Mumbai Court August 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.
Priti Dinesh Hanchate Vs. Dhule Charitable Society Dhule and anr.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-20-2011
1. This contempt petition alleges disobedience of the order dated 12-01-2004 passed by this Court. By the said order, this Court directed the respondents herein, to reinstate the petitioner herein. When the matter was called out for hearing on 17-08-2011, none appeared for the petitioner. The matter remained part heard. Today when matter is called out for final hearing, none appears for the petitioner. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 submits that, the petitioner is not qualified to be appointed as Lecturer in Pharmacy College. Letter was received from the Pharmacy Council that M.Sc. Microbiology is not prescribed qualification for the post of Lecturer. There was specific communication from the Pharmacy Council that unless the respondents takes appropriate steps to remove the petitioner from the post of Lecturer, since she is not possessing requisite qualification for the post of Lecturer, appropriate action will be taken against the respondents, therefore, respondents ...
Ajay S/O Manmathappa Shete Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-20-2011
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard by consent. 2. Reply of Respondent No. 2 is already on record. 3. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner is running a Hotel/Lodge at Osmanabad, known as Pratham Lodge. 4. Petitioner was served with a notice of show cause dated 17.2.2011, by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Osmanabad. It pertained to incidents, which occurred in July 2010, of allowing prostitutes to use Rooms in Lodge. Petitioner was called upon to explain as to why action under Section 18(1) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (for short "ITP Act"), should not be taken against him. It was alleged in the said notice that the premises of Pratham Hotel, run in the petitioner's building, were used for allowing the girls and women for prostitution and the premises are situated within 200 meters of public places. 5. Time of seven days was allowed to the petitioner to submit his say. The petitioner furnished his reply dated 1.3.2011. 6. The Sub Divisional Magistr...
Sunil S/O Madanlal Agrawal Vs. Jawaharlal S/O Nandlal Chittarke and an ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-20-2011
1. This Appeal from Order is filed challenging the order passed below Exh.21 in Special Civil Suit No. 510 of 2010, dated 17th June, 2011. . With the consent of the parties Appeal from Order is taken up for final hearing. 2. Background facts for filing this Appeal from Order are as under: . On 04.10.2010, appellant herein filed Special Civil Suit NO. 510 of 2010 for mandatory injunction regarding agreement of re-conveyance dated 21th June 2005, executed by respondent NO.1 in favour of appellant and for recovery of possession of the suit property from respondent No.1 and further for perpetual injunction restraining respondent No.2 from creating any sort of third party interest in the suit property. 3. It is contention of the appellant that financial condition of respondent NO.1 is good, therefore, appellant in the year 2005 on or about second week of June, 2005 approached to the respondent NO.1 for an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees one Lakh Fifty Thousand) for his household and domest...
The Companies Act, 1956, Having Vs. Office At 'S.V.C. Tower' And Ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-2011
JUDGMENT :- (Per Smt. Ranjana Desai, J.) 1. Criminal Writ Petition No.184 of 2011 was filed by International Asset Reconstruction Company Private Limited, who is the petitioner in the instant petition, praying that learned District Magistrates, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Silvassa be directed to pass appropriate orders under Section 14(1) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, "the SARFAESI Act") for taking possession of the secured assets and for handing over the same to the petitioners. It was noticed by the Division Bench of this court presided over by A.M. Khanwilkar, J. that the subject matter of the application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act had been disposed of. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that a number of such applications are pending before the courts across the State and since public money is involved, appropriate directions need to be issued to the concerned Magist...
Geeta Ganpatrao Suryawanshi Vs. Shraddheya Mahila Bahuudeshiya Sanstha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT ( Per : S.A.Bobde, J.) 1. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner has challenged order of suspension dated 12.05.2011 suspending her from the post of Headmistress for whimsical and capricious behaviour and for irregularities committed during past fourteen years. 3. Shri Chandurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the suspension is illegal in view of the admitted fact that the management failed to obtain prior approval of the Education Officer under Rule 35(2) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981. The learned counsel relied on a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Hamid Khan Vs. Edu. Officer, Amravati, reported in 2004(4) Mh.L.J. 513 for the proposition that except in emergent circumstances prior approval of the Education Officer must be obtained. Rule 35 reads as follows : "35. Conditions of suspension : (1) In cases where the Management d...
Bhumanna Piraji Narod Vs. the State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-18-2011
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable and heard parties at length. 2. Heard both sides at length. 3. In this petition, the petitioner is praying for quashing the first information report lodged by the respondent No.2. 4. Copy of the written report furnished before Police Station, which is treated as first information report, is on record age Pages 15 and 16. 5. Learned Advocate Shri Katneshwarkar took us through the record and the various judgments he relied upon as a foundation for the relief which he has prayed. 6. The substance of the contention of learned Advocate Shri Katneshwarkar, is summarised as follows:- (1) The contents of the first information report do not disclose commission of offence. (2) Though the document allegedly forged is said to have been prepared by the petitioner, it cannot be demonstrated by the respondent No.2 that said alleged forged document is used in order to divest the ownership or title to the complaint or vest it in the petitioner. (3) Unless and until wron...
Niranjan Laxminarayan Yeddeloo Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-18-2011
1. The applicant/ petitioner employee of Respondent No. 3 has sought review of the judgment dated 09.04.2009 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1505 of 2006. The Hon'ble Apex Court permitted its filing when said judgment was questioned in Special Leave Petition (Civil) 11159 of 2009 and on 12.05.2009 it has requested this Court to have a fresh look as the judgment earlier delivered by this Court in the case of Anil Ramdas Mede vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Writ Petition No. 5090 of 2003 decided on 26.08.2004) holding Telugu to be a language and not a caste was not considered and there was no finding in that connection in the impugned judgment. Reference to documents is as per their serial number in order of Scrutiny Committee. 2. We have heard Shri Kilor, learned counsel for the applicant/ petitioner, Shri Parihar, learned AGP for respondent No. 1, Mrs. Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and Shri Mohgaonkar, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 in t...
Sunita W/O Baliram Pande Vs. Baliram S/O Haribhau Pande
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-18-2011
Top of Form 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 2. This Misc. Civil Application is filed praying therein, the transfer of the proceedings of Hindu Marriage Petition No. 232 of 2010 filed by the respondent herein, before the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Akola under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, to the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad. 3. It is the case of the applicant that, the marriage between the applicant and the respondent solemnized on 20-06-1994 at Buldana as per Hindu Rites and Customs. Thereafter, they have started residing at Aurangabad as the respondent is in service in the Company at M.I.D.C. Aurangabad. . It is the case of the applicant that, in spite of more than 16 years are passed after the marriage, they have not blessed by God, they have taken medical treatment and advice of the Doctor, but in vain. On this ground, the respondent herein filed Hindu Marriage Petition No. 232 of 2010 in the ...
Parmeshwar S/O Dhondiba Umbre Vs. Mahadeo S/O Waman Raut and ors.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-18-2011
Top of Form 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 2. The petitioner herein, is the original plaintiff and the respondents herein, are the original defendants in Regular Civil Suit No. 130 of 2008 which was filed for declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Majalgaon. . It is the case of the petitioner that respondent Nos. 1,2,4 and 6 to 8 filed their Written Statement on 09-09-2008 as per Exhibit-44 challenging the claim of the petitioner. While respondent Nos. 3,5,9 and 13 to 16 have not filed their Written Statement. Respondent Nos. 10 and 12 are exparte. . On 19-07-2010 the petitioner submitted application for amendment in the plaint on the ground that during pendency of the suit after measurement by the T.I.L.R. respondent Nos. 4 and 6 to 8 have taken possession of portion of the suit land by making encroachment and therefore, the petitioner wish to amend the plaint and further prayed for p...
Naina D. Kamani Vs. Janson Engineering and Trading Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-2011
Top of Form 1. The Plaintiff is one of the permanent Directors of Defendant No.1 Company. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are two other permanent Directors of Defendant No.1. The Company essentially owns one residential building. The Plaintiff and Defendant No.2 reside in two flats of the building. The building was purchased in an auction by Defendant the No.1 Company when the Plaintiff and Defendant No.2 were its members and Directors. The property came to be purchased on 19th January 1989 under the certificate of such purchase in an auction. One flat was thereafter purchased by Defendant No.3 and accordingly the Plaintiff and Defendants 2 and 3 came to be the three Directors of Defendant No.1 Company. 2. It is the case of the Plaintiff that in order to give the Plaintiff sufficient representation in management it was specifically decided that all the three Directors would equally partake in the Board Meetings so that the resolutions of the Board would be unanimous. The Articles of the Company...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »