Mumbai Court September 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.
Raul Prazeres Vs. State of Goa, Through the Chief Secretary and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri S. Narvekar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents no.1 and 2, Shri D. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.3 and Shri M.B. Da Costa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the intervenor. 2. The above petition challenges an order passed by the respondent no.2 dated 9/12/2005 whereby the petitioner was directed to demolish the disputed structures in the property surveyed under no.266/2 of Mandrem village. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case as stated by the petitioner are that the respondent no.3 on 10/08/1992 issued a permission to the predecessor in title of the petitioner for reconstruction of the existing old house bearing no.435, 435/4, 435/5 and 435/6 in the property surveyed under no.266/2 at Mandrem village. On 5/01/1993, the respondent no.3 issued a reconstruction permission to the said predecessor in title for reconstruction of the existing old ...
Ram S/O Atmaram Dongarwar Vs. the Corporation of the City of Nagpur, T ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) Heard Shri. A. M. Ghare with Shri. Gadhia, leaned Advocate for petitioner and Shri. S. M. Puranik, learned Advocate for respondent No. 1. Nobody appears for respondent No. 2. 2. Effort of petitioner is to demonstrate that for promotion to the post of Assistant Education Officer, as per 50 points roster, first 19 points have been exhausted and against point No. 20, earmarked for open category, candidate from Scheduled Caste has been promoted. It is pointed out that initially when petition was filed, this promotion order was not issued and petition has been allowed to be amended to incorporate challenge to that order. Respondent No. 2 is the person, who has been promoted as Scheduled Caste candidate. 3. In reply, respondent No. 1 has pointed out that in said roster, total 24 points were already exhausted and point No. 25 was open for promotion. That point was meant for Scheduled Caste category and accordingly, respondent No. 2 has been promoted aga...
- ‹ Prev
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- Next ›