Mumbai Court December 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.
Bhausaheb and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through Its Secretar ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-03-2013
Oral Judgment: (A.H. Joshi, J.) 1) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2) Facts involved in the case are not disputed. Case pertains to a dispute as regards acquisition of land done for the purpose of development plan of Shirdi Town. The draft development plan of Shirdi town was proposed, duly notified and was finalized after hearing all objections. The Final development plan was notified in official Gazette. The petitioners confirm these facts in the body of the writ petitions. 3) Writ petition No.6366 of 2009 was filed on 28.9.2009. During pendency of the petition, the land acquisition proceedings were completed. It is not in dispute that in furtherance to notice dated 1.3.2008, under Sections 9 (3) and 9(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, the writ petitioners had objected to the land acquisition, stating that the objections raised by the petitioners before the Honourable Minister thereby praying for deletion of their lands from the acquisition, is...
M/S. Resources International and Others Vs. M/S. Maini Shipping Pvt. L ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-02-2013
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) The matter has been amicably settled between the parties. The consent terms are signed by Smt. Meena Deepak Rajani, on behalf of appellant No.1 which is a partnership firm, appellant No.2 who is her husband, and appellant No. 3 another partner i.e. herself. It is also signed by the respondent, through its Director. The Counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties have also signed the consent terms. 2. Some apprehension is expressed by Shri Supekar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent to the effect that appellant No.2 has not signed himself. 3. Shri Pereira, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that appellant No.1 is presently in Mozambique and he has authorised appellant No.3 who is his wife to sign on behalf of himself. 4. Appellant No.2 has authorised appellant No.3 who is his wife to sign the consent terms and to take such steps as are necessary for withdrawal of the amount from this Court. 5. Undisputedly, a...
Abdul Karim Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Offic ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-02-2013
Z.A. Haq, J. 1. Heard Shri A.B. Mirza, the learned counsel for the applicant, Smt. K.S. Joshi, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the non-applicant no.1 and Shri S.O. Ahmed, the learned counsel for the non-applicant no.2. 2. The applicant has approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and praying for quashing of the Summary Criminal Case No.3271/2012 pending before the 5th J.M.F.C. Court, Akola for the offence punishable under Section 294 (b) of the Indian Penal Code which has arisen out of the Final Report No.96/2012 dated 21st December, 2012 and the F.I.R. No.3076/2012 dated 8th August, 2012 filed by the Police Station Ramdaspeth, Akola against the applicant. 3. The complainant/non-applicant no.2 has filed the complaint with the non-applicant no.1 on 7th August, 2012 alleging that when the complainant and his friends were sitting on bullock-cart, they heard that the applicant has made derogatory statements against Moham...
Dattatraya Laxman Rakh Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through the Secret ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-02-2013
A.I.S. Cheema, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of parties. 2. The petitioner Dattatraya Laxman Rakh (hereinafter referred to as the "employee") has filed this Writ Petition claiming that he was in employment with the respondent No.2 Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, Aurangabad Divisional Board, Aurangabad (hereinafter referred to as the "Board") and has retired, but his pensionery benefits have not been released. 3. It is the case of the employee that:- (a) He was appointed on 15.11.1984 in the post of Peon and continued in service till 1.2.1988 when his services were orally terminated by the Board. He approached the Deputy Commissioner of Labour at Aurangabad and the dispute was referred to Labour Court by the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 14.2.1989. The employee and the Board went before the Labour Court at Aurangabad in Reference (I.D.A.) No. 26/1989. An award was passed in favour of the employee, d...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›