Mumbai Court November 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.
Union of India, Through General Manager Vs. Pandurang Son of Deepaji P ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Nov-13-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Appellant Union of India, through South Central Railway, Secunderabad has challenged legality and validity of order dated 20.12.2002 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench in Claim Application No. 18/OA-II/RCT/NGP/1997 granting compensation of Rsw. 4 lacs to the respondents together with interest @ 6% per annum. 2. Facts are that Deepaji Pawar, father of applicant no. 1 and husband of applicant no. 2, was travelling from Osmanpur to Devalgaon-Awachat by Daund-Purna Passenger train on 4.7.1996. At Devalgaon Station, driver of the Train suddenly applied brakes which resulted in jerks and Deepaji fell down and died. 3. Respondent Railway Administration denied the claim on the following grounds (i) Deceased Deepaji was not a bonafide passenger; (ii) Applicants have not given complete particulars; and (iii) Deepaji might have fallen down due to carelessness. 4. First Information Report, Accidental Death Report, Inquest Panchanama, Spot Panchanama, Postmortem ...
Naseem Riyaz Khalifa Vs. Shafupta Naseem Khalifa and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-13-2013
Oral Judgment: 1 Rule. With the consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2 The Writ Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked against two orders. The first order being order dated 22-11-2012, by which order, the Trial Court i.e. the Learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Kalyan, refused to take the consent terms on record and rejected the same, the second order is the order dated 23-11-2012, by which order, the application filed by the Plaintiff for withdrawing the Suit against the Defendant No.2 was rejected by the Trial court on the ground that considering the totality of dispute, the withdrawal of the Suit was not justifiable. 3 The Suit in question has been filed by the Petitioner herein who is the original Plaintiff for declaration and perpetual injunction against the Defendants i.e. the Defendant No.1 who is his wife and the Defendant No.2 who claims to be the power of attorney holder of the Defen...
Wits Interactive Private Limited Vs. Ashok Bisht and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-13-2013
Oral Judgment: The Appellant/original Plaintiff-employer has challenged order dated 25 October 2013 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Bombay, whereby refused to grant any ad interim relief against the Respondents/Defendants-ex-employees. There is no dispute with regard to the contractual terms of the employment which deals and covers the aspects of confidentiality, non-disclosure, retention of documents and material, non-competition, injunctive reliefs and the employer's clientage list. 2 The Respondents worked with the Appellant for more than eight years. They resigned. Their resignation was accepted. However, with direction to return/hand over the material as listed in letter dated 14 May 2013. The statement is made by the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents that they have already complied with the same. 3 The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant, however, contended that though the injunction sought is only against the Respondents, not to deal with the c...
Babaji Tukaram Gawas Vs. Ashok Somnath Panigrahi and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Nov-13-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties, only on the challenge to the impugned order dated 18/8/2011. 2. Amongst other prayers, in this Criminal Revision application, the applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside the said order dated 18/8/2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.33/2011. 3. In Criminal Case No.127/OA/138/2009/C, the applicant was the accused and he has been convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months and to pay compensation of Rs.1,30,000/- (One lakh thirty thousand only) to the complainant within forty days and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months. 4. Against the said judgment and order of conviction, the applicant had presented an appeal before the Sessions Judge and since there was a delay of abo...
Caitano Antonio Lourenco Crasto Vs. Smt. Assencao Andrade Crasto Alias ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Nov-12-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mrs. A. A. Agni, learned Counsel for the Respondent. 2. This second appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 23/12/2011 passed by the learned District Judge-I, FTC I, South Goa at Margao in Regular Appeal No. 65 of 2011 by which the judgment dated 18/01/2001 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao in Marriage Petition no. 1/2001/A has been quashed and set aside and the Marriage Petition has been dismissed. 3. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the manner in which their names appear in the cause title of Marriage Petition no.1/2001/A. The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant. 4. The plaintiff had filed the said Marriage Petition for dissolution of marriage between him and the defendant under Article 4(1) and (5) of the Law of Divorce and for direction to the Civil Registrar of Salcete at Margao to cancel the entry in the register of marri...
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Through Its Divisional Co ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Nov-12-2013
Oral Judgment: (Z.A. Haq, J.): 1. Heard Mr. Charpe, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Jagdale, learned Advocate for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. Ghodeswar, learned AGP for respondent no.3. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. 3. Writ Petition is filed by the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, body Corporate constituted under the provisions of the Road Transport Act, challenging the order passed by the Industrial Court, Nagpur, in Complaint (ULP) No. 262/2006 on 6th September, 2011 by which the Industrial Court has declared that the Corporation is engaged in unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as MRTU and PULP Act) by not providing alternate employment to respondent no.1. The Industrial Court has directed the petitioner to pay wages to respondent no.1 for the period 2nd August 2002 till the date of attaining the age of superann...
State (Through Police Inspector, Porvorim, Bardez-goa) Vs. Vinayak Kar ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Nov-12-2013
Oral Judgment : This is State Appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 13/12/2010, of acquittal, passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mapusa, in Criminal Case No.168/S/2009/F. 2. The respondents were the accused persons in the said Criminal Case No.168/S/2009/F and it was the case of the prosecution that on 29/10/2008 at about 15.45 hours both the respondents, in furtherance of their common intention, called the complainant namely, Dharma Bhosle to Tinto Britona by giving him call on his mobile and after the said Dharma reached at the said place, they assaulted him on his head with iron knuckle pad and thus voluntarily caused him injuries. The respondents were charged with the offence punishable under section 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. 3. The respondents pleaded not guilty to the charge and in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined all together witnesses. The case of the respondents was of denial simplicitor. They did not examine any witness in th...
Rameshkumar Vs. the Learned Principal District Judge and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Nov-12-2013
Oral Judgment: (Z.A. Haq, J.) 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. 3. The challenge is to the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge allowing the application filed by the respondent no.2 praying for stay of the proceeding till the decision of the Special Civil Suit No.24 of 2012. It is the submission of the respondent no.2 that the father of the respondent no.2 has filed the Special Civil Suit No. 24 of 2012 praying for confirming the partition in respect of the property, which is the subject-matter in the arbitration proceedings, and for setting aside the award. 4. The application filed by the respondent no.2 per se is not maintainable. The respondent no.2 has not quoted the provisions under which the application is made. At the time of argument, perhaps, the jurisdiction of the Court was sought to be invoked under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code...
Bhushan Devidas Rakhe and Others Vs. Union of India Represented Throug ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-12-2013
Mrs. Chameli Majumdar, Member (J). 1. The applicants have challenged the two orders dated 16.08.2012 and 01.09.2012 issued by the General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Chanda. The order dated 16.08.2012 was issued purportedly in compliance with the order dated 30.04.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench in O.A. No. 286/2011 (Shri Bhushan Devidas Rakhe Vs. Union of India and Others). The Tribunal directed the respondents to reconsider the matter and take a proper decision in the light of the observations made in the judgment and also to take a further action with regard to the appointment of the applicant. The General Manager, by the impugned order dated 16.08.2012, held that it would not be proper to offer appointment in the post of Foreman Grade-II to Shri Bhushan Devidas Rakhe and the case was disposed of by the order dated 01.09.2012. The General Manager declined to offer appointment in the post of Fireman Grade-II to three other applicants of the O.A. No. 68...
Smt. Sugandhi Hire Parab Vs. the Police Inspector and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Nov-11-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Kerkar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Pinto, the leaned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents no.1 and 3. 2. The learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner seeks leave to drop respondent no.2 since he was not party before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panaji as also before the Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa. 3. Leave granted as prayed for. Respondent no.2 stands dropped. The learned Counsel for the petitioner to carry out amendment forthwith. 4. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard forthwith. 5. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 20/03/2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Panaji in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.102/2011/D as also the order dated 04/04/2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Mapusa in Criminal Revision Application No.46/2012. 6. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.102/2011/D was filed by the petitioner under Section...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »