Mumbai Court October 2011 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.
Ramesh S/O Shri Rambhauji Majrikar and ors. Vs. the State of Maharasht ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-12-2011
1. Due to limited arguments and controversy presented before us which centers around scope and relevance of Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of Caste Certificate Act, 2000 ( hereafter referred to as "the Act No. 23 of 2001" for short) in present matters, we state facts having bearing on it briefly. Both the petitioners are real brothers and by identical orders passed on 25/06/2007, the Caste Scrutiny Committee functioning under above Act has invalidated their caste claim and confiscated their caste certificates as belonging to Halba scheduled tribe. It has also directed their discharge from employment and recovery of benefits derived by them because of said caste certificates. It has also authorized Deputy Superintendent of Police of the Vigilance Cell with it to lodge complaint in the form of FIR with concerned police station ...
Dr. Surendra Ramlal Tiwari and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-12-2011
1. By this petition, the challenge is to action of Respondent No. 2 in allotting land reserved for Primary School, Secondary School and Playground to Respondent No. 4 - Educational Institution/ Trust. The petition has been accepted as Public Interest Litigation as per orders of the learned Senior Judge on 02.12.2010 and on 06.12.2010 notices were issued to the other side. 2. The facts briefly stated are : The reservation is on Khasra No. 12 of Mouza - Bhamti included in Bhamti Parsodi Street Scheme of Nagpur Improvement Trust (respondent 2 herein) and as per Development Plan sanctioned in the year 2001, it has reservation No. SW 164 for Primary School on area 0.176 H. Reservation No. SW 165 is on Area 0.352 H. for secondary School and reservation No. MSW 16 for playground is 1.1136 H. The remaining reservation is for 9 mtrs. x 12 mtrs. wide road and residential purpose. 3. The prayers in the petition are to quash an advertisement dated 29.03.2010 with its corrigendum issued later and t...
Municipal Corporation Vs. Smt. Pratibha Kashinath Gajbhiye and ors.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-12-2011
1. Heard. Admit. Taken up for final hearing with the consent of learned counsel for rival parties. In these three appeals, judgment and Award dated 24.9.2010 passed by Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act, Amravati, in Application (WCA) No. 8/2005, 9/2005 and 10/2005 are under challenge. 2. By the impugned judgment and Award, the Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act awarded compensation to the respondents/employees with interest at 12% per annum from 15.12.2004, i.e. after a month from the date of accident- 14.11.2004. 3. In support of appeals, Mr.Kasat, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the compensation would fall due only when the Commissioner makes an application as to whether the accident took place, whether the workman was entitled to compensation, and whether the employer or any other person was responsible to make payment of compensation. According to him, unless the same is adjudicated, the compensation will not fall due and, therefore, on the...
Abbott India Ltd and ors Vs. All India Abbott Employees Union and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT: 1} Rule. Respondent No.1 waives service. Service on respondent No.2 is not necessary. Even the intervenors waive service and agree that the writ petition be taken up for hearing forthwith. With the consent of the learned advocates, this writ petition is heard finally and disposed off by this judgment and order. 2} The petitioners have challenged, by this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the order dated 8th August 2011 passed by Member, Industrial Court, Mumbai in complaint (ULP NO.114 of 2011). By this order, the learned Member rejected the application dated 19th July 2011 (Exhibit C-13) raising a preliminary objection to its territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. 3} The 1st respondent-Union is the original complainant. 4} The complaint alleges unfair labour practices under Item 5 of Schedule II and Item 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1...
Shamsher Singh S/O. Balwinder Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
1. This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the detention order passed by the Principal Secretary (Appeals and Security), Government of Maharashtra, Home Department and Detaining Authority dated 23rd December, 2010 against the petitioner's father Shri Balwinder Singh (the detenu) in exercise of powers under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, (hereinafter referred to as "the COFEPOSA Act"), with a view to prevent the detenu in future from smuggling the goods. 2. The detenu was arrested by the officials of the Customs Department on 21st March, 2010 when he was found to be in possession of 6000 Micro SD Memory cards of 2 GB capacity. These foreign origin memory cards were valued at Rs.12,00,000 (CIF) (provisionally) and Rs.18,60,000/- (LMV) (provisionally). While he arrived by Air India Flight No.AI-315 as domestic passenger from Delhi to Mumbai, the goods were seized by the o...
Vallabhdas Cursondas Natha Turst Vs. the Municipal Corporation of Grea ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
1 By the above Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners inter alia seek directions against the Respondents to the effect that they be directed to implement the Town Planning Scheme of Bombay City I (Mandvi & Elphinstone Estate) as finalized and sanctioned by the Government of Maharashtra in regard to final plot No.136 of Town Planning Scheme of Bombay City I (Mandvi & Elphinstone Estate). The Petitioners further seek a relief that the Respondents be directed to hand over to the Petitioners vacant and peaceful possession of final plot No.136 admeasuring about 134.7 sq.yards free from all encumbrances and pay compensation amount of Rs.45,122/- together with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of the award till realization within a specified period. The Petitioners by prayer clause (bb) have sought quashing and setting aside of the property tax bills issued by the Respondents in respect of the property bearing Ward No.B-1393(1) and situated at 3...
Shahnawazkhan S/O Abdul Raihmankhan Vs. Smt.Azarunnisa Begum W/O Mohd. ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 16.11.2009 passed by the learned 5th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad below Exh.49 in Special Civil Suit No.265 of 2008. The original plaintiff, i.e. the petitioner has filed suit for specific performance against respondents. Plaintiff had entered into an agreement of sale in respect of a land on 10.11.2006. The consideration amount for the entire land was fixed at Rs.37 lacs and amount of Rs.5 lacs was paid towards the earnest money. As per the case of the petitioner, respondent No.1 sold this land to respondents 2 and 3 hence, suit for specific performance was filed. Respondent No.1 in the written statement while denying the case of the plaintiff contended that the amount of Rs.5 lacs was given as a loan and agreement of sale was entered as a security document and...
Gopalrao Ambadasrao Borikar Vs. Anantrao Ramrao Deshpande and ors.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 2. This Civil Revision Application is filed challenging order dated 23-09-2010 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Parbhani below Exhibit-1 in Misc. Civil Application No. 45 of 2010. The revision applicant further prayed to condone the delay in filing the application for restoration of Special Civil Suit No. 01 of 1996. 3. The background facts which are stated in Civil Revision Application are as under : . On 01-01-1996 the revision applicant filed Special Civil Suit No. 01 of 1996 for recovery of damages against the respondents before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Parbhani. On 01-01-1997 respondent No.1 herein filed application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to stay the above suit alleging that the above stated suit filed by the applicant is subsequent. On 12-03-1997 the trial Court stayed the hearing of the suit. The revision a...
Smt Vijaya Nipun Thakkar and ors. Vs. the Municipal Corporation and an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
1 The above Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the warrant of attachment dated 30-3-1999, the said warrant of attachment came to be issued as there was a default in the payment of the property tax in respect of the building situated at Village Dahisar bearing Survey No.267 (part), Hissa No. 1/8(part) and C.T.S. No.850 A-A1 situate at Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Dahisra (West) Mumbai 400 068. The property tax is payable in respect of two periods i.e. the period from 1-4-1978 to 30-9-1978 and 1-4-1986 to 30-9-1998, which are mentioned in the original warrant of attachment, a copy of which is produced by the Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 corporation. 2 It is the case of the Petitioners that though the ancestors of the Petitioners were the owners of the original structure which stood on the property in question, the said property was taken for redevelopment pursuant to an agreement entered by the ancestral of the Petitioners with ...
Kalpana Udhav Disle Vs. Ganesh S/O Udhav Disle and ors.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.2. This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 31-08-2010 below Exhibit-25 in Regular Civil Suit No. 316 of 2009 passed by the 11th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Beed.3. The background facts for filing this writ petition as described in the writ petition are as under :. On 16-09-2009 Regular Civil Suit No. 316 3 wp10355.10of 2009 came to be filed for partition and separate possession against the petitioner, her husband and one another first wife of husband of the petitioner. The plaintiff N.3 left the house of her husband alongwith plaintiff Nos.1 and 2. There was no any person to look after defendant No.1. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner married with defendant No.1 i.e. respondent No. 4 herein.4. On 06-09-2009 when the aforesaid fact came to the notice of the plaintiff, she started cohabiting with defendant No.1. The petitioner herei...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »