Mumbai Court October 2013 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.
Smt. Kanchan Ramdas Morascar Vs. Dr. Armando Joao Benedito Mascarenhas ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-10-2013
1. Rule. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The writ jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the judgment and order dated 22/08/2012 passed by the Administrative Tribunal, Goa by which order, the application dated 05/01/2012 filed by the petitioner herein under Section 32(1) and the application filed by the respondents under Section 32(4) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 ('the Rent Act' for short) came to be disposed of inasmuch as the application filed by the respondents came to be allowed and the proceedings filed under Section 22(2)(f) of the Rent Act came to be stopped and the petitioner herein was directed to vacate the suit premises within two months from the date of the order and put the respondents in possession of the said premises. 3. The facts necessary to be cited for adjudication of the above petition can in brief be stated thus: The petitioner is the tenant ...
Padmanabh Ratnakar Muley and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra, (Thr ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-10-2013
RavindraV. Ghuge, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Rule. 3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 4. Since a common question of law is involved in all these matters, we have heard the concerned parties and have taken up these petitions together for final hearing. 5. Before adverting to the question of law involved, we deem it appropriate to note the facts of the case in brief as follows:- (A) Writ Petition No.3574 of 2013 pertains to the Ayurvedic College at Boradi, Taluka Shirpur, District Dhule, falling under the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nasik (for brevity "Health University" hereinafter). The petitioner therein was admitted to Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery course (for brevity "BAMS" hereinafter) in the year 2006-07. In the period from 2006 till 2012, the petitioner made six attempts to clear his first year of BAMS course. Having failed in said six attempts, he was barred by the Health University from taking seventh at...
Suresh Ramlu Aulwar and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Anothe ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-10-2013
Oral Judgment:- 1. This writ petition and the revision application both can be conveniently decided by this common judgment, as both the matters arise out of Sessions Case No.1/2011, pending before the Sessions Court, at Bhokar Dist Nanded. 2. The applicants in the revision application, as also the petitioners in the writ petition, are accused in the said case. The allegations against them are that they have committed an offence punishable under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicants had applied for discharge before the Sessions Court, but their application for discharge was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded. Being aggrieved thereby, the accused persons have approached this Court by filing above two separate proceedings. 3. The Revision application No.164/2013 was admitted on 5.9.2013 and was peremptorily fixed for final hearing today. In the writ petition Rule is issued making it returnable forthwith a...
P.G. Dhole, Presently Working as J.T.O., Amravati Vs. Union of India, ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-2013
A.K. Basheer, Member (J). 1. Applicant is working as Junior Telecom Officer in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited at Amravati. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him in terms of Memorandum of Charge dated December 29, 2010. We do not deem it necessary to refer to the Article of Charge at this stage, particularly in view of the order that we propose to pass. 2. It is on record that the Inquiry Officer had submitted Annexure A-4 report dated March 30, 2012 before the Disciplinary Authority. On receipt of the report, the Disciplinary Authority had forwarded a copy of the same to the applicant and invited his response thereto. Thereafter the Disciplinary Authority has passed Annexure A1 order in exercise of the powers vested in him under sub rule (1) of Rule 37 of BSNL Conduct and Appeal Rules 2006 remitting the case for further enquiry. By this order the Disciplinary Authority has also appointed Shri S.V. Dange as the new Inquiry Officer. While doing so the Disciplinary Authority h...
Mangabhai Jadavbhai Makwana Vs. Tekchand Chhaganlal Shah and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-2013
Cav Judgement 1. Challenge in both these appeal from order preferred under Order 43 Rule 1(r) read with section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is the order dated 24.9.2012 passed in Civil Suit Nos.79/2011 and 80/2011 respectively passed below Exh5, whereby the learned trial Judge rejected injunction application pending the suit for restraining the defendants, their servants, agents from transferring, selling, gifting, renting or creating third party right or handing over physical possession to anyone over the suit land, more particularly, described in the plaint situated at village Sarbhod, Tal: Bardoli, Dist: Surat admeasuring 7487 sq mtr and 15783 sq mtr respectively. 2. Since the dispute relates to the sale agreement dated 12.12.2009 entered into between the purchaser and seller of the suit land stipulates identical terms and conditions governing sale transaction except price of the suit land, they are hereby disposed of by this common judgment so as to avoid repetition of...
Dr. Kewalkumar Vyankatrao Nemmaniwar and Another Vs. the State of Maha ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-09-2013
Oral Judgment: [K.U. Chandiwal, J.] 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally, by consent. 2. By present Criminal Application the Applicants, then President of Municipal Council, Kinwat and Chief Executive Officer, respectively, seek quashment of F.I.R. vide Crime No.3005 of 2011, dated 11th March 2011, registered at Police Station, Kinwat, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 409, 468, 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'I.P.C."). Respondent Nos.2 and 3 were also members of said Municipal Council, at the relevant time. 3. A resolution was passed in Municipal Council, Kinwat on 4th January 2010, and approved for expenditure of Rs.80,00,000/- (Rupees Eighty Lakh) to provide High Mask System for street light arrangements. Applicant No.1 asserts that he was not party to said resolution but it was Respondent Nos.2 and 3 who attended Meeting. For such purposes, our attention is drawn to Page No.23 of the Petition, primarily showing t...
Sandeep P. JaIn Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-2013
1. Heard. 2. Crime No.49 of 2013 is registered with E.O.W., Crime Branch, C.I.D., Mumbai. The investigation has proceeded and even charge-sheet is filed against one amongst the accused, namely, Khaled Kazi. The offence is registered against him under sections 419, 420, 463, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B of IPC., and the crime is under further investigation under section 173(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. Present applicant is named as accused. On the basis of said further investigation, the applicant apprehends arrest and hence applied for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court. 4. The anticipatory bail application No.1069 of 2013 filed in Sessions Court was rejected by the Sessions Court and after the order was passed by this court, the second anticipatory bail application No.1306 of 2013 was heard by the learned Sessions Court and the same has also been rejected. 5. The applicant has approached this court through this application for anticipatory bail. 6. Background in which the...
Hilton Builders and Textiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Special Paints Limited and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-2013
Oral Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) The appeal arises from a judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 13 September 2013 in a motion that was taken out by the Appellant, the original Plaintiff, during the pendency of a suit for specific performance. The reliefs that were sought in the motion were: (i) The rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; and (ii) A direction to relieve the Defendant (the First Respondent) from lispendens. By the judgment and order which is questioned in appeal, the learned Single Judge declined to accede to the prayer under Order 7 Rule 11. That part of the judgment has not been questioned in appeal by the First Respondent. However, the learned Single Judge relieved the First Respondent from the operation of lispendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 on the deposit of an amount of Rs.8 lakhs in Court within six weeks. The Plaintiff is in appeal. 2. The Appellant has instituted a suit for spe...
Dnyaneshwar Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Offic ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-09-2013
A.I.S. Cheema, J. 1. Appellant original accused No.1 (hereinafter referred as "accused") has been prosecuted in Sessions Case No.88 of 2010, held before Extra Joint Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna and he has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (for short "I.P.C.") and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine Rs.5000/(Rupees Five Thousand), and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years; under Section 498A of I.P.C. to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/(Rupees One Thousand), and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year. His brother Ramprasad Shivdas Lomte and sisterinlaw Arunabai Ramprasad Lomte (original accused Nos. 2 and 3) were acquitted. 2. The conviction has been imposed for committing murder of wife by accused Dnyaneshwar, namely, Vijaymala (hereinafter referred as "victim") by burning her on 18th October, 2007 and for having had sub...
Vishal Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary Rural Developme ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-08-2013
1. Petition is directed against the order dated 7th November, 2012 passed by Additional Collector, Osmanabad declaring that the resolution dated 12th October, 2012 of no confidence passed against the petitioner in the meeting is valid and the Saprach i.e. the Petitioner is disqualified to hold the post of Sarpanch. The petitioner is elected member of Village Panchayat of Khamkarwadi. He is elected for a tenure of 2010 to 2015 and he is holding the post of Sarpanch. Village Panchayat of Khamkarwadi constitutes 7 members. On 8th October, 2012 there was a requisition demanding meeting for motion of no confidence against the Sarpanch. On 9th October, 2012 Tahsildar issued notice pursuant to the requisition informing all the 7 members of the Village Panchayat that the meeting was scheduled on 12th October, 2012. Accordingly, the notices were served on 5 members of the village Panchayat. As per the case of the petitioner, it was not served on him and on the one member of the Panchayat. While...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »