Mumbai Court September 2011 Judgments
Satish Kundanlal Agarwal and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-2011
1. This group of petitions raises common challenge to the Government Resolution dated 5th March 2011 issued by the State of Maharashtra through the Department of Higher and Technical Education and to the extent of Clauses 11(1), 11(3) and 11(4) of the said G.R. There is no dispute that the impugned GR has replaced the earlier GR dated 25/2/2011 and, therefore, the challenge to the same clauses of the GR dated 25/2/2011 is required to be considered with reference to the GR dated 5/3/2011 as the petitions were filed prior to the GR dated 5/3/2011. Hence these petitions are being decided by this common order. 2. The petitioners are either working as Lecturers / Professors at the graduation or post graduation level in different colleges affiliated to non- agricultural Universities and with the said universities as well as in the Government colleges (Engineering and Non-agricultural) in the State of Maharashtra. On 31/12/2008 the Government of India through the Ministry of Human Resources D...
Tag this Judgment!Networth Stock Broking Ltd. Vs. Devanand Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-2011
1 None appears for the Respondent. The matter was admitted on 25 June 2009. The matter was listed for final hearing from time to time since 2009 for more than eight to ten occasions. 2 The Petitioners who are a corporate share and stock broker have challenged the Award dated 25 November 2008 passed by the Arbitrator appointed under the bye-laws, rules and regulations of the National Stock Exchange of India Limited, based upon the Client- Member Agreement between the parties. The Respondent also executed individual Client Registration Form and other related documents to become constituent of the Petitioners and established privity for buying and/or selling and dealing in securities and trading in F & O segment (carry forward of positions in Future stocks, Index, Intra-day trading etc.) through the Petitioners on NSE. The Respondent has also signed mandatory Risk Disclosure Document for dealing in capital market and F & O (Futures & Options) Segments and also signed a mandato...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Suraksha W/O Premsingh Vs. Neeta D/O Padamsing Taji and ors.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-30-2011
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the present matter is taken up for final hearing and disposal at the stage of admission itself. 2. This Misc. Civil Application is filed praying for transfer of proceeding bearing MACP No. 317 of 2009, pending on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amravati, to the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalgaon. 3. It is case of the applicant that, she is legally wedded wife of Premsing @ Dilipsingh Rajput, who died on 21st June, 2009, in road accident of Niwasa-Mozari road. The marriage of the applicant with deceased Presmsing was solemnized on 10th May, 1996 at Akola and the applicant is now issueless widow. It is case of the applicant that, during life time of Premsing, the applicant and the deceased Premsing moved an Hindu Marriage Petition U/section 13(1)(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on 22nd June, 2008, which was disposed of, as the same could not be materialized ...
Tag this Judgment!Prakash Bankatlal Ostawal Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-30-2011
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. These petitions are directed against the orders dated 30.03.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Majalgaon in Criminal Revision Application Nos.11/2010 and 12/2010 thereby confirming the orders dated 30.03.2010 passed below Exhibit-66 in SCC No.235/2007 and below Exhibit-74 in SCC No.234/2007, by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Majalgaon. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, by the impugned orders, had discharged respondent No.2 from the said Summary Criminal Cases. 3. As common question of law is involved in both these petitions, they are being disposed of by the common judgment. 4. For better appreciation of the facts which gave rise to file the present petitions, it would be appropriate to advert to the facts of the case in nut shell, which are as follows: On the request of respondents No.2 to 4, who are the controlling authorities of Jai Mahesh Sugar Factory, the petition...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Shivaji Shripati Gaikwad and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-2011
1. Both petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India have challenged the common judgment dated 7.3.2011 rendered by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (for short, "MAT") in a group of original applications. In Writ Petition No.2092 of 2011, three of the petitioners were the private respondents before the Tribunal. Writ Petition No.4236 of 2011 has been filed by the State of Maharashtra.2. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, the petitions have been heard finally.3. By the notification dated 17.7.2009, the State Government, in exercise of its powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, framed the State Excise Department (Recruit) Rules, 2009, and the said notification was published in the State Government Gazette of the same date. Rule 3 of the said Rules and more particularly Rule 3(a)(iii) read with Rule 3(c)(iii), came to be challenged on its constitutional validity before the MAT. The Tribunal ha...
Tag this Judgment!Shreyash Son of Dr. Sanjay Khemuka Vs. Miss Sheetal Do Bharat Tate
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER S.A. BOBDE, J.) 1] Rule returnable forthwith. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties finally by consent. 2] By these two Writ Petitions, students seeking admission to the MBBS Course having passed the MHT Common Entrance Test -- 2011 have prayed that the admission of respondent students who are admitted be cancelled and the respondent authorities be further directed to give admission to the petitioners. The controversy has arisen in respect of the admission to the course of M.B.B.S. for the year 2011 under the scheme for admission framed by the Directorate of Medical Education and Research of the Government of Maharashtra for admission to Government Medical Colleges in the State of Maharashtra. The Rules governing the said admissions are stated in the Brochure. They provide that in each Government College the intake capacity is to be filled up as follows :- The first category is the All India Quota. This comprises of nominees of the Government of India and student...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Sindu N. Danawale Vs. Smt. Chabubai M. More.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-2011
1. This Civil Application is filed for seeking the following substantive reliefs:- "(a) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the above Appeal, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent No.1 to pay maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month to each of the applicants. (b) Ad interim relief in terms of prayer clause (a) be granted. (c) In the alternative, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to expedite the hearing of the Appeal and peremptorily fix the early date of hearing of the abovesaid Appeal. (d) Any other appropriate orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice and equity be passed." 2 An affidavit in reply has been filed by son of Respondent No.1 namely Mr. Bhujaba K. Jadhav and Applicant No.1- Kamlabai S. Rajiwade has filed additional affidavit indicating that she is widow and has placed on record the revenue records of various suit lands indicating their respective areas, nature of crops cultivated, existence of wells etc. 3 On 23rd September, 2011,...
Tag this Judgment!Nilima Wife of Pavansingh Pardeshi Vs. Pavansingh Son of Jeevansingh.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the applicant. On 05-09-2011 when this Court heard this application, Rule was issued, which was made returnable on 30-09-2011. Though the respondent is served and affidavit in reply is filed, none appeared for the respondent. 2. Since the matter relates to matrimonial dispute, is required to be disposed of on priority basis. This application is filed by the applicant wife for the transfer of the proceedings which are filed by the respondent husband at Nagpur. 3. It is the case of the applicant that, on 21-06-2010 the applicant and the respondent performed the marriage. The applicant went to Nagpur for cohabitation. The applicant came to know that the respondent herein is suffering from schizophrenia and under the treatment of Psychiatric Dr. Bhave of Nagpur. On 03-10-2010 the applicant came to Aurangabad to her parent's house. On 27-10-2010 the brother of the applicant went to Nagpur and met Dr. Bhave alongwith the respondent. On 1...
Tag this Judgment!Sumer Nagar Vs. BipIn S Barot and Others
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-2011
S.R. Khanzode, Judicial Member 1. This appeal is against the dismissal order of the consumer complaint filed by the original Complainant Society. The impugned order is dated 08/09/2010 passed by Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Bandra (the Forum in short) in Consumer Complaint No.372 of 2003, Sumer Nagar No.3 Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Mr. Bipin S. Barot and Others. 2. Referring to the complaint, a grievance is tried to be placed by the Appellant/original Complainant, namely Sumer Nagar No.3 Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Society) to the effect that services of the Respondent No.1/original Opponent No.1, namely Mr. Bipin S. Barot and the Respondent No.2/original Opponent No.2, namely M/s. Manoj Paresh Consultants, as an architect and surveyor, were engaged by the Respondent No.3/original Opponent No.3, namely M/s. Sumer Developments, who is a builder and developer (hereinafter referred to as the Builder) to ...
Tag this Judgment!Shaikh Yusuf Bhai Chawala and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-2011
1. The subject matter of all these Petitions is the same namely challenge to the incorporation of Respondent No.2/ Maharashtra State Board of Wakfs and things connected therewith. Therefore, these petitions can be conveniently disposed of by a common order. 2. The Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2906 of 2004 are Muslims belonging to Shia Fatemi Ismaili Tyebia Sect of Islam. They follow Shia Fatimid Ismaili Tayebi Schol of Muslim Law., which Shia School known as Fatimid Law. In short, they are Shia Muslim. Petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 are trusttes of "Sir Admji Peerbhoy Santorium" created by a Scheme settled by this court by its order dated 16-6-1931 in Suit No. 1560 of 1927. The said Trust is also registered as a Public Trust under the Bombay Public Trust Act. The Petitioners Nos. 4 & 5 are trustees of "Anjuman-i-Null Bazaaar Chhabdi Bazaar Niaz Hussein Charitable Trust, which is registered as a public Trust under the Bombay Public Trust Act. 3. The Petitioners in Writ Petition No.899 ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »