Mumbai Court October 2013 Judgments
Pokale Dattatraya Gopinath and Another Vs. Indo-german Tool Room, (Thr ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-31-2013
1. By this application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has challenged the impugned order dated 21.02.2013 issued by the Respondents thereby transferring him from Aurangabad Factory to Pune outlet/Branch of the Respondents. 2. The facts of the case in brief giving rise to the present proceeding may be stated as under: That the Respondent No.1 is registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act 1860 and it runs a factory and training institute. Its registered office is located at Aurangabad having branches within the territory of State of Maharashtra. The Respondent No.2 supervises and controls the activities of the Respondent No.1. There is a Branch/Factory outlet of Respondent No.1 at Pune. The Respondents are engaged in the business of manufacture of Tool and imparting training. The Tool Room and Training Centre was established in the year 1990 in collaboration with Federal Republic of Germany for promotion of technical educat...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjay Ananda Salve and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-29-2013
A.S. Oka, J. 1. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No.1959 of 2013 who is employed as an Assistant Teacher in a School run by the seventh Respondent has approached this Court by this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus to strictly enforce Rule 45 of the Secondary Schools Code (hereinafter referred to as the said Code) in Matoshri Savitribai Phule Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Nashik (for short the said school) where he is employed. The grievance in this Petition is as regards the non-implementation of the directions contained in the order dated 16th October 2010 issued by the Education Officer to the Head Master of the said school. The seventh Respondent is the institution which runs the said school and the sixth Respondent is the Head Master of the said school. 2. The Writ Petition No.8125 of 2013 has been filed by the seventh Respondent in the Writ Petition No.1959 of 2013. This Petition has been filed for challenging the legalit...
Tag this Judgment!Nelson D'Souza Vs. Mrs. Julie D'Mello
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-29-2013
1. Plaintiff/Petitioner has filed this petition interalia praying for probate of the last Will and Testament No. (1 of 2001) of Mr.Domnic D'Souza (hereinafter referred to as the said deceased). 2. It is the case of the plaintiff that the said deceased had executed a Will dated 6th March, 1996 and had appointed the plaintiff as his sole executor of the said deceased. The said deceased died leaving behind him the plaintiff who was his son, widow Mrs.Agnes D'Souza, Mr.Walter D'Souza, son, Mr.Melvyn D'Souza, son of the pre-deceased son of the said deceased and Mrs.Julie D'Mello, married daughter. It is the case of the plaintiff that the said Will was attested by Mr.James M.D'Mello and Mr.Satish Ramdas Patil. Dr. Suresh W.Nagdev had examined the said deceased on 6th March, 1996 and found him to be of a sound and disposing mind. On the said Will, the said doctor had made such endorsement and certified that the said doctor had examined the said deceased and found him to be in a sound disposin...
Tag this Judgment!Bafati AllaudIn Mansuri Vs. Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Aut ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-29-2013
Oral Judgment: The Appellant/Plaintiff has filed the present Appeal from Order as the learned trial Judge by impugned order dated 16 May 2013, refused to grant ad-interim relief as sought for. 2 The Appellant has prayed/challenged the action of Respondent No.1, whereby they have sealed the suit premises i.e. shop No.7 situated at building No.14, Bismillah Beef Shop, Hiranandani Akruti, Tata Nagar, Mankhurd(W), Mumbai. There is no dispute that the Plaintiff is the original allottee of the suit premises. He is in occupation and possession since the date of allotment. As per the policy/Regulation, such allottee cannot transfer and/or create third party right or interest in the suit premises without the permission of Respondent No.1. Based upon some complaints, Respondent No.1's Officer/Agent visited the shop and noted that a third person, than the allottee, is using and running the shop in the said premises. The so-called notice was given only to the occupier and not to the Plaintiff/orig...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Parvez Pyarejan Shaikh and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-29-2013
P.D. Kode, J. 1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction/sentence passed by the learned 4th Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Sewree Mumbai on 25th June, 2008 in Sessions Case No.320 of 2007. By said judgment, the appellants original accused nos.1 to 3, respectively husband, unmarried sister-in-law and mother-in-law of victim one Nagma @ Najma Parvez Shaikh, were convicted for in furtherance of common intention having committed murder of said Nagma @ Najma on 4th December, 2006 in midnight in between 11.35 and 12 and each of them were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default to suffer R.I. for 1 month each. 2. Nagma @ Najma (hereinafter referred as deceased) was second daughter of PW1 Mussa and PW7 Mehrunnisa Mussa Shaikh. The couple had four more children i.e. eldest married daughter Reshma, unmarried daughters PW3 Tabassum and another and son PW4 Aslam. PW1 was working as a driver while PW4 was working in mobi...
Tag this Judgment!Vivek Batra Vs. the Union of India Through the Secretary, Ministry of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-29-2013
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1 In the light of the earlier orders passed by this Court at the stage of issuance of notice, this Writ Petition is disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 2 Hence, RULE. The Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 3 By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Petitioner is challenging the grant of sanction vide order dated 09.10.2012. This order is passed by the Respondent No.1. 4 The Petitioner before us is a citizen of India. He is an Indian Revenue Service Officer of 1992 batch (for short IRS officer). Presently, he is the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai. 5 It is stated that a case of Disproportionate Assets bearing RC No.BA1/2005/A0017 was registered by the Respondent No.4 on 4th April, 2005 against the Petitioner who is the original accused, under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It...
Tag this Judgment!Vernon Coelho Vs. Institute of Hotel Management and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-29-2013
K.R. Shriram, J. 1 Rule. By consent of the parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2 Since 1986 the petitioner has been the Head of the Department, Food Production with respondent No.1. 3 The first respondent issued a memorandum dated 1st June 2010 (1st memo) to the petitioner along with a statement of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour based on which it was proposed to take action against the petitioner under Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for brevity referred to as CCS(CCA), Rules). The petitioner was also called upon to submit his representation in response to the memorandum. The allegation in the statement of imputation against the petitioner was that the petitioner took leave for foreign visits giving reasons vacation or personal but actually participated in cookery shows launched by foreign organizations one of which was in Germany. It is alleged that the petitioner thereby engaged in private trade or employment. ...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Pratibha Ashok Salvekar Vs. Allahabad Bank and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-29-2013
K.R. Shriram, J. 1 By an order dated 8th July 2013, the parties were put to notice that the petition may be disposed of finally at the admission stage itself. Hence rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, rule made returnable forthwith and taken up for final hearing. 2 The petitioner is 62 years old and retired from the 1st respondent-Bank on 30th April 2011. Two days before her retirement an order was issued by the respondents informing her that the disciplinary proceedings which had been pending against her for over 14 years, will continue even after retirement from service because of which her retirement benefits have been stopped. The background of this disciplinary proceedings has to be looked into to decide this petition. 3 On or about 22nd March 1974, the petitioner joined the service of the first respondent-Bank as a Clerk. On or about 5th September 1983 the petitioner was promoted as an officer in JMG-Scale-I and on 1st January 2004 was promoted to JMG Scal...
Tag this Judgment!Late Shri. Rajendra Singh Chhatrasal Singh Kushwaha Alias Rajendra C. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-29-2013
Oral Judgment: Plaintiffs have filed an application for striking of the order deleting paragraph 3, 4, 13 to 17 from the affidavit dated 18th March, 2013 filed by the defendant/caveator filed in lieu of examination in chief. Defendant/caveator has filed affidavit in reply to this application. 2. Mr. Shah, learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiff invited my attention to paragraphs 3, 4, 13 to 17 of the affidavit in lieu of examination in chief filed by defendant on 18th March, 2013. The learned senior counsel also invited my attention to the issues framed by this court on 23rd August, 2012. The Testamentary petition was filed by the executor in this court inter alia praying for probate in respect of the alleged will and testament dated 10th May, 2006. This court has framed the following issues : 1.Whether the last Will and testament of the deceased, Rajendra Singh Chhatrasal Singh dated 10th May, 2006 was validly executed. 2. Whether the deceased was in sound state of mind at ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Varhyan (Since Deceased, Through Legal Representatives and Others ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-29-2013
Oral Judgment : 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment delivered on 26.7.2011 in Misc. Civil Application No.291 of 2011 in First Appeal that was sought to be filed against the judgment, order and decree passed by the 7th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur on 10.6.2009 in Special Civil Suit No.848 of 2003. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents, this Court admitted the appeal on a substantial question of law. The substantial question of law involved in the appeal is as under:- Whether the finding recorded by the first appellate Court in deciding the application for condonation of delay to prefer first appeal that the appellants have not shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay is not based upon the facts before it and is thus perverse ? 2. Shri S.W. Sambre, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the first appellate Court, in rejecting the application filed for condoning the delay that had occ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »