Mumbai Court July 2012 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.
Ku. Kamna D/O Satyanarayan Handibag Vs. Satyanarayan S/O Chatrabhuj Ha ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-26-2012
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 3. This Civil Revision Application takes exception to the order dated 14.12.2011, passed by the learned District Judge-1, Ambajogai in Misc. Civil Application No. 25 of 2011. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision applicant submits that the applicant is maternal uncle of Ku. Kamna Satyanarayan Handibag. It is submitted that, the application filed by the respondent No.1 for sell of land in the name of Ku. Kamna has been allowed by the trial court. It is submitted that while allowing the said application, the trial court has not taken into consideration the interest of minor child. It is submitted that it is an admitted position that the said land is purchased by the respondent for Rs.4.00 lacs and the approximate value of the said land, in the application filed before the trial Court, is shown Rs.2.00 lacs. It is submitted that the fact that t...
Mahadu S/O Onkar Patil and Another Vs. Vijay S/O Mangesh Salunkhe and ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-26-2012
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that, the Additonal Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik entertained the Revision No. 2 of 2004 filed by the private respondents, herein, challenging the order of the appellate authority i.e. the District Collector, Jalgaon, after a period of eight years from the date of decision of the appellate authority. It is submitted that, when a specific point of limitation was raised before the Revisional authority, the Revisional authority, in the impugned order, has observed that, there is no any limitation for filing Revision and therefore, it cannot be said that, the Revision filed after a period of eight years is not within limitation or legal. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners invited my attention to the reported judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of SantoshkumarShivgonda Patil and others Vs. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale and others, reported in ...
Anuradha Jayant Gangakhedkar Vs. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-2012
Oral Judgment (DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.): 1. Rule; with the consent of Counsel for the parties returnable forthwith. With the consent of Counsel and at their request the Petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. The Petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 7 June 1982 in a Marathi Medium Primary School, namely, D.D.@ Babasaheb Deshpande D.S. High School (Primary School). There is no dispute about the fact that the Petitioner had the requisite qualifications. Her appointment was duly approved by the Municipal Corporation. She retired from service upon attaining the age of 58 years on 30 June 2011, after a long service of 28 years. At the time of her appointment, the School which was conducted by the Third Respondent did not receive any grant-in-aid from the Municipal Corporation. In 2001, the School received 20% grant-in-aid, which was progressively increased in a similar proportion so that by 2005 the school was in receipt of full grant-in-aid. The Petitioner su...
Baptist Anthony Rumao Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-2012
P.C. Smt.Jacinta B. Rumao, the spouse of the Petitioner, completed her SSC from the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary Education in1969 and D.Ed. in 1973. She was appointed in a private fully aided Primary School, St.Joseph's High School, Primary Section, on 2 January 1980 as a Special Teacher. She retired from service as a permanent and confirmed Special Teacher on superannuation after working for 28 years. During her period of service, she had also acquired her B.A. degree in March 1992. She died on 4 November 2009. The management had on 8 February 2008, six months prior to her superannuation, submitted an application to the Administrative Officer, E-Ward, Private Primary Aided School. On 15 February 2012, the management of the School addressed a further communication to the Administrative Officer stating that Smt.Rumao had been paid her salary as revised with effect from 1 July 1985, 1 July 1990, 1 July 1995 and 1 April 2000. A communication has been addressed by the Education Off...
Express Publications Madurai Limited Vs. Indian Express Newspapers Mum ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-2012
1. The plaintiffs have filed a Suit for a preliminary decree to render true and faithful accounts in terms of the All India Advertisement Revenue Sharing Agreements/Arrangements based on circulation figures of the Indian Express and the New Indian Express, certified by ABC or as per the ABC guidelines from 1st April, 2005 till date. A consequential prayer of appointing a Commissioner for carrying out enquiry and scrutiny of the accounts of the plaintiff and defendant and for a final decree over the amount so determined to be found due and payable in favour of the party to whom it is due and against the party from whom it is due and payable alongwith interest has also been prayed for. The plaintiffs have also made a alternative prayer for decree of amount of Rs. 23,49,28,608.09. 2. It is the case of plaintiff that the original Indian Express Limited on account of dispute between the two factions in the family was bifurcated into two groups namely Indian Express Newspapers (Mumbai) Limit...
Palm Grove Beach Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Michael Fernandes and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-2012
1. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. Both the parties have challenged order dated 8 December 2011 passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai from their respective points of view. The operative part of the order is as under : "1) The Appeal is allowed as under : (I) The Order passed by the Certifying Authority enhancing the age from 55 years to 68 years is confirmed, subject to modification that after completion of 55 years the employee shall submit every year medical fitness certificate as per the rules of the Company till he attains the age of 58 years. 2) Accordingly the appeal is disposed of. 3) Inform the authority concerned accordingly. 4) The R and P be sent back to the Commissioner of Labour, Mumbai. 5) The parties to the appeal shall bear their own costs." 3. The basic challenge of the Undertaking/Management is the order of enhancing the age from 55 to 58 years and related aspects. The employees in their separate Petition submitted to enhance 60 years as retirement age in...
Anuradha Jayant Gangakhedkar Vs. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-2012
Oral Judgment (DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.): 1. Rule; with the consent of Counsel for the parties returnable forthwith. With the consent of Counsel and at their request the Petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. The Petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 7 June 1982 in a Marathi Medium Primary School, namely, D.D.@ Babasaheb Deshpande D.S. High School (Primary School). There is no dispute about the fact that the Petitioner had the requisite qualifications. Her appointment was duly approved by the Municipal Corporation. She retired from service upon attaining the age of 58 years on 30 June 2011, after a long service of 28 years. At the time of her appointment, the School which was conducted by the Third Respondent did not receive any grant-in-aid from the Municipal Corporation. In 2001, the School received 20% grant-in-aid, which was progressively increased in a similar proportion so that by 2005 the school was in receipt of full grant-in-aid. The Petitioner su...
Chairman, Shad Adam Shaikh Trust and Another Vs. Director of Vocationa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard finally. 2. By this common judgment, all the above Writ Petitions are being disposed of since they arise out of a common impugned judgment passed by the School Tribunal, Nasik. 3. The Petitioner/management has challenged the impugned order passed by the School Tribunal, Nasik Region, Nasik dated 16.10.1995 whereby they have been directed to reinstate all these Appellants on their original posts and further directed to give benefits attached to it. This Court has stayed the order while admitting the Writ Petition Nos.1023/2000 and 1027/2000 on 11 September 2001. The same has been in force till this date. 4. Apart from going to the merits of the matter, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner pointed out paragraph 12 in Writ Petition No.6996/1996 and submits that they have not been heard when the order was passed. "12. Petitioners further state and submit that the aforesaid Appeal was fixed for hearing along with other Appeals bearing Appeal No.22 of 1993 an...
MatadIn Khairatimal Joshi Vs. Premchand Prathaviraj Kotecha
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-26-2012
Oral Judgment: This appeal is directed by the appellant/original complainant against the judgment and order of acquittal recorded by learned Joint Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Bhusawal, dated 29th October, 2001, acquitting the respondent/ original accused in Regular Criminal Case No.77/1992, of the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with section 420 of the I.P. Code. 2. I have heard learned counsel Mr. S.P. Brahme for the appellant, followed by the submissions of learned counsel Mr. S.S. Choudhari for the respondent. 3. During the course of submissions across the bar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would urge that an error has been committed by the learned trial court in drawing the conclusion that the cheque issued by the respondent in favour of the appellant was not for discharge of legally enforceable debt and on that account alone, the learned trial court has dismissed the complaint. He would further urge that the learned ...
Devidas S/O Bhivsen Patil Vs. Dnyaneshwar S/O Ramesh Narkhede and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-26-2012
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent heard finally. This Writ Petition takes exception to the order below Exh. 45 dated 8/4/2011 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dharangaon, District Jalgaon in R.C.S. No.79/2008. The said application was filed by the original plaintiff for appointment of Court Commissioner. 2. The Petitioner i.e. Original plaintiff, has preferred R.C.S. No.37/2001, which is renumbered as R.C.S. No.79/2008 before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Erandole, District Jalgaon for declaration and mandatory injunction. After issuance of summons, the respondents herein i.e. original defendants appeared in the suit and filed their written statement. The defendants denied the contentions raised by the petitioner in the suit. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that, during the pendency of the above suit, the petitioner had preferred an application at Exhibit 21 for appointment of Court Commissioner. The respondents herein filed their say to the said appli...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »