Mumbai Court December 2009 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.
Mohd. Izaz Abdul Rafique Vs. Additional Commissioner and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR77
A.H. Joshi, J.1. In view that the pleadings are complete, appeals are taken up for hearing.2. Heard learned Adv. Mr. J.B. Kasat for the appellants and learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondents concerned. Perused the record.3. Orders challenged in these appeals are passed by learned Single Judge in various Writ Petitions. The question which is argued is common in all appeals and, therefore, all these appeals are heard and decided by a common judgment.4. The point, which is stressed, as was done before Single Judge, is:As to whether Shri S.L. Ahire, Deputy Commissioner [Employment Guarantee Scheme], Amravati, has powers to pass orders for deciding the appeal, though he was put into charge of the post of Additional Commissioner, Amravati?5. Bone of contention is that the order dated 29th September, 2008 sanctioning leave to the Additional Commissioner does not result in appointment of Shri S.L. Ahire, Deputy Commissioner [EGS], as Additional Commissioner.6. The foundation of the submis...
Vinod Panjabrao Patil Vs. Indu W/O Vinod Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR81
S.S. Shinde, J.1. This writ petition is filed challenging judgment and order passed by Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge-2, Nagpur in Criminal Revision No. 644/2006 on 03.12.2007 upholding judgment and order passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Umred in Criminal Application No. 30/2004 on 05.04.2006. Brief facts of the case are as under.2. The respondent herein filed Misc. Criminal Application No. 30/2004 before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Umred for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The said application came to be rejected on 05.04.2006. Being aggrieved thereby, the respondent herein filed Revision No. 644/2006 before the Court of Sessions at Nagpur.3. It is the case of the respondent-wife/original applicant that she is legally wedded wife of the petitioner. Their marriage was solemnized on 09.01.2000 at Brahmapuri as per Buddha rites and customs. After marriage, she went to the house of non applicant at Arvi and resided there for about 9-10 mon...
Shrimant Murlidhar Magar and Ganpat Laxman Shinde Vs. the State of Mah ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR72
Shrihari P. Davare, J.1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, matter is taken up for final hearing.2 By the present writ petition, filed by the petitioners under Articles 14, 16, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners prayed that the judgment and order dated 18.12.2007, rendered by learned Vice Chairman, Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad, in Transfer Application No. 2199 of 1991 in Writ Petition No. 2763 of 1990, be quashed and set aside and also requested that the termination order dated 9.9.1990 Exh. 'I' terminating the petitioners herein also be quashed and set aside.Factual Matrix:It is the contention of the petitioners that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were appointed as Talathi on 1.2.1974 and on 1.11.1980 respectively. However, their services were terminated along with other 7 Talathis by order dated 26.7.1984 on the ground that their services were no longer required by the Governme...
Smt. Gangabai W/O Ramesh Itankar Vs. Shri Buzurkar Ram Nandir Trust Be ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR43
C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. This writ petition challenges the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in revision Tenancy Case No. A75 of 1995.2. The facts giving rise to this writ petition are as followsThere is a trust known as Buzurkar Ram Mandir Trust. It owned field Survey No. 54/2, admeasuring area of 31.91 acres at Mauza Somalwada. One Pandurang Balpande was the tenant of the said field. Pandurang died. His son Kawadu inherited the said tenancy right after the death of father. The said trust filed an application before the Tahsildar under Section 20 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (Vidarbha Region) Act (B.T.A.L. Act) for confirmation of surrender of tenancy by Kawadu Balpande and members of the joint family. Notices were issued to Kawadu Balpande and others. They appeared before the Tahsildar. Present petitioner, who is one of the heirs of the original tenant Pandurang objected to the surrender. She contended that since her father had exp...
Khatri Film Enterprises and ors. Vs. Vijay Cycle Stores and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-2009
Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR71
Naik Vasanti A., J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable early. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.2. On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties for a considerable time, the learned Counsel for the parties agreed that this was the case for remand to the First Appellate Authority i.e., the District Collector, Amravati, as the several material pieces of evidence were not considered by the First Appellate Authority whole passing the impugned order dated 17.9.2007.3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the impugned order dated 17.9.2007 along with the report of the Rent Controller dated 28.4.2006, the objections filed by the petitioner thereto, the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioner and the respondents. On perusal of the same it is clear that the First Appellate Court has not adverted its mind to the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioners and also not consi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›