Mumbai Nagpur Court October 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.
Smt. Varhyan (Since Deceased, Through Legal Representatives and Others ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-29-2013
Oral Judgment : 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment delivered on 26.7.2011 in Misc. Civil Application No.291 of 2011 in First Appeal that was sought to be filed against the judgment, order and decree passed by the 7th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur on 10.6.2009 in Special Civil Suit No.848 of 2003. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents, this Court admitted the appeal on a substantial question of law. The substantial question of law involved in the appeal is as under:- Whether the finding recorded by the first appellate Court in deciding the application for condonation of delay to prefer first appeal that the appellants have not shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay is not based upon the facts before it and is thus perverse ? 2. Shri S.W. Sambre, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the first appellate Court, in rejecting the application filed for condoning the delay that had occ...
Shyamabai and Others Vs. Madan Mohan Mandir Sanstha
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-22-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Khamgaon in Regular Civil Appeal No.75 of 1985, decided on 6.12.1996 dismissing the appeal of the appellants and confirming the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No.104 of 1984 by 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Khamgaon on 29.7.1985 decreeing the suit of the respondent for ejectment, possession and mesne profits. The appellants are the legal heirs of the original defendant and respondent is the original plaintiff. The respondent had filed a suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No.101 of 1984 for ejectment, possession and mesne profits. The suit filed by the respondent Madan Mohan Mandir Sanstha, a registered Public Trust was through one of its trustees, Gokuldas Kalyanji Shelarka. It was the case of the respondent that original defendant (hereinafter referred to as appellants for the sake of convenience) was inducted in the suit house, as described in pl...
Smt. Suryakanta Ishwar Lohkare and Others Vs. Smt. Annapurna Nilkanth ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-22-2013
Oral Judgment: Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard the matter finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2] This petition challenges the order dated 31.10.2012 passed by the learned 26th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur, rejecting the application Exh. 42 filed in Regular Civil Suit No. 242/2007. The application was for amendment of written statement filed by the defendant nos. 1 to 5. The written statement was filed by them on 27.07.2007. The issues were framed on 20.01.2012. The affidavit in lieu of examination in chief was filed on 03.05.2012 and the further examination in chief of the plaintiff was recorded on 10.07.2012. The matter was fixed for the cross examination of the plaintiff. It is at this stage the application was filed for amendment of written statement on 06.09.2012. 3] The trial court recorded the finding that the application was filed after the commencement of trial and the perusal of the application reveals that no where ther...
Shekhar S/O. Govindrao Kinkhede, Since Deceased Through L.Rs. and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-17-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. This revision is challenging the order dated 24th January, 2012 passed on Exh.87 in Special Civil Suit No.583 of 1997 rejecting the plea of defendant nos.1 to 4 that the plaint should be rejected for being barred by law as provided in Rule 11 of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure. This suit was originally filed in the year 1997 by Smt. Manjudevi alone. In the plaint, she stated that she and her husband Vinodkumar had agreed to purchase certain immovable property situated at Nagpur from defendant nos.1 to 4 and an agreement was scribed in 1996, in which both Manjudevi and Vinodkumar were parties. Certain amount as earnest was also given. Subsequently, they learnt that defendant nos. 1 to 4 have agreed to sell the said property to defendant nos. 5 to 8 and therefore, the cause of action for filing the suit for specific performance arose. But, surprisingly, though the right to sue o...
Somnath Eshanchandra Ray and Others Vs. the Maharashtra University of ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-15-2013
Z.A. Haq, J. 1. Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of AshaV/s. Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences and Ors. reported in 2012 (6) SCALE 287 has observed that it is both the need of the hour and the demand of justice that the Court ensures elimination of colourable abuse and arbitrary exercise of power in the process of selection and admission to the professional courses. This is a 'classic case' which shows how the professional colleges have been abusing the process of law to give admissions to the students and then leave them to the mercy of the Courts. 3. Mr. Agnihotri, the learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that the respondent no.2 college was shown as the recognized college in the list published by the Association of Managements of Unaided Private Medical and Dental Colleges, Maharashtra (for short the Association) and therefore, the petitioners were under the bona fide impression that they can take admi...
