Mumbai Court June 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.
Alhuda Multipurpose Education Society Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-10-2011
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of Shri Nemade, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Sambre, learned Government Pleader for respondents No. 1 to 6 and Shri Dubey, learned counsel for respondent No. 7. 2. Shri Nemade, learned counsel contends that rejection of permission to open a Secondary School in Urdu Medium submitted for the year 2008-09 on 04.03.2010 is questioned in this petition. He contends that proposal was recommended by District Level Committee and the said recommendation was maintained by Respondent No. 7 during re-verification. The rejection by Respondent No. 1 on the ground that information about other Middle Schools in radius of 3 kms. was not furnished is perverse and erroneous. Attention is invited to application as submitted, particularly information given against columns No. 8 & 11 to demonstrate that there was no Middle or Secondary School functioning in the radius of 5 kms. and nearest School is at Akot, which i...
Mr.Jitendra Nathmal Joshi @ SharmA. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-09-2011
1 By this petition, the Petitioner prays that the First Information Report bearing No.7/2011 dated 07.01.2011 registered at judgment.sxw the CBD Belapur Police Station against the Petitioner in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code be quashed. The Petition was originally filed only against the Respondent No.1 i.e. the State of Maharashtra, but pursuant to the order passed by us, the first informant viz. Mrs.Seema Vishnu Joshi has been added as a party to the petition as Respondent No.2. 2 Only a brief reference to the contentions of the Petitioner on facts would suffice. According to him, he is carrying on the business of import & export in the name and style of "Path International". The Petitioner knows one Vishnu Joshi, a Chartered Accountant, who is husband of the first informant Mrs.Seema Joshi Respondent No.2 herein. That the said Vishnu Joshi approached the Petitioner in the month of December, 2009 and put before him a bu...
Ms. Priyanka Dattatray Bamane. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-09-2011
1. This is an unfortunate case where a less meritorious student than the petitioner, a student with 136 marks at the Common Entrance Test as against 137 marks obtained by the petitioner at the same test, secured admission to the first year MBBS course in respondent No.6 College. The petitioner moved this Court on 29th September 2010 but by the time all the relevant facts could come on record and the parties completed their pleadings and made their oral submissions through their respective learned counsel, the cut off date of 30th September 2010 had already gone past. This Court, therefore, noted in the order dated 5th October 2010, that this unfortunate situation arose because students, who had already secured admissions to seats in Government Medical Colleges did not give up their entitlement to secure admissions to the private unaided medical colleges till the third round of counselling, with the result that the seats were later on treated as vacant and taken out of the pool of seats...
Smt.Komal Rugwani. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-09-2011
1. A Division Bench of this court has referred following questions for consideration by a Larger Bench. (I) Whether an employee employed in a private primary school recognised by a body or officer referred to in sub-section (2) of section 39 of the Bombay Primary Education Act, 1947 can approach the Tribunal under section 9 of the MEPS Act, 1977, if he/she is aggrieved by any action of the management as stipulated in the said provision? (II) In other words, whether the MEPS Act, 1977 applies to employees of a private primary school recognised by a body or officer referred to in sub- section (2) of section 39 of the Bombay Primary Education Act, 1947? 2. The Hon'ble the Chief Justice, therefore, constituted this Bench for consideration of the above quoted two questions. 3. The relevant facts are that the Appellant was in the service of Jhulelal Trust School as Asst.teacher. She was working in the primary school. By order dated 26-11-2007 her services were terminated by the managem...
M/S. Imageads and Communications Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Bajaj Leathers Private L ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-09-2011
1 The Appellant, original Plaintiff, has challenged the judgment and order dated 12 January 2009 passed by a learned Single Judge, thereby, dismissed the Suit for specific performance, based upon agreement dated 22 April 1977 ("The Agreement") between the Appellant and Respondent no.1. 2 The basic case is that the agreement is an agreement for sale, whereby Respondent no.1 agreed to sell the suit premises at and for a consideration of Rs.3,55,250/. The Appellant paid the earnest money of Rs. 71,500/ at the time of execution of the agreement and took the possession of the premises i.e. No.103, admeasuring 1421 sq.ft., Mittal Chambers, 10th floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021. The Appellant since then has been in possession of the premises till this date. The balance consideration was Rs.2,84,200/, as agreed to be paid before the end of three years. The Appellant paid the monthly society maintenance charges of Rs.5,684/ per month regularly. Respondent no.1's specific case is that the agr...
Shyamsundar Raghunath Patil Vs. Chandrakant Narayan Zantye
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-09-2011
1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent. 2. Appellant is the original Defendant and Respondent is the original Plaintiff. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred to as "Plaintiff" and "Defendant". 3. Plaintiff is the maternal uncle of the Defendant. Plaintiff's father one Narayan Zantye died in 1946 leaving behind his widow and two sons Gurunath and Chandrakant and four daughters. One of the daughters Sumati had a son Shyamsundar who is the Defendant herein. Plaintiff filed suit against him for declaration that he is the owner of the property which is a residential house and for injunction, restraining the Defendant from obstructing enjoyment of the Plaintiff in respect of the dwelling house (hereinafter referred to as "suit property"). According to the Plaintiff, after death of his father, Plaintiff and his brother Gurunath executed a partition deed which was duly registered dated 7/...
Post Koparwadi, Tahsil Sausar, Dist. ChindwarA. Vs. Smt Manjusha W/O R ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-08-2011
1. The short question involved in the present case is, whether a wife having flouted decree for restitution of conjugal rights for no justifiable reason, is entitled to claim maintenance ? 2. Marriage between applicant and respondent no. 1 took place on 19.6.2000. Out of wedlock, the couple is begotten with son. Since respondent no. 1wife left the matrimonial home for her parental house for no justifiable reason and she was not joining back though repeated calls were given by the applicant husband, applicant was constrained to file a petition for restitution of conjugal rights (Civil Suit No. 150A/03) before the Court at Chindwara. The Additional District Judge, Chindwara was pleased to grant decree for restitution of conjugal rights vide judgment and order dated 1.9.2005. According to the applicant, inspite of the said decree and repeated calls from him, respondent no. 1 failed to join his company as his wife. On the contrary, she filed Misc. Criminal Application No. 36 of 2004 before...
M/S.Prasad Power Control Pvt. Limited, and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Sa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-08-2011
1. The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the Constitutional validity of Section 41B of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 ("BST Act" for short) as also the constitutional validity of Rule 31AA of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959 ("BST Rules" for short) to the extent that the said provisions are made applicable retrospectively from 1st January 1980. The petitioners have also challenged the validity of the assessment orders passed on 2nd August 1999, 3rd August 1999 and 6th August 1999 for the period 19941995, 19951996 and 19961997 respectively. However, Mr.Joshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has not pressed the challenge to the said assessment orders as the petitioners have filed appeals against the said assessment orders before the Appellate Authority constituted under the BST Act and that the said appeals are pending. 2. The basic dispute raised in this Writ Petition is, when a unit is established as per the Government Resolution dated 30 th September 1988 ('...
Ms.Surekha Ragho Patil. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-08-2011
1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Mr.Nitin Deshpande, A.G.P. waives notice for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.Sandesh Patil waives notice for Respondent No.3. 3. As short question is involved, Petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent. 4. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for issuance of writ of mandamus to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to forthwith withdraw, rescind and revoke the appointment order dated 22nd October, 2010 to the extent it relates to the appointment of respondent No.3 as Law Officer Group B and that of the petitioner. It is thus prayed that the appointment of the respondent No.3 as Law Officer Group B be quashed and set-aside and to issue appropriate direction to the said respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Law Officer Group B. 5. Briefly stated, the Government by Resolution dated 21st August, 2006 created and sanctioned 471 posts of Law Officers and L...
Ramkrushna Somaji Nadekar Vs. Smt Manjusha W/O Ramkrushna Nadekar and ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-08-2011
1. The short question involved in the present case is, whether a wife having flouted decree for restitution of conjugal rights for no justifiable reason, is entitled to claim maintenance ? 2. Marriage between applicant and respondent no. 1 took place on 19.6.2000. Out of wedlock, the couple is begotten with son. Since respondent no. 1-wife left the matrimonial home for her parental house for no justifiable reason and she was not joining back though repeated calls were given by the applicant- husband, applicant was constrained to file a petition for restitution of conjugal rights (Civil Suit No. 150-A/03) before the Court at Chindwara. The Additional District Judge, Chindwara was pleased to grant decree for restitution of conjugal rights vide judgment and order dated 1.9.2005. According to the applicant, inspite of the said decree and repeated calls from him, respondent no. 1 failed to join his company as his wife. On the contrary, she filed Misc. Criminal Application No. 36 of 2004 bef...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »