Mumbai Court August 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.
Sau. Chandraprabha Prabhakar Ghorpade Vs. Maruti Alias Marutrao Shivra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR193; (2008)110BOMLR3240; 2008(6)MhLj546
J.H. Bhatia, J.1. This Second Appeal is filed by the original defendant No. 2 challenging the concurrent findings of both the Courts below whereby the plaintiff/respodnent No. 1 was granted a decree for specific performance of the contract for sale of the suit property.2. To state in brief, the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 filed Regular Civil Suit No. 188 of 1981 for specific performance of the contract of sale. According to him, the suit house described in the plaint was in his possession as a tenant of the defendant No. 1 since 1968. Admittedly, the defendant No. 1, who is the respondent No. 2 before this Court, had filed Suit No. 265 of 1973 for eviction and possession against the plaintiff. In that suit, a compromise decree was passed on 12.7.1976 and as per the compromise, the plaintiff was to hand over possession of the suit house to the defendant No. 1 - landlord by 31.5.1981. It was also agreed that from the date of compromise, the monthly rent of the house would be Rs. 50/- per ...
Mega Vishwanath Iyer Vs. Unfair Means Enquiry Committee of S.K. Somaiy ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR827
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. Rule. Learned Counsel appearing for respective respondents waive service of rule. With the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, Rule made returnable forthwith.2. 'No mobile phone in the examination hall PLEASE ' should be the message which is required to be conveyed by the academic institutions to the students community at large. The point involved in this petition is in connection with the punishment awarded to the petitioner for taking mobile phone in the examination hall.3. The petitioner had appeared for the First Year B.M.S. Examination held in March, 2008. At the time of appearing for 'Introduction of Computers Paper' it was found that the petitioner entered the examination hall with the mobile phone in her possession. The case of the petitioner is that even though she was unintentionally carrying her mobile phone in her pocket, she immediately handed it over within ten minutes to the Supervisor and she had not taken advantage of the same ...
Sanjay Namdeorao Puriji Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR796; 2008(6)MhLj685
C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. This Writ Petition is filed against the order passed by the Administrative Tribunal Nagpur whereby it rejected the application of the petitioner for proper fixation of his pay on his being appointed to a new post.The petitioner is a Medical Graduate and was appointed as a Lecturer in the Government Medical College initially in the year 1981. He continued to work as Lecturer but was not being promoted to the post of Associate Professor. He had to file writ petition in the High Court. The petition was allowed in the year 1989. After representations were made the petitioner was granted pay scale of Rs. 3700-5700 for the post of Associate Professor. In the year. 1989 Maharashtra Public Service Commission (for short MPSC) published an advertisement for filling the post of Junior Physician. The petitioner applied for the said post. He was selected by the MPSC and was duly appointed to the said post. The pay scale of this new post (Junior Physician) was Rs. 3000-100-4500....
Dinanath Mahadeo Hadke Vs. Zilla Parishad and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR184; 2008(6)MhLj592
C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. By this writ petition the petitioner challenges the improper pay fixation done by the respondents.2. The petitioner was appointed as a male field worker in the pay scale of Rs. 145-5-190 in Public Health Department vide order dated 31-10-1964. The petitioner joined the service with effect from 24-11-1964. He was granted regular increments from time to time. On 9-12-1966 he was drawing the basic salary of Rs. 155/- P.M. The services of the petitioner came to be terminated due to the abolition of the department itself and petitioner was absorbed later as a Store Keeper under the order of the Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad Chandrapur. He was absorbed in the pay scale of Rs. 100-3-130-EB-4-150. The petitioner contends that after absorption in the new post his pay in the post of field worker should have been protected. Instead of doing that the petitioner's salary was fixed at Rs. 100/-P.M. The petitioner made representations to the Zilla Parishad and the Gov...
Traders Pvt. Ltd. and the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Sunanda ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR757; (2008)110BOMLR2919
Ranjana Desai, J.1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, taken up for hearing forthwith.2. In this letters patent appeal, order dated 8/3/2000 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in First Appeal No. 807 of 1994 is under challenge. Respondents 1 to 4A are the heirs of one Krishna Babu Machivala. They filed Application No. 827 of 1988 under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short, 'the said Act') in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Bombay, (for short, 'the Tribunal') for compensation on account of the death of the said Krishna (for convenience, 'the deceased') in a car accident on 16/12/1987.3. We shall now state how the parties are arraigned in the application before the Tribunal. Respondents 1 to 4A are the original applicants-claimants (for convenience, 'the applicants). Appellant 1 firm is opposite party No. 3. It is the owner of Maruti Car No. GBL 8335. Maruti Car No. GBL 8335 shall be referred to as the said car and appellant 1 shall be referred...
Tanaji Baburao Bhande Vs. the Secretary, Department of Cooperation and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR686; (2008)110BOMLR2948
Santosh Bora, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for respective parties. Rule. By consent, matter is taken up for final hearing.2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks to challenge provisional list of voters in respect of scheduled elections of a multipurpose cooperative society, contending, inter-alia, that names of 127 members have been included in the voters list, though these persons are not eligible to cast vote and this was done by Returning Officer at the behest of the Chairman of Society on the face of ensuing election. In brief, grievance of petitioner pertains to preparation of provisional voters list.3. Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Ltd. Dhamangaon, Tq. Udgir, District Latur, [Hereinafter referred to as society for the sake of brevity] is a multipurpose cooperative society. It is registered under provisions of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. It is a primary society at village level. It is also a notified society. It ...
Smt. Taibai W/O Tulshiram Damle, Member of the Gram Panchayat Vs. the ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR772; 2008(6)MhLj369
A.B. Chaudhari, J.1. These three writ petitions are being disposed of finally by common judgment since the the issue involved is the same.2. In election to the Gram Panchayat Kasbegavhan, Tq. Anjangaon (Surji), District : Amravati, the last date of nomination as notified by the Election Officer was 24.3.2005. The taxes were paid by all the petitioners in respect of the houses, in which they were residing or were the owners there of on 24.3.2005 i.e. the last date of nomination. The elections were held and the petitioners were declared elected. Respondent No. 4 in these writ petitions filed proceedings under Section 16 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as an Act) on the ground that the petitioners could not continue as members of Gram Panchayat Kasbegavan, as they were disqualified having been in arrears when they contested and got elected in the election. The Additional Collector held that these petitioners were liable to pay the taxes as they were the...
Ajabrao Mahadeorao Choudhary Vs. the Principal, Kala Vanijya Mahavidya ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR33; 2008(6)MhLj436
1. In both these petitions under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge is to the judgment and order dated 25.09.2006 and 19.02.1999 passed by Presiding Officer, University and College Tribunal, Nagpur.2. In writ petition No. 812/2007 by an order dated 01-02/04/2007, the learned Single Judge has passed the order, which is reproduced as under:The Division Bench of this High Court (Coram:- R.M. Lodha and R.S. Mohite, JJ) ini W.P. No. 1983/2003; Shreemati Nathibai Damodar Thackersey (SNDT) Women's University and Anr. v. Dr. (Mrs.) Nita S. Dodd and Ors. has held that the order passed by the University and College Tribunal is covered by Clause (40) of Rule 18 of Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules and amenable to the jurisdiction of the learned Single Judge. However, the another Division Bench of this High Court (Coram:- B.H. Marlapalle & J.H. Bhatia, JJ) in Civil Writ Petition No. 2011/2006; Prof. Shashikant B. Kulkarni v. The Principal, BPCS Col...
AmiruddIn Hasan Noorani Malak Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR714; 2008(6)BomCR599
Bhangale A.P., J.1. Heard. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of notification issued by the respondent No. 2 Land Acquisition Officer under Section 6(2) dated 20.3.1999 published on 1.4.1999 and notice issued under Section 9(1) of the Land Acquisition Act requiring land owner to appear on 27.12.2000 and for raising objections, if any.2. The facts are as under. The petitioner is owner of land bearing Survey No. 2, admeasuring about 5.05 HR situated at village Chandan Pardi, Tahsil Katol, District Nagpur. The respondent No. 2 issued notice dated 7.3.1998 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 calling upon the petitioner to file objections on or before 13.4.1998 regarding proposed acquisition of land admeasuring 1.20 HR from and out of land survey No. 2 for extension of gaothan of village Chandan Pardi. Petitioner had filed objection on 13.4.1998 before respondent No. 2 in LAQ Case No. 8/A-65 of 1996-97.3. The respondent No. 2 had proceeded further...
Nrk House Vs. P.V. Tommy C/O. Akhil Bhartiya General Kamgar Union and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR540]; (2009)ILLJ582Bom; 2009(2)MhLj358
S.A. Bobde, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner-employer has challenged the award dated July 30, 2005 passed by the 1st Labour Court, Mumbai, in Reference (IDA) No. 288 of 2003 directing that the respondent No. 1 be reinstated with full back wages for 20 days in each month with effect from December 20, 2001 till the date of reinstatement and with continuity of service.2. From December 20, 2001 the respondent No. 1 has not worked with the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 left on his own after some dispute about the number of pieces he should produce. According to the respondent No. 1, his services have been terminated without an inquiry and without notice and he has not been allowed to work from that date.3. The respondent No. 1 invoked the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. Accordingly, conciliation was held and the Conciliation Officer has made a failure report dated November 25, 2002. Since the concili...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »