Mumbai Aurangabad Court November 2015 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.
Shehzadi Vs. The Chief Executive Officer, Maharashtra State Board of W ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-30-2015
1. The revision is filed against judgment and order of Waqf Suit No. 52/2007, which was pending before the Waqf Tribunal, Aurangabad. The suit was filed by present petitioners for relief of declaration and injunction. The order dated 18.4.2007 made by the Chief Officer of the Waqf Board in case No. 17/2005 was challenged and declaration was claimed that the order is illegal, null and void. Relief of injunction was claimed against the Chief Officer of the Waqf Board to prevent him from taking possession of immovable property on the basis of the order dated 18.4.2007. The Tribunal has dismissed the suit. Both the sides are heard. 2. There is dispute between the petitioners and respondents about the properties bearing C.T.S. Nos. 1199, 1205, 1201 and 1202 situated at Narayangaon, Tahsil Junnar, District Pune. Respondent Hajimiya s/o. Abdul Kadar Qureshi is a Namazi and he is also involved in the management of Shahi Jumma Masjid of Narayangaon. It is his contention that the aforesaid prope...
Mula Pravara Electric Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. The Maharashtra St ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-27-2015
1. The proceeding is filed to challenge the order made on preliminary issue, of jurisdiction framed in Special Civil Suit No. 5/2011 which is pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar. In a suit filed by present respondent, Electricity Distribution Company, a Company of the State Government for recovery of the amount of Rs. 23,16,98,49,078.85 (Rupees Two thousand three hundred sixteen Crore ninety eight lakhs forty nine thousand seventy eight and paisa eighty five) in respect of electricity supplied to present applicant, the present applicant had filed application at Exh. 63 for framing preliminary issue. Applicant had contended that the suit is barred by section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) and the dispute mentioned in the plaint is covered by section 91 of the Act. The trial Court framed the preliminary issue by the order dated 10.4.2014. Opportunity was given to bot...
Beersing Charan Karosiya and Others Vs. Tanhabai Pratap Karosiya and O ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-26-2015
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard both the sides by consent for final disposal. 2. The present proceeding is filed to challenge the judgment and order of Regular Civil Appeal No.271 of 2009 which was pending in the Court of the Principal District Judge, Ahmednagar. The appeal was filed by the present respondent Nos.1 and 2 to challenge the decision of application which was filed under section 383 of the Indian Succession Act 1925 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). In the application bearing Civil Misc. Application No.81/2008 the present respondent Nos.1 and 2 had challenged the succession certificate granted in favour of present petitioners in Misc. Application No.91/2007 which was filed under section 372 of the Act. The trial Court had refused to revoke the succession certificate but the appeal is allowed by the District court and the certificate is revoked. 3. The application bearing No.91/2007 which was filed under section 372 of the Act was filed by present petiti...
Municipal Council (Nagar Parishad) Vs. Vikas Machindra Mane and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-26-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. The petitioner in these three petitions is the Municipal Council, Osmanabad. The daily wage employees involved in these three petitions are represented by the respondent No.1 Union. This Union had preferred Complaint (ULP) Nos. 395 of 1991, 468 of 1990 and 93 of 1989 before the Industrial Court, seeking benefits of permanency for the workers mentioned in the Annexure to the complaints. By identical three judgments, dated 11.1.1996, all these three complaints have been allowed. The petitioner has questioned these three judgments in these petitions. 2. Since all the daily wage employees, represented by the respondent Union are identically situated and an identical question of law is involved, I have considered these three petitions together. 3. While admitting these petitions, this Court has protected the services of the daily wage employees. Consequentially, barring a few who have retired, all such employees are in employment and all of them have been granted regulariz...
Maharashtra Krishna Vally Development Corporation Vs. M/s. S.D. Shinde ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-23-2015
1. The appeal and revision are filed to challenge the judgment and order of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar in Arbitration Application No. 1/1997 and Regular Civil Suit No. 5/1997. Both the proceedings are decided at the same time by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division. In the suit, decision is given, by which decree is given on the basis of award of Arbitral Tribunal. The application filed by employer, present appellant for setting aside the award is dismissed. Both the sides are heard. It appears that some of the partners of the contractor got separated and so, different advocates appeared for the partners in the present proceedings and all of them were allowed to argue the matter. However, they argued in support of the decision of the Civil Court and in support of the award delivered by so called arbitrator. 2. Krishna Vally Development Corporation is a State Corporation and it had given the work of construction of canal to respondent M/s. S.D. Shinde and Compa...
7 Star Distilleries (Formerly known as V.L.R. And Co. Vs. Kopargaon Sa ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-21-2015
1. The Respondent-plaintiff filed RCS No.3/2004, making a grievance about infringement of the Copy Right of its label at Annexure A to the plaint by the defendants by reproducing the same in material form and/or printing publishing or using the disputed labels. The plaintiff sought for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from committing the acts of infringement. The plaintiff also prayed for damages to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac) each against the defendants Nos.1 and 2, so also sought mandatory injunction directing the defendants to deliver to the plaintiff for destruction the infringed labels. The plaintiff also complained about passing of infringement of trade-mark. However, subsequently restricted its case to the extent of infringement of copyright. The trial Court initially dismissed the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff filed First Appeal bearing No.734/2012 before this Court. This Court vide judgment and order dated 10.1.2014, set aside the decree ...
Indus Towers Limited Vs. Ashatai
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-18-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard both the sides for final disposal of the revision application. 2. Present proceedings are filed to challenge the order dated 10.12.2013 made on Exhibit 9 in Special Civil Suit No.349/2012 by learned VIth Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad. The application at Exhibit 9 was filed by present petitioner “ defendant under the provision of Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and he had prayed for return of the plaint. The said application is rejected by the learned trial Court. 3. The suit is filed in respect of the amount, which is due to plaintiff from defendant in respect of supply of diesel. It is the case of the plaintiff that as per the purchase order dated 23.7.2008, the plaintiff had supplied diesel during contract period to the defendant, but only some amount is paid by the defendant and the suit amount is still outstanding against the defendant. It is contended that even after m...
Sangita Banshiram Jajage and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra Throu ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-16-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, heard finally. 2. Writ Petition No. 10484 of 2012 takes exception to the order dated 8th November, 2012 passed by Respondent No.2, thereby regularizing the services of Respondent No.5 Smt. Vaishali Digambar Choudhari w.e.f. 15th July, 2008. The petitioner seeks further directions to Respondents to grant B.Ed. Pay scale to the petitioner w.e.f. 1st June, 2008. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner, who possesses the qualification of S.S.C., D.Ed., B.A. (English), M.A. (English) and B.Ed. (English and Marathi method), was appointed as assistant teacher in the year 1993 by following due procedure. It is submitted that, at the relevant time, 61 periods workload per week was available for teaching English subject, but only one teacher i.e. B.N. Kotkar was available to teach the said subject. It is submitted that, one teacher namely ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›