Ssud Ayurved Medical College and Hospital at Koli Vs. the Maharashtra ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-15-2013
Z.A. Haq, J. 1. Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. The petition raises the challenge to the order issued by the Registrar of the respondent the University on 12th June, 2013 by which it is informed that the affiliation of the petitioner college is permanently withdrawn for breach of the provisions of Section 63 of the Maharashtra Universities of Health Sciences Act, 1998 (for short the Act) by the resolution of the Management Council dated 10th January, 2013. 3. The respondent University has filed the preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the Society 'Maa Vaishnavi Mahila Mandal' bearing Registration No.Mah.78/93, Mumbai F10617, having its office at Sharda Apartment, A/4, Dr. R.P. Banerjee Road, Dhantoli, Nagpur is a necessary party to the writ petition and according to the respondent University the Society is the appropriate person which can maintain the writ petition in the matter. The respondent University has furth...
Fimidabee W/O Abdul Gaffar and Others Vs. Kalim Khan S/O Aziz Khan and ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-10-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Both these appeals challenge judgment and order dated 05.01.2008 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Washimin M.A.C. Petition No.64/2006. 2. The facts of this case are quite peculiar and can be stated as under. 3. I will refer the parties by their designation in the lower court. Respondent no.1 Faimidabee is owner of agricultural land Survey No.136 of village Kajleshwar, Taluka Karanja, District Washim. She started the work of digging of well in her field. She also used explosives for digging. Respondent No.2 is the owner of the vehicle in question, which is a Tractor. Respondent No.1 gave work of digging of the well to the respondent No.2, who was using explosives for digging the well. On 08.04.2005, at about 04-15 p.m., respondent No.2 and his employee planted explosives inside the well for the purpose of causing explosion. The power for trigger of the explosives came from the battery of the Tractor which was parked nearby. Explosion took...
Sudhakar S/O Trimbakrao Kalmegh Vs. Seth Bansidhar Dahigaonkar and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-04-2013
Oral Judgment: (Z.A. Haq, J.) 1. This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellant employee and upholding the order passed by the School Tribunal by which the appeal filed by the appellant employee was dismissed. 2. The appellant was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the School administered by respondent no.1 Society, by the order dated 15th of July, 1994, on probation for the period of two years. According to the appellant, he continued in service till 7th of September, 1998 and his services were terminated orally w.e.f. 8th of September, 1998. The submission of the appellant is that he was appointed after following the prescribed procedure. 3. The appellant had filed Appeal No.136 of 1998 before the School Tribunal challenging the termination of his services. The Tribunal framed three issues as laid down by this Court in the case of Anna Manikrao Pethe..vs.. Presiding Officer, School Trib...
Anil S/O Wamanrao Gawande Vs. Mahalaxmi Railway Karmachari Sahakari an ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-04-2013
1. Appellant is the original disputant before the Cooperative Court, Amravati whose dispute against the respondents was registered as R. A. M. Case No.198/1992 and is challenging the judgment and order made by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 18.06.2002 in Writ Petition No.3916/2001 by which, it was held that the dispute filed by the appellant under section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act (for short the 'MCS Act') was not maintainable. FACTS: 2. The appellant, being a member of the Cooperative Housing Society, filed a dispute before the Cooperative Court, Amravati stating therein that though he paid all the amounts to the society for getting a plot from the society, he was not being given the plot and the possession thereof despite his repeated demands and despite making of the payments due. The Society, however, cancelled his membership and issued a letter to that effect received by him on 22.11.1991 and that the membership was cancelled for false reason an...
The Chairman/Director and Another Vs. Shobha M. Dhore and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-01-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. SUBMISSIONS: 2. Mr. Atrey, learned counsel for petitioners in this writ petition, has submitted synopsis dated 23.09.2013 and the very first question raised is: (i) Whether the ICAR and the institutes under its control including the petitioner No.2, is an industry under Sec.2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? 3. It appears that the said question was specifically raised and decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of DuryodhanHiraman Ingole and ors.. vs.. Indian Council Agriculture Research and anr.; 2009 (4) Bom.C.R. 107. This Court, in paragraph nos. 31 and 31 observed thus: 31. The learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 cannot be termed as industries and, therefore, the provisions of industrial law would not at all be attracted. For this purpose, he placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Physical Research Laboratory v. K.G. Sharma reported in : (1997...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »