Mumbai Nagpur Court June 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.
Shyam Janardan Chaoudary Vs. Asha Ramdas Katkar and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-30-2014
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. The writ petitioner is aggrieved by rejection of the application for appointment of Court Commissioner by the trial Court by passing order below Exh.31. It appears that the plaintiff in the trial Court had sued the defendants on the ground that the defendants are liable to vacate the portion encroached upon by them in respect of the house property occupied by the plaintiff. It is further case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff had described the suit property by its boundaries along with measurements and also referred to registered sale deed dt.11.7.2000 in respect of the house property purchased by him. Boundaries of the house property were also mentioned and the map drawn to the scale was also produced by the plaintiff in the pending suit. It is under these circumstances that the plaintiff wanted the defendant to vacate his allegedly encroached portion marked as v c d M adme...
Shetkari Sahakari Ginning and Pressing Society Limited, Vs. Municipal ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-27-2014
Oral Judgment 1. Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of parties. 2. Petitioner (original plaintiff) filed Regular Civil Suit No. 155 of 2011 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati for declaration and permanent injunction. Petitioner prayed relief of declaration that advertisement dated 22.8.2010 published by the Corporation that it has taken over possession of suit plots (without actually taking over possession) is arbitrary and illegal. In the alternative, a declaratory relief is sought that if there is presumptive possession with respondent Corporation, the same may be declared illegal and it be restored to the petitioner. Permanent injunction is sought restraining respondent (defendant) Corporation from dealing with suit plots in colourable exercise of power vested in it by law. 3. RespondentCorporation filed application (exhibit 17) under Order 7, rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for direction to the petitioner pay deficit court fee and in the alternative, for rejecti...
Lokesh son of Ramraoji Navghare Vs. Janardhan son of Haribhau Bhisikar ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-27-2014
Oral Judgment 1. Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of parties. 2. Petitioners (original plaintiffs) filed Special Suit No. 325 of 2013 for declaration, cancellation of sale deed and restoration of possession and permanent injunction before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur. 3. Respondents/defendants filed application (exhibit 14) for rejection of plaint under Order VII rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that even though plaintiffs have, interalia, sought for relief of restoration of possession the suit property value of which is Rs. 34 lacs, still he has paid court fee only on Rs. 7 lacs. Petitioners/plaintiffs opposed the said application. 4. Learned trial Judge instead of deciding the question as to whether petitioners/plaintiffs have valued the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction of court and for payment of court fees, directed plaintiffs to delete prayer clauses I and IV contained in the plaint. This order is under challenge in this writ petition. 5. Heard...
Mahadeo and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Dep ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-27-2014
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner teachers seek salary as per the pay scale prescribed by State Government through its resolution dated 21st May 2010 extending 6th wage revision to teaching and non-teaching staff of unaided non-government i.e. private educational institutions. They are working with respondent no.7, which is an unaided private minority School. It is not in dispute that respondent no.5 is a minority educational society while respondent no.7 is the school which has been recognized by State Government as per the provisions of Secondary School Code as revised in 1979, (hereinafter referred to as "SS Code" for short). Permission to open school has been given on 17 August 1991 and as per clause 2 of that permission, management is obliged to pay wages to teachers in the pay scales as prescribed by State Government from time to time. It is in this background that on 23.04.2012, a notice for final dis...
Kishor Vs. State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Department of L ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-27-2014
Oral Judgment: (S.B. Shukre, J.) 1. Rule. The learned Assistant Government Pleader Mrs. Kalyani Deshpande waives service for the respondents. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged legality and correctness of the order of his premature retirement dated 28/3/2014 passed by respondent No.2 following the decision taken by the Review Committee regarding premature retirement of the petitioner. 3. The petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Clerk on 10/01/1993 and was posted to work at Civil Court, Junior Division, Kelapur, Distt. Yavatmal. After some years he was promoted as Senior Clerk and again promoted as Assistant Superintendent on 17/02/2001. He was posted as Assistant Superintendent at various places, such as at Wani, Ner, Kelapur and was working as such lastly in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Digras. Since he was attaining the age of 55 years, his case was placed for his suitability to continue in service before ...
