Mumbai Aurangabad Court November 2010 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.
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Sadashiv Maroti Doke
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-30-2010
:-1 This Writ Petition is filed, challenging the validity and legality of the Award passed in Reference (IDA) No. 26 of 1986 dated 20th November, 1990.The brief facts of the case are as under :-2 The respondent No. 1 herein filed Reference (IDA) No. 26 of 1986 before the Labour Court, praying therein to reinstatement, back- wages and for continuation of service in the employment of petitioner as a watchman. It is the case of respondent No. 1 that he was appointed as a watchman at Vedkinhi to look after plantation of the trees and to protect said plaints. He was appointed on 19th July, 1980, and he was removed from service on 1st April, 1983. It is the contention of the respondent No. 1 that when he was removed from service he was getting Rs. 150/- monthly salary. It is further submitted that while removing the respondent No. 1 from the employment of the petitioners, no one month notice or compensation in lieu of notice was not given, and therefore, the said action of the petitioners to...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Rama Rangnath Tambe
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-30-2010
:-1 This Writ Petition is filed, challenging the validity and legality of the Award passed in Reference (IDA) No. 25 of 1986 dated 20th November, 1990.The brief facts of the case are as under :-2 The respondent No. 1 herein filed Reference (IDA) No. 25 of 1986 before the Labour Court, praying therein to reinstatement, back- wages and for continuation of service in the employment of petitioner as a watchman. It is the case of respondent No. 1 that he was appointed as a watchman at Rajuri to look after plantation of the trees and to protect said plants. He was appointed on 11th August, 1980 and he was removed from service on 1st May, 1983. It is the contention of the respondent No. 1 that when he was removed from service he was getting Rs. 150/- monthly salary.It is further contended that while removing the respondent No. 1 from the employment of the petitioners, no one month notice or compensation in lieu of notice was given, and therefore, the said action of the petitioners to remove t...
Seema D/O Suryakant Mitkari and ors. Vs. the Directorate of Technical ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-30-2010
: 1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself.2 By the present petition, filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prayed for issuance of appropriate writ or directions to quash and set aside the order dated 13.8.2007, passed by respondent no.2 Divisional Caste Scrutiny Verification Committee, Aurangabad.3 The petitioner is a student pursuing education of Electrical Engineer in Mahatma Basaweshwar Education Societies College of Engineering at Ambejogai and claims to be belonging to the caste 'Lingader' notified as Scheduled Caste34 recognized under the Constitution (Scheduled Caste) Order, 1950.4 Respondent no.1 is the State of Maharashtra, represented through its Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Mantralaya, Mumbai and respondent no.2 is the Divisional Caste Scrutiny Verification Committee for SC, VJNT, OBC &...
Rajkamal Talkies and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra,
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-29-2010
(Per B.R. Gavai, J.) :1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.2. By way of present petition, the petitioners have challenged the resolutions passed by the respondent no.3 / Municipal Corporation, dated 8th February 2010 and 20th February 2010, thereby fixing the rate of theatre tax at the rate of Rs. 100/- per show, in so far as cinema theatres are concerned.3. It is not in dispute, that all the petitioners before this Court are running cinema theatres. It is the contention of the petitioners, that by the impugned resolutions, the rate of tax has been increased from Rs. 15/- to Rs. 100/- i.e. almost seven times. It is also the contention of the petitioners, that in view of Section 149 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (For short, hereinafter referred to as "BPMC Act"), it is not permissible for the Corporation to levy theatre tax unless rules are framed in that regard and a prior approval of the State Government is taken for the said rules.4. ...
Vitthal S/O Nagorao Chapote Vs. Divisional Controller
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-29-2010
:1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent.2] By order dated 17/8/2010, two weeks time was granted to file the terms/minutes of the order which was filed before the Industrial Court, Jalna. The learned counsel for the petitioner has now placed on record certified copy of the purshis of settlement.3] It is surprising to note that inspite of the settlement purshis dated 14/10/09 being on record, the Industrial Court,Jalna, has passed the impugned order on 2/11/2009 on merits. The impugned order therefore, deserves to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. 4] The learned counsel for the respondents concedes that the settlement purshis was infact signed and filed in Industrial Court, he however, objects to any reliefs being granted against the respondents in the above petitions. The objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents is stated merely to be rejected in view of the settlement purshis which has admittedly been signed by the parties and whic...
Shaikh Babamiya Usman Vs. All R/O. Momainpura
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-29-2010
:-1 This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 7.4.1988 passed by learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar in Misc. Application No. 91 of 1986, thereby dismissing application for condonation of delay.2 The facts, which necessitates to file this petition, are as under;- It is the case of the petitioners that they are residents of Sangamner and are beneficiaries and interested persons of Masjid known as new Momainpura Masjid registered as public Trust bearing PR.T No. B-85. The respondent Nos. 1 and 3 are trustees of new amalgamated trust.It is further case of the petitioners that in or about 1981 respondent Nos. 1 to 3 preferred an application to respondent No.4 under Section 50A (2) of the Bombay Public Trust Act (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as "the said Act") for amalgamation of new Momainpura Masjid and another Masjid. It is further case of the petitioners that on 12.8.1981, respondent No.4 i.e. Joint Charity Commissioner passed an exparte or...
Vasant Laxman Galande Vs. Smt. Shakuntala Shankarrao Kolse and ors.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-26-2010
:1. This writ petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 24th December, 1990 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune-1 in Revision Application No. MRT/AH/III/2/88(TNC).B.46/88) arising out of Tenancy Case No.112of 1982 and Tenancy Appeal No. 24 of 1986.2. The brief facts of the case are as under: The suit land was of ownership of Namdeo Vithoba Dhanavate, who was lunatic on 1st April, 1957 and he died on 20th June, 1971. Heir-ship of Namdeo was devolved on applicants and his wife Godabai who died on 16th October, 1981. The applicants and Godabai had filed T.C. No.7/1974 for obtaining possession from the opponent i.e. present petitioner on the grounds that the opponent i.e. present petitioner had failed to intimate his willingness to purchase the suit land on the date of death of original landlord Namdeo Vithoba Dhanavate, who died under mental disability on 20th June, 1971.The Additional Tahsildar, who had conducted the T.C. NO.2/74 ordered disposal of the suit l...
Laxman Raghunath Galande. Vs. Smt. Shakuntala Shankarrao Kolse, Adult. ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-26-2010
1. This writ petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 24th December, 1990 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune-1 in Revision Application No. MRT/AH/III/2/88(TNC).B.46/88) arising out of Tenancy Case No.112of 1982 and Tenancy Appeal No. 24 of 1986.2. The brief facts of the case are as under: The suit land was of ownership of Namdeo Vithoba Dhanavate, who was lunatic on 1st April, 1957 and he died on 20th June, 1971. Heir-ship of Namdeo was devolved on applicants and his wife Godabai who died on 16th October, 1981. The applicants and Godabai had filed T.C. No.7/1974 for obtaining possession from the opponent i.e. present petitioner on the grounds that the opponent i.e. present petitioner had failed to intimate his willingness to purchase the suit land on the date of death of original landlord Namdeo Vithoba Dhanavate, who died under mental disability on 20th June, 1971.The Additional Tahsildar, who had conducted the T.C. NO.2/74 ordered disposal of the suit la...
Shri Sadashiv Ragho Kolambe, and ors. Vs. Shri Sardar Khandu Tadvi, an ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-16-2010
1. These petitions take exception to the judgment and order dated 2nd July, 2991 passed by the Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Bombay Camp at Jalgaon in Rev.Trb. Nos.23, 24, 27 and 28 of 1989.2. The brief facts of the case are as under: The suit land bearing Survey No.44 of village Sangavi originally belonged to the predecessors of the respondents. The suit land was divided into seven parts allotting one share to the seven persons separately with respect to the part of the land held by them. The cases were decided by the Trial authorities i.e. the Assistant Collector, Jalgaon Division, Jalgaon, by initiating proceedings in the year, 1976. The cases were kept pending for some years till the final decision of the Lingappa Pochanna's case was pronounced by the Supreme Court. The Tahsildar, Yawal had decided the cases on 31st October, 1985 in favour of the respondents. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellants non tribal preferred appeals against the said order before the Mah...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›