Mumbai Court March 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.
Madhukar Tulsiram Tayade Vs. the Chairman and ors.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-14-2011
ORAL : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, with the consent of the respective counsel.2. This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 29.11.2010 passed by the Board of Directors in the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 13.9.2010 whereby the petitioner was removed from the service.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Board (Appellate Authority) is without any reasons and, therefore, suffers from nonapplication of mind and cannot be sustained in law. Similarly, the petitioner was not given personal hearing by the Board before passing the impugned order and, therefore, the same cannot be sustained in law. In order to substantiate his contentions, reliance is placed on the decision reported in 2002 (3) Mh.L.J. Page 750: (Anil Amrut Atre vs. District & Sessions Judge ).4. Counsel for the the respondents, on the other hand, supported the impugned order and submitted that the...
Shriram Munjaji Raut Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-14-2011
ORAL :1 This appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 29.6.2007, rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 18 of 2007, thereby punishing the appellant under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for giving false evidence in Sessions Trial No. 8 of 2006, and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.500/, in default, rigorous imprisonment for seven days.2 The factual matrix, which gave rise for the present appeal, can be summarised as under :Pursuant to the complaint lodged by the first informant, namely Shrirang Munjaji Raut on 14.11.2005, due to death of Meerabai i.e. daughter of the complainant, criminal law was set into motion and the first information report Exh. 20 was lodged bearing C.R. No. 178 of 2005 in respect of offence punishable under Section 306 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the accused persons thereunder were tried in Sessions Trial No. 8 o...
Jamsheed Kanga and anr. Vs. Parsi Panchayat Funds and Properties and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-2011
:1. The genesis of the dispute:The Appellants, who are members of the Parsi Zoroastrian community residing in Mumbai moved the Court in an Originating Summons for the determination of questions relating to the powers/authority of the trustees of the Parsi Panchayat's funds and properties; the rights of the beneficiaries under a Deed of Trust of 1884; and for the proper administration of the Trust. The cause for instituting the proceedings is a ban imposed by the present trustees on two Parsi Zoroastrian Priests, Mr.Framroze Mirza and Mr.Khushroo Madon, from performing prayers or religious ceremonies at Doongerwadi (the Towers of Silence) and at two Agiaries (Fire Temples) which are vested in the Trust. The Agiaries in question are the Godavara Agiary at Fort and the S.F Jokhi Agiary at Godrej Baug, Malabar Hill, Mumbai. The ban has been imposed on the two priests, as a result of certain ceremonies conducted by them, which according to the trustees, are "irreligious", these being (i) pr...
Mv.X.Press Annapurana and ors. Vs. Gitanjali Woolens Pvt.Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-2011
: 1. All these three Appeals challenge the same order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court. Therefore, all these Appeals can be conveniently disposed of by a common order.2. Admiralty Suit No.27 of 1999 was filed in March, 1999 by Gitanjali Woollens Pvt.Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff") claiming following reliefs: (a) That the vessel "X-Press Annapurna" of the 1st Defendant be contemned in the sum of US $ 57,860.00 (United States Dollars Fifty Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty only) together with interest on the principal sum of US $ 51,374.10 at the rate of 18% p.a. and/0r at such other rate as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and for a further sum of US $ 50,000.00 towards damages as per particulars of claim at Exhibit `F' to the Plaint; (b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant Leave under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1980;(c) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant an order that the Plaintiff is entitled to exercise a maritim...
Dhana Mohan Talele and ors. Vs. Nabab Saraj Tadvi and ors.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-11-2011
:1. This Writ Petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 05061992 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Appeal No. REV.TRB.82 of 1985 at ExhibitB to the petition and also to the judgment and order dated 13041978 passed by the Assistant Collector, Jalgaon, Division Jalgaon, in Adivasi Case No. 179 of 1975.2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that, the Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has failed to consider the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court, in many case, that if there is dispute about the status of the persons, who are claiming themselves to be tribals then in that case, the issue whether the persons claiming themselves to be tribals or not, has to be decided by the scrutiny authority. Learned Counsel further submitted that the learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal failed to see that, the respondents belong to Muslim Pathan Tadvi communities, which is not recognised as a Tribal community under Section 38 of ...
Mr.Rohidas Ganpat Godse Vs. the Principal G.B.Khare College and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-2011
ORAL :1. The challenge in this petition is to the judgment and order of the Mumbai University and College Tribunal dated 27.3.2001. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. 2. On 10.12.1998, respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e. the management of the college advertised the post of lecturer in Accountancy. The petitioner being qualified with M.Com., M.Phil. and G.D.C. & A. degrees, applied for this post. He was selected by duly constituted Selection Committee and joined service with the management on 6.2.1999. He was informed that the formal appointment order would be issued to him later. The petitioner noticed that the management was indulging in the malpractice of releasing payment of only 50% of the salary payable to the teaching staff although their signatures were obtained on documents indicate that they had received the full salary. On a demand by the management, the petitioner submit...
Shaikh Dayan Shaikh Lukman Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-11-2011
ORAL :1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is heard finally by consent.2. Heard both learned Advocates. Perused the Petition, annexures and citations cited at the bar.3. Petitioner was externed by order dated 21st September, 2010 [Annexure-E] from districts of Buldana, Akola, Washim, Jalna, Beed, Parbhani, Jalgaon [Khandesh] and Aurangabad. Petitioner s appeal was partly allowed and the territory of externment has been restricted to Buldana district only.4. Petitioner has challenged before this Court the appellate order dated 24th December, 2010, urging that the order of externment was without legal basis and hence without jurisdiction, and ought to have been set aside in totality.5. The grounds of challenge, as urged before this Court, can be summarized as follows:-[a] Out of four Offences referred to, Crime No. 64/06 is not covered by Chapters-XII, XVI and XVIII of Indian Penal Code and hence cannot be a foundation for Show- cause-Notice and the order too.In th...
Shri Abdul Kadir S/O. Abdul Kadar Vs. Regional Transport Authority and ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-11-2011
ORAL :1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 25th October, 1989 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Maharashtra State, Bombay, in Revision Application No. 8 of 1989.2. Upon perusal of the pleadings in the petition, it appears that the petitioner was holding at the relevant time permit No. T.Opp.3027/Aug/84, which was valid up to 26th September, 1987, in respect of M.V. No. MTS 2411. He applied for replacement of the vehicle by higher model, three months before the expiry of the permit. He was permitted to replace the vehicle and 90 days time was allowed by order dated 30th June, 1987. Without taking any steps, the applicant on 01.01.1988 submitted an application to extend the period, but his application was not considered as there was policy of the R.T.O. to grant maximum period of 150 days for the replacement. The request of the petitioner was turned down in view of the policy decision. Said order is dated 28th October, 19883. Aggrieved by order dated ...
Narayan S/O. Sonaji Patil and ors. Vs. Gangadhar S/O. Trimbak Belpatre ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-11-2011
J U D G M E N T :1. This petition is filed challenging the judgment and order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik, dated 30.07.1992 in Appeal No.LND369/82, which is at annexure "F" to the petition.2. It is case of the petitioner that the suit land is comprised in Survey No. 16, admeasuring 18 acres 6 gunthas and pot kharab 20 gunthas, assessed at Rs. 19.94 ps., situated at village Sheri, Tal. Jamner, Dist. Jalgaon. It is case of the petitioner that the suit land was allotted to the father of respondent No.1. i.e. Trimbak Supun Belpatre on an inalienable and impartible tenure, by the SubDivisional Officer, Chalisgaon, in the year 1963. After death of Trimbak, his son i.e. respondent No.1 has entered into an agreement of sale of the suit land with the petitioner in the year 196364 and in view of the said agreement of sale, the petitioner was put in possession of the suit land in the year 196465.3. According to the terms of agreement of sale on 21.06.1963, respo...
Vithal S/O. Venkatrao Alias Yenkaji Sejul Vs. the State of Maharashtra ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-11-2011
ORAL :1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 26.08.1993, passed by the Chairman, Surplus Lands Determination Tribunal (S.L.D.T.), Majalgaon, in File No. 75/ICH/141 Tahsil Office, Majalgaon.2. The petitioner is resident of Abegaon, Tal. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. The petitioner filed reference under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act,1961, in the year 1975. The S.L.D.T., Majalgaon, on the basis of written statement of the petitioner's father, declared that the petitioner is not surplus holder, on 05.07.1976.3. It is further petitioner's case that in the year 1991 the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, under Section 45(2) of the said Act, reopened the case and issued notice to the present petitioner's father on 19.07.1991. The petitioner filed necessary documents. The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, has not communicated the date of hearing to the petitioner and also did not give proper opportunity of being heard and remanded ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »