Mumbai Court November 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.
Shankar Keshav Chopde(Deceased) Vs. Shri Dnyanu Babu Shinde (Deceased)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-2011
ORAL ORDER 1. Heard Mr. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Petitioners and Mr. N.J. Patil, Advocate for Respondents. In this Petition following order was passed on 20/3/2003. "The issue referred by the Civil Court to the Tenancy Court was, "What is the reasonable rent of the suit land?" On the basis of evidence on record, the Tenancy Awal Karkun, Panhala held that the reasonable rent of the suit land was Rs. 600/- for the year 1975-76. The Appeal Court i.e. Sub Divisional Officer maintained the said finding. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal did not appreciate the nature of issue before the Tenancy Court and the finding recorded on that issue and in a very cryptic manner the orders of the tenancy Courts below were set aside and fresh enquiry was ordered which was not justified. 2. Issue notice to the respondents to show cause why writ petition be not admitted and disposed of at motion hearing stage itself. Notice is made returnable af...
Mrs. Sangita Balasaheb Kokare and ors. Vs. Alka Vijayrao More and ors
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-2011
ORAL ORDER : 1. At the outset, Mr. Kumbhakoni seeks deletion of Respondent No. 8 Mr. Ajit A. Pawar from the array of parties in view of the interim order dated 2/9/2009 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune in Election Petition No. Pune/10/2007. Shri Ajit Pawar was joined as Respondent No. 10 in the Election Petition and by the aforesaid order he was deleted. This Order has attained finality and on this ground Mr. Kumbhakoni seeks deletion. Accordingly deletion of Respondent No. 8 is granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith in the court. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith since the Respondent No. 1 is the contesting candidate and since the notice issued on 18th November, 2009 was for final disposal, service of Rule on other Respondents except Respondent Nos. 2 and 9 is waived. Learned AGP appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 9. 3. A very short controversy arises in this Petition. Respondent No.1 has filed Election Petition No. 10 of 2007 under ...
Shri Shivaji Education Society Vs. the Presiding Officer, School.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT 1] This petition challenges the judgment and order dated 17th August, 2006, passed by the School Tribunal, Amravati, in Appeal No. 74/2000 filed by the respondent no. 3 - employee, challenging his termination from service w.e.f. 30.06.1996 from the post of Instructor. The tribunal has set aside the order of termination and directed the reinstatement with continuity in service. The claim for back-wages has been denied. The employer is, therefore, before this Court in this writ petition. 2] The respondent no. 3 - Vishwambhar Govindrao Garud was appointed as an Instructor in the Vocational School run by the petitioner society by order dated 31.07.1995. The order states that the appointment is on temporary basis for the session 1995-96 till the end of session. The Deputy Director, Vocational Education and Training by his order dated 1.12.1997 granted approval to the appointment of the respondent no. 3 as full time Instructor in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2600/-, upon relaxation...
All Ro Co Shri. Babanrao Gaikwad Vs. Miss. Mina Do Ramvilas Jogi and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard the matter finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioners prayed for quashing of the Criminal proceedings vide Criminal Case No. 156/2011, initiated under Sections 107, 116(3) and 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is submitted that the valve of the water tap in the house of the petitioners is affixed near the house of the respondent No. 3 - Ms. Mina d/o Ramvilas Jogi. Mr. Pappu Jogi, the brother of the respondent no. 3 was seen playing or tampering with the valve. 3. On 12/06/2011, there was no water from the tap hence, petitioner no. 1 went to see the valve at about 12.30 p.m. She found that it was in broken condition. She then asked respondent No. 3 - Mina and her brother Pappu Jogi as also her sister Munni Jogi, as to who had broken the valve. Upon questioning them, respondent No. 3, her brother and sister quarreled over the question and abused petitioner no....
Ashish Jagdishprasad Sharma Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-2011
JUDGMENT [PER A.H.JOSHI, J.]:- 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith, with the consent of parties. 2. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 3. By these petitions, the petitioners have challenged F.I.R. Crime No.I-81, No.I-80, No.I-83, No.I-79, No.I-82, No.I-84 and I-66 of 2011 registered with Gondi Police Station in district Jalna. 4. The prayer for quashing is based on various grounds. 5. The facts which are the basis of the petition are summarised as follows: (a) The petitioner, is a contractor, who has secured the contract for lifting minor mineral-sand from the river-bed of Godawari, had assigned the transit permit for lifting and taking away the sand. (b) The motor vehicles carrying the sand were suspected to carry sand in excess of the volume in terms of cubic meters than mentioned in the transport permit. (c) In order to crystalise fact from the suspicion, the prosecuting authorities got the weighment of the vehicles done and found that the weight of sand contai...
Starlite Lighting Ltd., a Company. Vs. the Shipping Corporation of Ind ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-2011
JUDGMENT: 1. The Petitioners-original Defendants have challenged an Award dated 4 April 2009 passed by the sole Arbitrator appointed by consent of the parties in Summons for Judgment No.630 of 2003 in Summary Suit No.330 of 2003 by invoking Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Arbitration Act). 2. The relevant events and dates are as under : The Petitioners entered into a contract with Philip Lighting B.V., Netherlands to purchase the machines for manufacture of Compact Fluorescent lamps (CFL). The machines shipped in 13 containers under a Bill of Lading. The documents/Bill of lading are endorsed/negotiated by the United Western Bank, Pune. 3. On 24 June 1999, the vessel with the containers arrived at Port Nhava Sheva. Each of the said containers were discharged and moved by the Respondents from the ship side container Freight Station to the Central Warehousing Corporation, Nhava Sheva, Navi Mumbai. There was delay which caused detention of the conta...
Mr. Sudhakar Govind Rave Vs. Maharashtra Agro Industries.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-2011
JUDGMENT (PER K.K. TATED, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. 3. By consent heard forthwith. 4. The Petitioner, by this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the enquiry initiated against him by the Respondent - Corporation after tendering resignation from service. 5. A few facts of the matter are as under: The Petitioner is the Ex-Regional Manager of the Maharashtra Agro Industrial Development Corporation Limited i.e. the Respondent. The Petitioner was working with the Respondent - Corporation since 1st July, 1982 and he was confirmed as permanent employee by the letter dated 11th August, 1983. The Petitioner was suffering from some health problems and was on medical leave from 21st March, 2008. Due to the health problem, the Petitioner could not continue to perform his duties and as such he decided to resign from the employment and he voluntarily resigned from the services of the Respondent by letter dated 20th June, 2008 and the ...
Gopal Changu Patil Vs. Hasuram Mahadu Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-2011
1. Rule, with the consent of the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The issue which usually crops up as regards whose right is to begin in a suit has once again cropped up in the present proceedings. 3. The petitioner who is original defendant takes exception to the order dated 25th March, 2009 by which order, the trial Court, i.e. the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pen has directed the defendant to step into the witness box and lead his evidence in the first instance. The petitioner also takes exception to the order dated 2nd September, 2009 by which the Review application filed by the petitioner came to be rejected. 4. Shorn of unnecessary details, a few facts can be stated thus: The respondents herein are the original plaintiffs who have filed Regular Civil Suit No. 114 of 2008 for partition and for declaration. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they have half share in the property mentioned in para 1-B of the plaint. The plaintiffs have therefore, sought pa...
Dr. Rita Sakharam Paravde Vs. the State of MaharashtrA.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER B. H. MARLAPALLE,J.): 1. Heard Ms. Karnik, the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Rule. 3. Ms. Bhende, the learned AGP for respondents. The petition is heard finally. 4. This petition arises from the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal for short) on 22/8/2011 thereby dismissing O.A. No. 569 of 2011 filed by the petitioner. The Tribunal has accepted the contentions of the Presenting Officer that in view of the G.R. dated 3/5/2011, the petitioner was not eligible for being admitted to the Post Graduate Course of MD (Gynecology) in the current academic year and that the cut-off date of 1/7/2011 was already over. The Tribunal in this regard referred to the order passed by the Supreme Court on 30/6/2011 in I.A. No. 3 of 2011 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 197 of 2011. However, it is pertinent to note that on 6/7/2011 the Tribunal had granted ad-interim relief in O.A. No. 569 of 2011 and directed the respondents to give a provisional adm...
Vithal at Vithoba Gorakh Shinde. Vs. Sangram Narsing Panchal.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned respective counsel for the parties. 2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant (original complainant) challenging the judgment and order dated 21.10.2000, rendered by learned 3rd Jt. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Latur in STCC No.5427/1997, thereby acquitting the respondent/original accused for the offence p/u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. (The parties herein after are referred to as per their original status i.e. complainant and accused). 3. The factual matrix of the case are as follows :- It is the case of the complainant that he carries on business of electronics under the name and style as Keval Electronics near Water Tank, Barshi Road, Latur whereas accused is doing business of preparation of furniture work under the name and style of Suvarna Furnitures near Bank of Maharashtra, MIDC Branch, Barshi Road, Latur. The complainant intended to install furniture in his shop and asked the accused to prepare furniture. Accused also expressed h...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »