Mumbai Court October 2004 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.
Gulam Mustaffa Kureshi Vs. Member Industrial Court and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-21-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)BomCR124
Kamdar S.U., J.1. By the present Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant is challenging the orders dated 23-1-2003 and dated 23-2-2004 passed in Civil Application No. 485/2001 and C.A. No. 1194 respectively. By the said orders, the learned Single Judge has stayed the further proceedings in complaint ULPA No. 594 of 1998 pending before the Labour Court till hearing and final disposal of the main Writ Petition No. 4855 of 2003. The consequent result is that the proceedings before the Labour Court has been stayed. In our view the said order is likely to affect both the parties since there would be substantial delay in adjudication of the pending complaint before the Labour Court. The Apex Court has repeatedly held that as far as possible proceedings before the Labour Court should not be stayed because it results in inordinate delays. In light of the aforesaid facts, both the learned Counsel appearing for the parties have filed a purshis dated 16-10-2004 in the present appeal requesting this ...
Arun Bhaurao Ingale Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-21-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR355; 2005(2)BomCR159
Kamdar S.U., J.1. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in the light of the judgment of this Court in Pandurang Ranganath Chavan v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. : 1998(4)BomCR462 , Chandrakant Bajirao Shinde v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., : 2003(4)BomCR535 and unreported judgments of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2745 of 1988, Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parmars v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., decided on 28th July, 2003 and Writ Petition No. 6048 of 2004 and Companion writ petition, Amol Narayan Wakkar and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., decided on 14th September, 2004, the impugned order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee dated 10th February, 2003 cannot be sustained. The Scrutiny Committee observed in its order as under :'Hence it is very difficult to determine either candidate belongs to Thakur caste or Thakur tribe only on the basis of documentary evidence. The test of old documentary entry cannot be applied in this case because the caste entries ...
Gokuldas Sundarlal Bagdi Vs. Presiding Officer and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-21-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)BomCR196
Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-employee challenges the judgment dated 11-2-1992 delivered by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati and Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, in Appeal No. 58 / 1989-A. In this appeal, the petitioner has challenged the order of termination dated 1-4-1989 and 5-4-1989 and by which the present respondents Nos. 2 and 3 terminated him from service and the School Tribunal has dismissed his appeal on 11-2-1992.2. Shri Adkar, Advocate, holding for Shri Haq, learned Counsel for the petitioner points out that the School Tribunal has found that the stand of Management is that services have been terminated on account of his unsatisfactory work is not correct. However, it has upheld the termination only on the ground that the petitioner has forwarded copy of representation directly to the Education Officer instead of forwarding it through the Head Master as required by Rule...
Arun S/O Bhaurao Ingale Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-21-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)MhLj1081
S.U. Kamdar, J. 1. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in the light of the judgment of this Court in Pandurang Ranganath Chavan v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 1998 (2) Mh.L.J. 806, Chandrakant Bajirao Shinde v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. : 2003(4)BomCR535 and unreported judgments of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2745 of 1988, Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parmar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. decided on 28th July, 2003, [since reported in : 2004(2)BomCR821 ] and Writ Petition No. 6048 of 2004 and companion writ petitions, Amol Narayan Wakkar and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., decided on 14th September, 2004, [since reported in : 2005(2)BomCR853 ] the impugned order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee dated 10th February, 2003 cannot be sustained. The Scrutiny Committee observed in its order as under :'Hence it is very difficult to determine either candidate belongs to Thakur caste or Thakur tribe only on the basis of documentary evidences. The test o...
Shyam Govindrao Kalamkar Vs. Presiding Officer and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-21-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)BomCR81
Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. By this petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-employee challenges the judgment dated 19-2-1992 delivered by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati and Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, in Appeal No. 61/1989-A. In this appeal, the petitioner had challenged the order of termination dared 1-4-1989 by which the present respondents No. 2 and 3 terminated him from service and the School Tribunal has dismissed his appeal on 19-2-1992.2. Shri Adkar, Advocate, holding for Shri Haq, learned Counsel for the petitioner points out that the School Tribunal has found that the stand Management is that services have been terminated on account of his unsatisfactory work is not correct. However, it has upheld the termination only on the ground that the petitioner has forwarded copy of representation directly to the Education Officer instead of forwarding it through the Head Master as required by Rule 24 of the Maharashtra E...
Vasco Urban Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Shobha D. Korgaonkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-21-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD(Cri)47; III(2005)BC423; 2005CriLJ2465
N.A. Britto, J.1. This is complainant's appeal against acquittal of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Act, for short) by Judgment/Order dated 21st September, 2002 of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vasco-da-Gama, in Criminal Case No. 163/N/2000/D.2. There is no dispute that the complainant-Credit Society had advanced a loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the accused. On or about 9th October, 2000, the accused issued a cheque to complainant in the sum of Rs. 90,000/- drawn on Bank of India, Headland Sada Branch, Vasco-da-Gama. When the said cheque was presented to the Goa State Co-operative Bank Limited, the same was returned with endorsement 'Funds insufficient'. The complainant claims to have sent a registered letter dated 23rd October, 2000, informing the accused that the said cheque was returned with the said remark and calling upon the accused to make the payment of Rs. 90,000/- within a period of 15 days from the receipt of the said notice....
Shri John Claro Fernandes and anr. Vs. Smt. Luizinha Azavedo and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-21-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR318; (2005)107BOMLR711
N.A. Britto, J.1. This is defendants' second appeal arising from R.C.S. No. 46/ 1988/B.2. Some facts are required to be stated to dispose of this second appeal and for this purpose the parties hereto shall be referred to in the names as they appear in the cause title of the said Civil Suit.3. There is no dispute that the parents of the defendants sold to the plaintiffs the eastern part of their property known as 'Mordi' or 'Collem Mordi' by Deed dated 18.3.1947. The said Deed, inter alia, stipulated as follows:Que os vendedores comptometer nao impeder a passage polo sea predict aos compradors e aos sens descendentes.When translated it reads as follows:That the vendors promise not to obstruct the passage through their property to the purchasers and their descendants.4. After the purchase, the plaintiff No. 1 constructed a house on the southern portion and plaintiff No. 2 constructed a house on the northern portion. In due course of time, the plaintiff No. 1 and plaintiff No. 2 also cons...
Vilas S/O Narsappa Narare Vs. Dattatraya S/O Balasaheb Deshmukh and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-21-2004
Reported in: (2005)107BOMLR921a
D.G. Karnik, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. These Second Appeals arise out of a common Judgment and Order, dated 24.3.2003, passed by learned Second Additional District Judge, Ambejogai in Regular Civil Appeal No. 39 of 1996.3. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who were then minors, filed a suit, bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 340 of 1990 through their next friend and maternal uncle for the declaration of ownership and possession of the suit property. The suit property originally belonged to a joint family of which the respondent No. 3, the father of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was the Karta. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had earlier filed a suit, bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 347 of 1982, against the respondent No. 3 for partition. In the said suit a compromise decree for partition was passed and the suit properties were allotted to the share of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. After the compromise decree was passed, the respondent No. 3 sold the suit properties to the appellants in ...
Conwood Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Namdeo Pandurang Panchal and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-21-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR335; (2005)107BOMLR319
D.B. Bhosale, J.1. This petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, raises a short question as to whether an instrument, of which an admissibility is in serious dispute on the ground that it was not duly stamped and not registered, could be received in evidence and the opposite party be invited to cross-examine the witness in respect of such instrument without resolving the question as regards its admissibility.2. This petition is directed against the order dated 13.9,2004, passed in the course of the trial by the learned Judge of the Bombay City Civil Court, by which he has allowed the plaintiff to examine Ramdhar Ramgarib Kurmi (Patel) to prove a document (Kararnama) dated 26.4.1972 (for short, 'the said document') of which an admissibility was seriously challenged, without deciding the objection raised by the petitioner. It was held that the said document, could be received in evidence for collateral purpose. The said document was produced by the plaintiff alongw...
Omana Purushothaman Nair Vs. Lic of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-21-2004
Reported in: II(2007)ACC839
A.S. Aguiar, J.1. Plaintiff, the widow of one K.R. Purushothaman Nair who died on 21.5.1981 in a motor car accident has filed the suit claiming a sum of Rs. 98,934 together with interest thereon at the rate 12 per cent per annum on Rs. 80,000 being the amount payable on the insurance policy bearing No. 16933974 (Double Accident Benefit) which was taken by the said deceased Purushothaman prior to his death from defendants Insurance Company as per particulars of claim, Exh. 'G' to the plaint.2. The plaintiff has also prayed for declarations as set out in prayer Clauses (a) and (b) in view of the fact that the defendants have disclaimed liability under the said policy contending that in fact there was no contract pursuant to the proposal for insurance made by the plaintiff since the proposer expired prior to the proposal being accepted by the defendants.3. It is the case of the plaintiff that her husband K.R. Purushothaman Nair, who expired on 21.5.1981 had applied for life insurance poli...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »