Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on : Dec-19-2012
Oral Judgment B.R. Gavai, J. 1] Rule. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard the matter finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2] Since the questions of law and fact are common in all these petitions, the petitions are heard together and are disposed of by passing the common judgment. 3] All the petitioners are the students and they had appeared for the Summer 2012 examination conducted by the respondent-University. The results of the petitioners were declared in the months of June-July-2012. Since the petitioners felt that the results did not depict their real performance, the petitioners applied for supply of photostat copies as provided under Direction 9 issued by the University. The petitioners, after the receipt of the Photostat copies, challenged the valuation, as provided under Clause 9 of the said Directions. Since, in case of all the petitioners along with all other students, the result of challenge to valuation was declared as No change, the petition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-26-2012
Oral Judgment: 1 The appellants are the accused in MCOC Special Case No.21 of 2006, pending before the Judge of the Special Court constituted under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'MCOC Act' for the sake of brevity). They are aggrieved by the order dated 1 August 2012 passed by the learned Trial Judge refusing to permit them to examine four witnesses in their defence. They have, therefore, approached this Court by filing an appeal as contemplated under section 12 of the MCOC Act, praying that the said order refusing to issue summonses to the said witnesses, be set aside and the appellants be allowed to lead defence evidence, as proposed by them. 2 The appellants are also aggrieved by two other orders passed by the learned Judge of the Special Court, and have filed separate appeals challenging the said orders also (Appeal No.973 of 2012 and 992 of 2012). Though the appeals were heard together, the questions needing determination in the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-06-2012
Oral Judgment: 1.By consent of parties, all the aforesaid company appeals were heard together on the preliminary issue raised by the respondents about the maintainability of appeal and are being disposed off by a common order. FACTS IN COMPANY APPEAL (L) NO. 47 OF 2012: 2. By this appeal under section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956, the appellant challenges the order dated 12th October, 2012 passed by the Company Law Board (For short CLB) by which the CLB allowed the company application filed by respondent No. 2 under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (For short the Arbitration Act, 1996) and referred the parties to arbitration as contemplated under Article 58 of the Articles of Association and clause 20.4 contained in the agreement and as per the provisions contained in the Arbitration Act, 1996. Respondent no. 2 had filed application under section 8 in Company Petition No. 57 of 2012 filed by the appellant under section 397 and 398 read with section 402 of Comp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Nov-06-2012
1. Heard learned Adv. Mr. R.S. Shinde for the appellants, and learned APP Mr. B.J. Sonwane for the respondent. 2. By the present appeal, filed by the appellants i.e. original accused nos.1 to 3, they have taken exception to the judgment and order dated 29-12-2004, rendered by the learned IInd Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule, in Sessions Case No. 87/2003, thereby convicting them for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, and sentencing them to suffer simple imprisonment for three years, and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for nine months, each, and also convicting them for the offence punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, and sentencing them to suffer simple imprisonment for five years, and to pay fine of Rs. 7,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple simple imprisonment for one year and three months, each. 3. The appellants are hereinaft...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-05-2012
(Oral Judgment): Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 2. Heard Mr. Thorat, learned senior counsel and Mr. Kumbhakoni, learned counsel for the respective parties. 3. Since all these petitions arise out of various orders passed in a single suit and parties to the suit are being same, I propose to dispose of these writ petitions by passing this common order. 4. Writ Petition Nos. 5822, 5828 and 5829 of 2012 arises out of trial court’s order rejecting the applications for bringing legal heirs of deceased plaintiff Nos. 2, 3, 8 and 9 on record. Writ Petition Nos. 4180 and 4181 of 2012 arises out of an order, whereby the legal heirs of deceased plaintiff Nos. 7 and plaintiff Nos. 10 and 12 are allowed to be brought on record. Writ Petition No. 4179 of 2012 arises out of an order of rejection of an application filed by defendant No.1 for dismissing the entire suit as abated. 5. For convenience, the parties to the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-05-2012
(Oral Judgment): Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 2. Heard Mr. Thorat, learned senior counsel and Mr. Kumbhakoni, learned counsel for the respective parties. 3. Since all these petitions arise out of various orders passed in a single suit and parties to the suit are being same, I propose to dispose of these writ petitions by passing this common order. 4. Writ Petition Nos. 5822, 5828 and 5829 of 2012 arises out of trial courts order rejecting the applications for bringing legal heirs of deceased plaintiff Nos. 2, 3, 8 and 9 on record. Writ Petition Nos. 4180 and 4181 of 2012 arises out of an order, whereby the legal heirs of deceased plaintiff Nos. 7 and plaintiff Nos. 10 and 12 are allowed to be brought on record. Writ Petition No. 4179 of 2012 arises out of an order of rejection of an application filed by defendant No.1 for dismissing the entire suit as abated. 5. For convenience, the parties to the petition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Oct-20-2012
U.D. Salvi, J. 1. These appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 31.12.2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-4, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No.307/2009. 2. Learned Additional Sessions Judge-4, Aurangabad convicted and imposed sentences on the appellants/ accused in Criminal Appeal No.19/2011 on different counts as under: i) The appellants/ accused in Criminal Appeal No.19/2011 were sentenced to suffer R.I. for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- each, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for six months each for commission of the offence punishable under Section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. ii) The appellant/ accused No.1 in Criminal Appeal No.19/2011 was sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, and in default of payment of fine to undergo further S.I. for one month for commission of the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. iii) The appellant/ accused No.2 in Criminal ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Oct-20-2012
U.D. Salvi, J. 1. These appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 31.12.2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-4, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No.307/2009. 2. Learned Additional Sessions Judge-4, Aurangabad convicted and imposed sentences on the appellants/ accused in Criminal Appeal No.19/2011 on different counts as under: i) The appellants/ accused in Criminal Appeal No.19/2011 were sentenced to suffer R.I. for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- each, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for six months each for commission of the offence punishable under Section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. ii) The appellant/ accused No.1 in Criminal Appeal No.19/2011 was sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, and in default of payment of fine to undergo further S.I. for one month for commission of the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. iii) The appellant/ accused No.2 in Criminal ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Decided on : Oct-17-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. P. S. Rao, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent. 2. By this appeal, the appellant takes exception to the judgment and order dated 30.6.2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vasco da Gama in Criminal Case no. 551/NIA/2008/D by which respondent has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the Act' for short). 3. The appellant is the original complainant. The complainant filed the above case through power of attorney holder Shri Prakash Sutar alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. According to the complainant, the accused had engaged services of the complainant for transporting iron ore since 2006 from M/s. Zeenath Transport Company Mines, Hospet to M/s. Sesa Industries Limited, Goa and while returning the complainant was transporting Met-coke for the accused from Mormugao Port Trust Harbour, V...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-16-2012
1.By this petition under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 petitioner seeks an order of injunction restraining the respondent in any manner utilizing the amount of Rs.14,59,19,989/- received by the respondent from encashment of the bank guarantee and for a direction to the respondent to secure the petitioner to the extent of the said amount by depositing the same in this court. The respondent has raised a preliminary objection about territorial jurisdiction of this court to entertain, try and dispose of the present petition filed under section 9 of the Act in its affidavit in reply. This court has thus directed both the parties to address this court on the preliminary objection raised by the respondent. Some of the relevant facts on this issue are as under: 2. By Piece Rate Work Contract executed on 16th June, 2010 at Chennai by and between the petitioner and respondent, the petitioner was awarded the project of construction of automotive test tracks at GARC, Chen...
Tag this Judgment!