Chanchal and Another Vs. Gangaram Dajiba Nagare since deceased through ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-27-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of parties. 2. Petitioners (original plaintiffs) made application for permission to file certified copies of certain documents. Learned trial Judge rejected the said application on the ground that the documents cannot be read evidence in view of Section 79 of the Evidence Act. 3. Learned trial Judge should have appreciated that production of documents on record and allowing them to be exhibited are distinct from each other. Learned trial Judge may not give evidentiary value to those documents or allow them to be exhibited. However, production of documents on record cannot be refused. 4. Hence, impugned order is quashed and set aside. Learned trial Court shall allow production of documents enlisted with application (exhibit 315) and may consider the question of exhibiting those documents in evidence separately. Rule is made absolute in the above with no order as to costs....
Mahendrakumar Namdeorao Hedaoo Vs. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate S ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-27-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties. In the fact and circumstance of the case, we discharge the notice issued to the Managing Director, Indian Oil Corporation dated 20/6/2014. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee dated 13/11/2013 thereby invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner and the order of termination dated 08/01/2014 passed by the respondent No.2-Indian Oil Corporation. 3. Though the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order of the Scrutiny Committee, during the pendency of the petition, he has given up the challenge to the order of the Scrutiny Committee and restricted his claim in the petition only for grant of protection of his services on account of his long standing service. 4. Shri Manish Bhat, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 states that even the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State...
Dinesh G. Chhabra Vs. Kishore Ghanmare
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-26-2014
Oral Judgment. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties. 2. The petitioner challenges order dated 21.3.2014, passed by learned Second Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Nagpur, below Exh.46, in Regular Civil Suit No.315 of 2011, whereby the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff (landlord) for amendment in the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was allowed. 3. The facts of the case are, thus: Regular Civil Suit No.315 of 2011 was initiated by the respondent/plaintiff (landlord) against the petitioner/defendant (tenant) under Section 16(g) and 16(n) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 and also prayed for enquiry into mesne profits, arrears of rent etc. apart from the relief of possession. 4. I am informed that pursuant to order dated 21.3.2014 passed by the trial Court below Exh.46, the amendment granted has already been carried out in the plaint. According to the learned Counsel appear...
Shantabai Vs. Vasant and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-25-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 2. Considered the nature of the impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Amravati in Regular Civil Suit No.98 of 2008 whereby the application for amendment of the plaint preferred under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected. The said suit was a suit for declaration, permanent injunction, partition and separate possession of the suit property filed by the writ petitioner (Original plaintiff) against her two step brothers. According to the plaintiff, she claimed declaration in respect of her 1/3rd share in the ancestral property. Her father Shamrao died in or about the year 1991. Shamrao had married twice during his life time. From the first wife, the petitioner was born out of the wedlock; while from the second wife, sons Vasanta and Ramesh were born. Thus, the writ petitioner is the elder daughter. However, it is alleged that her rights were suppressed by her step brothers V...
Lahu Vs. Kailash Matasaran Gupta and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-24-2014
1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 22.07.1999 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Amravati in Regular Civil Appeal No.294/1994 by which the learned lower Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court dismissing the Suit of the respondent/plaintiff and instead decreed the Suit of the respondent/plaintiff for eviction of the appellant/ defendant from the shop premises, the defendant had filed the present Appeal in this Court. FACTS: 2. The respondent/plaintiffSau. Rupabai filed the Suit for possession and for recovery of damages from the appellant/defendant vide Special Civil Suit No.122/1991 for shop in Municipal House No.130/2, Ward No.43 on Nazul Plot No. 4/3; Sheet No. 68B within the local limits of Amravati Municipal Corporation, as owner of the shop premises, having become the owner under a sale deed from the former owner Matasaran executed on 29th December, 1988. Matasaran was the original landlord/ owner and the defendantLahu...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »