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.
Vilas S/O Uttam Ghule Vs. Additional Collector and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR532; 2008(5)MhLj541
A.H. Joshi, J.1. Upon hearing the petitioner, this Court by its order dated 4th February, 2008, had issued notice calling parties to remain present for final disposal of the present petition, and had also granted interim order.2. Hence Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. Fresh service on respondent No. 7 is dispensed with. Respective Advocates waive service.3. In this petition, petitioner challenges order (Annex. H. page 65) passed by the Collector, whereby the Collector had set aside the acceptance of resignations of members of Panchayat of Village Bhalegaon (Ran), Taluka -Malkapur, Distt. Buldana. As its consequences, five members of Panchayat, who had resigned and those resignations were accepted, were restored to the office.4. The respondents have appeared and opposed the petition, including on the point of availability of alternate remedy.5. After hearing, this Court finds that the case is to be decided on the questions of law agitated and any factual matter...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Vithal Dudharam Pogale and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)MhLj760
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Heard Shri Mirza, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellant and Shri Ghate and Palikundwar, learned Advocates for respondents No. 1 and 2.2. By this Second Appeal, the State Government (original defendant) is challenging reversing judgment of lower Appellate Court whereby suit for grant of declaration filed by present respondents No. 1 and 2 along with their deceased mother Raibai, came to be decreed.3. The appeal has been admitted on 21-1-2003 by formulating the following two questions as substantial questions of law:1. Whether the Appellate Court committed any error of law in holding that the respondents were entitled to be declared as project affected persons ?2. Whether the decree passed by the Appellate Court is hit by Section 22 of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986, barring the jurisdiction of Civil Courts ?4. The facts are not much in dispute. The land of present respondents admeasuring 0.28.33 H.R. out of tot...
Sharda Construction Vs. Authority Under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and Re ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-2008
Reported in: (2009)IILLJ303Bom
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The petitioner was opponent No. 1 before the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act and Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Mumbai. The proceedings are numbered as MCA 21/2007.2. That was an application made by the Labour Enforcement Officer, respondent No. 2 before me. This application which was preferred on July 9,2007 under Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 stated that the said establishment was inspected in January 2007. Petitioner was carrying on activities as Contractor on behalf of principal employer, respondent No. 3. It is not in dispute that the work was being carried out in pursuance of the work order. However, at site, it was alleged that the workers were paid less than minimum wages. The amount was quantified at Rs. 24,458/-. The Authority therefore prayed that the direction be issued to pay minimum wages and 10 times compensation.3. It is the case of petitioners that the order impugned in the present petition is ex parte order. The pe...
Govind S/O. Manohar Jadhav, Vs. Smt. Rukhminibai W/O. Manohar Jadhav a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR561; 2008(4)BomCR641; 2008(5)MhLj386
P.R. Borkar, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by original plaintiffs being aggrieved by the dismissal of their original suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 210 of 2004 decided by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nilanga on 29.06.2005, as confirmed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 65 of 2005 by the District Judge - I, Nilanga on 12th September, 2006. The appellant No. 1 & 2 want shares in the property of their father Manohar.2. Briefly stated facts giving rise to this appeal may be stated as below:Admittedly, Manohar Jadhav married respondent No. 1 Rukminibai. When the said marriage was subsisting, he married appellant No. 3 - Popatbai. Appellant No. 4 - Muktabai is admittedly mother of Manohar. Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 were born to appellant No. 3 from Manohar Jadhav. Respondent No. 2 - Sundarabai is the person who purchased some property from respondent No. 1 pending the suit.3. Both Courts held that the suit property excluding Survey No. 13 was ancestral property of Manohar and in part...
Lalsing @ Lalaram Shankar Barela (Pawara) Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-2008
Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR1392
N.V. Dabholkar and R.M. Borde, JJ.1. Heard learned Counsel for respective parties.2. Present appellant is convicted by III Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule for offence punishable under Sections 302, 307 of Indian Penal Code. On each count he is sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- I.D. R.I. for one year. This was at the conclusion of Sessions Case No. 84/04 vide judgment and order dated 22/3/2006. Feeling aggrieved by the said finding of guilty, conviction and sentence, accused/appellant has approached this Court by present appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.3. According to prosecution story, the incident in question took place on 24/6/2004 at about 1 a.m. that is on the night between 23rd and 24th June 2004 just past-mid-night. Deceased Mersing and injured Shivram were sleeping in the courtyard infront of house of Apsing. Apsing is father of deceased Mersing. Shivram was sleeping on a cot. Mersing with his wife was sleepi...
Shridhar Dhondiraj Kelapure Vs. the General Manager, South Eastern Rai ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)BomCR253; [2008(118)FLR431]
C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. This is an appeal by the original claimant.2. The facts giving rise to the claim under Workmen's Compensation Act are as follows:The claimant was engaged as a Khalasi by the South-Eastern Railway in the year 1962. Later he was transferred to Diesel Shed M.T.B. as a Diesel Cleaner. The record of the claimant is unblemished. It is contended that the claimant developed an allergy of diesel and its fumes. Initially the claimant when he was young did not bother much but later he was required to take treatment and was not keeping well. The claimant had approached one Dr. B.D. Mehta for examination and he concluded that claimant was suffering from deformity which he has developed due to continuous contact with diesel. It was also found by the said doctor that he should not work in hot place and should work in cool place. This fact was communicated to the respondent but nothing was done. Applicant thereafter had contacted one Dr. Chiwhane but the condition did not improve....
The Tata Power Company Limited (Formerly Known as Tata Electric Compan ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR692; 2008(6)BomCR152; (2008)110BOMLR1500; 2008(6)MhLj635
V.M. Kanade, J.1. By this Petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners are seeking the following reliefs.(a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate, writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the papers and proceedings in respect of the impugned order dated 13th August, 2004 (Exh. 'KK14' hereto) and after going into the legality and validity thereof, to quash and set aside the same;(b) that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare that under Rule 35 Sub-rule (8) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Taxes & Fees Rules, 1960, the Petitioner is exempted from levy of octroi duty;(c) that this Hon'ble court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the Respondents to grant exempti...
Mushtaq Shah Son of Meheboob Shah Vs. Haidariya Urdu Education Society ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR272; 2008(6)BomCR355; (2008)110BOMLR1540; 2008(4)MhLj734
A.H. Joshi, J.1. On 27th October, 2005, this Court ordered Rule returnable early and interim direction to continue the petitioner in the employment.2. The petition is listed on board for orders in view of the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Writ Petition be disposed of within three months from the date of receipt of its order.3. Petition is, therefore, taken up for hearing forthwith by consent.4. Heard.5. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that:[a] The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher and In-charge Headmaster on 1st July, 1996 on a clear vacancy, however, without an order of appointment.[b] The petitioner was then appointed as Incharge Headmaster by order dated 28th June, 1997.[c] The appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher was approved by letter dated 8th July, 1998, for academic year 1996-97, i.e., for only one year.[d] Since the vacancy, on which petitioner was appointed, was of permanent nature, appointment ought to have been made on...
Cosmos Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Syed Sohail Jaleel and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR353; 2008(4)MhLj942
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard.2. Admit. By consent heard forthwith. The learned Advocate for the respondents waives service.3. This Appeal arises from the order dated 13th April, 2007 passed in Arbitration Petition No. 10 of 2007. Only ground of challenge to the impugned order is that the learned Single Judge by the impugned order has reduced the rate of future interest from 15% to 9%. The contention on behalf of the appellants is that the learned Single Judge erred in applying the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. v. V.G. Harischandra Raddy and Anr. reported in AIR 2007 SCW 527 to the case in hand ignoring the fact that the decision of the Apex Court was not in relation to the claim by a Bank, and it was in peculiar facts of that case.4. The impugned order discloses that the learned Single Judge while refusing to interfere in the Award as the same is based on the materials on record and does not disclose any infirmity or illegali...
Bhaurao Narayanrao Thakare and anr. Vs. Bhimabai Wd/O Ramji Thakare
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR558; 2009(1)BomCR420; 2008(5)MhLj606
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. By this Second Appeal the original defendants are challenging the concurrent judgments and decrees delivered by the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by one Shri Ramji and his wife Bhimabai against the appellants for declaration and permanent injunction came to be decreed and they were restrained permanently from disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of Ramji and Bhimabai. It is not in dispute that the respondent died during the pendency of the suit.2. The facts are not much in dispute and controversy revolves around interpretation and effect of a document Exh.55. The Second Appeal has been admitted on 6-4-1993 by noticing that questions involved in this appeal is about construction of a document Exh.55. The present appellants claim that Exh.55 is a Gift deed as contemplated by Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act and the Courts below have concurrently found that it is a Will and therefore the testator Ramji (original plaintiff) could have ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »