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.
Dr. Arjun Sitaram Nitinwar Vs. Rama Sakharam Parad and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-2013
1 Rule with the consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2 The Writ Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been invoked against the order dated 1-4-2013 passed by the Learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Thane, by which order, the Trial Court has refused to exhibit the Development Agreement dated 2-3-2005 on the ground that the said agreement has been entered into without complying with the provisions of Section 36A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code in the matter of obtaining permission of the Competent Authority as the land covered by the said agreement is a tribal land and that the said document showing consideration of Rs.10 lacs but the same was executed on a stamp paper of Rs.10 from which it is crystal clear that the said document is not properly stamped. 3 The factual matrix involved in the above Petition in brief can be stated thus: The Petitioner herein is the original Plaintiff whereas ...
Smt. Archana Sandip Purandare and Others Vs. Dawoodsab Ladlesab Walika ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-2013
R.Y. Ganoo, J. 1. The appellants are challenging the award dated 5.12.2011 passed by the learned Addl. Member, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Pune in Claim Petition No.1215 of 2007. Few facts necessary for disposal of this first appeal are as under:- 2. The appellant no.1 married one Sandip Purandare. The appellant no.2 is the daughter born out of said marriage between appellant no.1 and said Sandip. The original applicant no.3 Shashikant was the father of said Sandip. During pendency of the said petition, said Shashikant expired. Hence present appellant nos.3a to 3d were brought on record as heirs of said Shashikant. This was done during the pendency of claim petition. The appellant no.4 is mother of said Sandip. She was also impleaded as heir of said Shashikant. The appellant no.3b is brother of said Sandip and is shown as such in his capacity as heir of said Shashikant. The appellant no.3(c) Mrs. Archana is the heir of said Shashikant and has been brought on record in the said capac...
Smt. Sangita Sahebrao Bhalerao Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through I ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-2013
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Kanade, J.) 1. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the Respondents. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, Petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. Petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by Respondent No.2. - Caste Scrutiny Committee which had invalidated the caste claim of the Petitioner by its order dated 06/07/2011. 4. Brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding this Petition are as under:- 5. Petitioner claims that she belongs to Thakur Caste which is the Scheduled Caste shown at Serial No.44 under the List of Scheduled Tribes as notified by the State of Maharashtra. Petitioner's father had filed an application for obtaining Caste Certificate for his children. However his application was rejected by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Yavatmal by order dated 18/09/2000 on the ground that the Pet...
Dinesh Vs. the Collector, Nagpur and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-12-2013
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Chandurkar, J.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. Challenge in the present Writ Petition is to a notice dated 02.12.2013, that has been issued by the respondent no.1 for convening a special meeting of respondent no.16 Market Committee, to consider the motion of no confidence that was proposed to be moved against the petitioner. 3. Respondent no.16 Market Committee comprises of 18 Directors, and petitioner is its elected Chairman. The respondent nos. 3 to 15 who are also Directors of the Market Committee forwarded a requisition dated 28.11.2013 to the District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nagpur. In said requisition, it was stated that the aforesaid respondents proposed to move a motion of no confidence against the petitioner. A request was made to the District Deputy Registrar to convene a meeting of the Market Committee for considering the motion of no...
Mahindra Holidays and Resorts India Ltd Chennai Vs. Hemantkumar M Wade ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-2013
R.C. Chavan President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune, allowing the Consumer Complaint No.105/2009. 2. Facts which are material in deciding this appeal are as under: The Appellant Mahindra Holidays and Resorts India Ltd., had a scheme of providing membership for enjoyment of holidays in their own resorts in India and in abroad. The Complainant deposited a sum of Rs.73,304/- in cash with the Appellant Company for membership for a period 01.05.2007 to 30.04.2032. The Complainant had selected two bedrooms apartments in Red category. The Appellant admitted the Complainant to memberships by giving Membership no.255255 and also gave to the Complainant welcome kit and food vouchers worth Rs.8,000/-. The Complainant thereafter paid further sums, in all totaling to Rs.2,08,985/- with the Appellant. A friend of the Complainant was got married in February, 2007 and was to proceed abroad immediately. The Complainant therefore sou...
Madhukar Bhikaji Patil Vs. the Union of India, Through the Secretary, ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-12-2013
RavindraV. Ghuge, J. 1. This Court had heard Writ Petition and issued Rule on 25/06/2012 and directed that it be heard along with Writ Petition No.8114 of 2010. However, interim relief was refused. 2. The petitioner assailed the order of refusal of interim relief before the Honourable Supreme Court of India by filing Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.26543 of 2012. Honourable Apex Court disposed of the Special Leave Petition by an order dated 23.8.2012 and expected this Court to take up the hearing of the petition as expeditiously as possible. 3. We have heard the Writ Petition No. 4817/2012 finally, on 9.12.2013. 4. The petitioner is a Supply Contractor. He does the business of supplying various types of goods. Since 1989 till passing of the impugned order dated 22.9.2009, the petitioner was supplying goods to respondent No.2 Zonal Railway's Training Institute at Bhusawal, District Jalgaon ("ZRTI" for brevity). Large quantity of food grains and sugar was supplied by the petitioner to ...
Mrs. Sandra Lee Stephan and Another Vs. Miguel Francisco Gomes
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-11-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Diniz, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Mahambrey, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. Admit. By consent, heard forthwith. 3. This appeal is directed against the order dated 16/04/2013 passed by the learned Additional Adhoc Senior Civil Judge, Margao on exhibit D-4 in Special Civil Suit No. 9/2012/III. 4. The appellants are the plaintiffs in the said suit whereas the respondent is the defendant. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the manner in which they are designated in the cause title of the said suit. 5. The plaintiffs have filed the said suit for specific performance of contracts, declarations and permanent injunction. Suit Row House is the Row House bearing No. RH-19 admeasuring 139.00 square metres situated in the complex known as Danika Residency, Phase No.II situated at Grande Vanelim, Salcete Taluka, whereas suit Apartment is the Apartment bearing No. AF/2 admeasuring 90.00 square metres ...
Kashinath Parvati Labade Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through Its Secr ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-11-2013
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner assails the judgment and order of the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar dated 31/01/2011 delivered in Complaint U.L.P.No. 32/2001. 3. The petitioner workman, who had joined services of respondent No.2/Department of Social Forestry, was allegedly illegally terminated on 01/05/1987. Being aggrieved by such termination, he raised an industrial dispute under Section 2A of the I.D.Act, 1947. On failure of the conciliation proceedings, the appropriate Government referred the dispute to the 2nd Labour Court, Ahmednagar (Hereinafter referred to as a Labour Court) for adjudication. It was registered as Ref. IDA No.71/1988. 4. After the entire adjudicatory process was completed, the Labour Court delivered its award dated 23/07/1996, by which, the termination of the petitioner w.e.f. 01/05/1987, was held to be an act of retrenchment by the respondent employer. Since the Law of Retre...
Gajanan Babanrao Jadhav Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through Police I ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-11-2013
1. The application is filed for permission to intervene in the proceeding filed for relief of anticipatory bail. The learned counsel Shri. Jeevan Patil appointed by the original complainant wants to even address the Court to oppose the application. This Court had expressed that he can assist the learned A.P.P. and he can file documents and written arguments. 2. This Court, the undersigned, has held in Criminal Application No. 2458/2011 (from Aurangabad Bench) [Annasaheb Vs. Dr. Patil] that such counsel cannot be allowed to address the Court and at the most, he can assist the learned Public Prosecutor/Assistant Public Prosecutor appointed by the State and who is incharge of the case. It is also held by this Court that the original complainant can file written arguments and this is possible both in a proceeding filed for bail and anticipatory bail. In the case reported as 2009 ALL M.R. 687 (Vinay Poddar Vs. State) one Hon'ble Judge of this Court has held that in a proceeding filed for re...
Durocrete Construction Quality Rating Agency Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ramchandra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard finally by consent. 2 The Appellant/original Plaintiff has challenged order dated 19 July 2012 passed by 5th Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune, whereby his Application for injunction is rejected on the ground that no prima facie case is made out, the aspect of balance of convenience and irreparable injury are not in his favour, as the Applicant failed to place on record material to substantiate the case of misuse of confidential information and trade secrets which falls within the ambit of intellectual property. 3 There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the Respondent was in service with Appellant/company and resigned on 1 October 2008, after completion of more than four years of service. The company's information as well as the trade secrets had been used along with others for the the job of construction quality audit. The use of knowledge, skill and experience and various other things, including protocols, checklists, training, modules and quali...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »