Mumbai Court April 2008 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.
Mukesh Nashikrao Tirpude and Ashok Chandulal Parmar Vs. Wamanrao Tatob ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR572; 2008(4)MhLj562
A.H. Joshi, J.1. At the outset, learned Advocate Mr. H.D. Dangre for respondent No. 1 has raised following objection as to maintainability of Writ Petition. The objection can be summarized as follows:The order, in question, is arising out of proceedings under Section 22 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, which were finally decided, and an application under Section 70, which is in the shape of an appeal, is pending, wherein the prayer for stay has been rejected, which order is a decision capable of a further challenge under Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. Therefore, due to availability of alternate remedy, present Writ Petition is not maintainable. 2. According to learned Advocate Mr. Dangre, there is no distinction, such as orders and decrees under the provisions of Bombay Public Trusts Act. Similarly, no distinction is made as interlocutory and final orders or decisions. In absence of such distinction, all orders will be capable of a challenge in the channel provided under t...
Mohd. Habib S/O Mohd. Ishaque Vs. Abdul Aziz and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR567; 2009(1)BomCR355; 2008(4)MhLj509
C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. This second appeal is filed by the plaintiff who was unsuccessful in both the Courts below. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as plaintiff and defendants.2. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows-The plaintiff and the defendants are the real brothers. The plaintiff was living separately from his father after his father had remarried. When the plaintiff had once come to the house of his father, he saw that his brothers were being ill-treated by his step-mother. He, therefore, brought all the defendants to his own house. The defendants started residing since then with the plaintiff. The plaintiff brought them up. The father of the parties died without leaving behind him any property. Whatever movable property was available, was taken away by the stepmother after the death of the father. The plaintiff submits that he purchased the suit house by a registered sale-deed dated 1-10-1957 from one Haji Abdul Khaliq for consideration of Rs. 1000/-. He ...
Bhimrao Shamrao Hawaldar Vs. Ranjana Sharad Hawaldar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ1669; 2008(6)BomCR365; 2008(4)MhLj673
A.S. Oka, J.1. The appellant has taken an exception to the Judgment and Award dated 26th July, 2007 passed by the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Islampur. The first and second respondents are the original claimants. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1988), claiming compensation on account of death of one Sharad Bhimrao Hawaldar in a motor accident. The said Sharad suffered serious injuries in an accident involving the vehicle of the third respondent which was validly insured with the fourth respondent. The said Sharad succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident.2. The first respondent is the widow of the deceased and the second respondent is his minor daughter. The appellant is the father of the deceased. The appellant was impleaded as a third opponent in the claim petition filed by the first and second respondents. To the claim petition, the appellant filed a reply...
Shramik Mahasangh Vs. Cipla Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR660; 2008(5)MhLj199
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is directed against an interim order of the Industrial Court in a complaint of Unfair Labour Practices under the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, 1971, by which an application for the grant of interim relief was rejected.2. Sixty-seven employees who were working in the establishment of the First Respondent at Vikhroli were transferred to Patalganga. A complaint of Unfair Labour Practices was instituted in which an order was passed by the Industrial Court on 14th November, 2006. The management challenged the order of the Industrial Court and on 7th December, 2006, after a considerable degree of discussion and negotiations between the parties, an order was passed by this Court in terms of a settlement that was arrived at. The order of the Court dated 7th December, 2006 inter alia contained the following provisions, which are material to the scope of the controversy which now arises before the Court:(v) The manag...
Bhagwan Vithal Deokar Vs. Narendra Padmakar Yavalekar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR237; 2008(5)MhLj863
S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. This Civil Revision Application is filed by the tenant against the order of the District Judge at Pune dismissing the petitioner's Appeal and confirming the judgment of the Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune, and directing the respondents to hand over possession of the suit premises to the respondents.2. I see no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact. Indeed, I find the conclusions reached by both the Courts below on these questions, to be well founded in law, on facts and even in equity.3. Respondent No. 1, the landlord had filed a civil suit against the tenants viz. the petitioner and the other respondents for possession, arrears of rent and mesne profits. The suit premises were given on lease to the petitioner's father who carried on business as a gold smith therein. The suit was based on various grounds. Respondent No. 1 succeeded on the ground that he required the suit premises bona fide and reasonably for his own use and occupation. ...
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. a Limited Company Incorporated Under the C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR663; (2008)110BOMLR1460; 2008(3)MhLj657
A.H. Joshi, J.1. Heard. 2. The question involved in this Second Appeal was to be considered in the light of Substantial Question of Law, as framed, which reads as follows:What is the scope and effect of Clause 13-A on the decree already passed and against which the appeal is pending3. Case proceeds on admitted facts, namely:[a] The suit for eviction of theproperty being an open plotwhen leased, was filed on ... 14-4-1985.[b] Suit was decreed on ... 28-4-1989.[c] Clause 4-A of the C.P. &Berar; Letting of Premises &Rent; Control Order, 1949,was enacted and came intoforce on ... 27-6-1989.[d] Clause 13-A of the said Orderwas enacted on ... 26-10-1989. 4. Admittedly, the decree is passed before enactment of Clause 4-A, as well enactment of Clause 13-A. 5. The aggrieved tenant filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 199 of 1989, which was admitted and ultimately decided on 16th February, 1995. 6. Therefore, the tenant is before this Court, urging that the decree of the Appellate Court is nullity, si...
Sau. Kumudini Balasaheb Salkar Vs. the Additional Commissioner, Amrava ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR419; 2008(4)MhLj728
A.H. Joshi, J.1. On 27th February, 2008, this Court had issued notice before admission.2. Hence Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard by consent.3. The petitioner has suffered a Vote of No Confidence duly passed by eleven in favour of motion out of sixteen members.4. According to petitioner, two members, namely respondent Nos. 10 and 12, were not .entitled to sit and vote.5. According to petitioner, the objection 'to sit and vote', if acceptable, would go to the root of case and vitiate the motion, as it would not be liable to be regarded as passed with two-third majority.6. Petitioner relies on copies of Notifications of State Election Commission and consequential Govt. Circular, which are Annexures-G & H. Based on these documents, it is argued that these two members are not entitled to sit and vote in the meeting as the members of the Panchayat. Though they are elected from seats reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes, they have not fur...
The State of Maharashtra Through the Slao, Upper Godavari Project, Kar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR264; 2008(6)BomCR706; 2008(6)MhLj766
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. The State of Maharashtra through the Special Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred to as SLAO), Upper Godavari Project, Karanjwan Dam, acquired the lands situated at village Malegaon and Sinnar, Taluka Sinnar, District Nashik by issuing notification under Section 32(2) of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as MID Act) on 9th February, 1989 for the public purpose. The land was sought to be acquired from the revenue estate of the village Sinner and Malegaon, Taluka Sinnar, District Nashik for Industrial Estate, Malegaon of MID project. In furtherance to the notification under Section 32(2) which is at parity with the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, the appropriate authority further issued notification under Section 32(1) of the Act (equivalent to Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894) on 28th December, 1989. The SLAO after following the prescribed procedure vide his award dated 2...
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Ambadas Sadhiv Hingan ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR42; 2009(1)BomCR393; 2008(5)MhLj208
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Two petitions have been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, one by the employer - Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and the second by the workman. Both the petitions will be governed by this order. The petitions have been taken up for hearing and final disposal and Learned Counsel have been heard by consent.2. The workman in question, was a conductor employed by the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. A charge-sheet was issued on 31st March, 2003 on an allegation of misconduct. The misconduct alleged is that the workman was on duty on 29th March, 2003 on the Baramati Bhigwan route when the bus came to be checked by the checking squad at Shetfal. However, of the nine passengers who were travelling in that bus, it was found that three alighted at Shetfal and six passengers remained. From three passengers who were travelling from Baramati to Bhigwan, the workman recovered Rs. 30/- by issuing tickets of Rs. 10/- each. T...
Vasant Sundarrao Kondbattunwar Vs. Sakharam Kawaduji Uike and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR409; 2008(5)MhLj322
ORDERA.H. Joshi, J.1. At the outset, learned Advocate Mr. Pudke for the petitioner states that the petitioner is remedyless, though the appeal is provided by law, as the Forum, namely Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal is not constituted. Hence, by dispensing with alternate remedy, petition is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission-hearing.2. The petitioner has urged in paras 12 to 15 certain points in support of petition, which read as follows:12...Tahsildar failed to consider the order dated 30-9-1976 stated as above and therefore passed the impugned order dated 25-1-2007 which is illegal, perverse, arbitrary and beyond jurisdiction....13. That, from perusal of the statement submitted by the Appellant Shri Kawadu Sakharam Uike, it is clearly seen that he was not willing to cultivate the suit land personally nor he was willing to pay such amount as the Collector/SDO/Tahsildar will fix according to provisions under the said Act....14. That, the learned Tahsildar has not issued any n...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »