Govindrao Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. S.W. Munde, the learned Counsel for the appellant. Heard Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondent no.1. Heard Mr. C.V. Thombre, the learned Counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3. Heard Mr. P.V. Balkhande, the learned Counsel for the respondent nos.4 and 5. 2. Admitted and taken up for final hearing forthwith, by consent. Calling for the record and proceedings dispensed with, by consent. 3. The appellant is the original complainant in Summary Criminal Case No. 588/2007, before the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Gangakhed. The respondent nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 are the original accused. The said case was in respect of the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. Due to the persistent absence of the appellant before the trial court, the Magistrate by an order dated 30-4-2013, acquitted the accused, as contemplated under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [For short, "the Code"]. Bei...
Smt. Suman Vs. Sau. Suman and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-08-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. The present second appeal is preferred, against judgment and order dated 31.7.1998, passed by the learned Joint District Judge, Amravati, in Regular Civil Appeal No.1 of 1993, which arose from the decree dated 31.10.1992, passed by learned 5th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Amravati, in Regular Civil Suit No.308 of 1991. 2. The facts in brief, are thus: The plaintiff “ landlord had filed a suit for recovery of possession of House No.199, Ward No.9, which was re-numbered as House No.600, Ward No.24 at Sham Nagar, Amravati. According to plaintiff “ landlord, defendant - Smt. Suman Wankhede was monthly tenant, paying rent at the rate of Rs.250/- per month inclusive of Municipal Taxes. She fell in arrears. Therefore, on the ground that she was habitual defaulter and house needed essential repairs which could not be carried out unless vacant possession was given by the tenant, the plaintiff “ landlord had applied to the Rent Controller, to grant perm...
Smt. Sushilabai and Others Vs. Smt. Kamlarukh and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-08-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the 5th Additional District Judge, Nagpur in Regular Civil Appeal No.56 of 1983 on 11.11.1993 thereby confirming the order passed below Exhibit-1 in Regular Civil Suit No.63 of 1982 on 26.11.1982 by 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur. 2. The original plaintiff/appellant, Sushilabai Byramji (now deceased) had filed a suit being Regular Civil Suit No.63 of 1982 against the respondents. The suit was for rendition of accounts, execution of the trusts, setting aside of the decree passed in Special Civil Suit No.230 of 1975 and injunction restraining the respondents-original defendants from alienating or encumbering the properties of the trust in the suit in any manner. Although such reliefs as rendition of accounts, execution of the trusts and grant of injunction were claimed, the suit was mainly for seeking the relief of declaration that the decree passed in Special Civil Suit No.230 of 1975 wa...
Govindrao Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-08-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. S.W. Munde, the learned Counsel for the appellant. Heard Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondent no.1. Heard Mr. C.V. Thombre, the learned Counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3. Heard Mr. P.V. Balkhande, the learned Counsel for the respondent nos.4 and 5. 2. Admitted and taken up for final hearing forthwith, by consent. Calling for the record and proceedings dispensed with, by consent. 3. The appellant is the original complainant in Summary Criminal Case No. 588/2007, before the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Gangakhed. The respondent nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 are the original accused. The said case was in respect of the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. Due to the persistent absence of the appellant before the trial court, the Magistrate by an order dated 30-4-2013, acquitted the accused, as contemplated under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [For short, "the Code"]. Bei...
Municipal Council, Bhandara, Through Its Chief Officer Vs. Vimal Widow ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-08-2014
Oral Judgment: 01. Learned Adv. Mr. Jibhkate for the petitioner, assailing the impugned Order dated 5th July, 2002, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhandara, in IDA Case No. 38 of 1999, argued that the very basis for claiming the wages under Section 33C.(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was non-existent, inasmuch as the original workman, whose legal heirs - wife and children had filed IDA application under Section 33C.(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, had expired prior to the date of passing of the Award in the matter of regularization of his services. The husband of the applicant _ Smt. Vimal had died on 6th July, 1996, while the Award was passed on 26th March, 1998 in Complaint [ULPN] Nos. 1561 to 1568 all of 1991. He, therefore, contended that such an Award was a nullity in law and the Award, which was nullity in law, could not be enforced under Section 33C.(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for demanding wages under the said Award. 02. Mr. Jibhkate ...
Ganpat Janu Wagh Vs. Vanmala and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-08-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 8th September 1998 delivered by the Additional District Judge, Khamgaon in Regular Civil Appeal No. 47 of 1990 confirming the judgment and order dated 30th July 1990 passed by the Civil Judge, JD, Jalgaon (Jamod), District Buldana in Regular Civil Suit No. 50 of 1981 whereby suit of the plaintiffs (present respondents no. 1 and 2) was decreed. In that, original defendants no. 1 and 2 were directed to deliver possession of suit property i.e. Gat No. 5/6, area 1.21 HR situated at village Khamkhed, residential house situated in Ward No. 10, Jalgaon (Jamod) described in plaint paragraph 3 to the plaintiff. It was the grievance of the plaintiffs Vanmala and Sunanda that 1st defendant i..e Ganpat Janu without any right, title or interest, sold gat no. 5/6 situated at Khamkhed, Tahsil Jalgaon Jamod, District Buldana to Vasant Sakharam (original defendant no.2) vide sale deed dated 23.2.1981 for a sum of Rs. 6500/-. Contenti...
Mrs. Shailaja Sunil Kolpe Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-2014
M.S. Sonak, J. 1. Rule. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents, the Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. The main challenge in this petition is to the vires of 'Explanation' to Rule 3 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis (Manner and Rotation of Reservation of Seats) Rules, 1996, on the grounds that the same travels beyond the substantive provision contained in Section 12 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 and further violates the provisions of the Constitution of India. 3. The aforesaid Rule 3 and Section 12 concerns determination of number of seats to be reserved for the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Class of citizens and women for general election to the Zilla Parishad. 4. From the averments in the petition however, the Petitioner appears to be concerned with election of Panchayat Samiti, Taluka Velhe, in respect of which the post of Chair Person has been reserved for Scheduled Tribe Wo...
Shivaji Tukaram Ambekar Vs. Dr. B. S. Patil
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-2014
Oral Order: R. C. Chavan, President: [1] Heard Adv. Umesh Mangave on behalf of the Appellant and Dr. Gopinath Shenoy, authorized representative on behalf of the Respondent. [2] Today this appeal has been listed on Board for hearing on admission. Dr. Gopinath Shenoy, authorized representative of the Respondent contended that the appeal itself is barred by limitation since the Appellant had in fact received the impugned order on 19/04/2010, as mentioned by the Appellant in paragraph (01) of the appeal memo itself and, therefore, filing of the present appeal on 19/04/2011 is hopelessly time-barred. This contention has to be rejected firstly because even according to the gist of order-sheet which he has made available for my perusal, on 19/04/2010, the Appellant/Complainant was absent and the complaint was not admitted by the Forum. Respondent cannot take advantage of clerical error in paragraph (01) of the appeal memo where the words should have been used as decided on or rejected on. Thi...
Land T Finance Limited Vs. Vardhman Chemtech Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-2014
P. C. 1. By this Petition filed under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 the petitioner seeks appointment of Court Receiver, injunction in respect of the properties described at Exhibit G, for an order of deposit in the sum of Rs.3,78,01,512/- with further interest thereon and for an order and direction against the respondents to disclose the location of the properties. A few relevant facts for deciding this Petition are as under : 2. Vide loan agreement dated 19.11.2010 entered into between the petitioner and respondent no.1 the petitioner granted a loan of Rs.10 crores to the respondents on terms and conditions described in the said agreement. The respondent nos. 2 to 4 were the guarantors of respondent no.1 in respect of the said loan and executed a deed of guarantee in favour of the petitioner. The respondent no.1 was liable to repay the entire amount with interest to the petitioner in instalments. It is the case of the petitioners that since the respondents co...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »