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.
Gaddu Zaraunkar Vs. Village Panchayat of Velim Through the Sarpanch/ S ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-11-2013
Heard Mr. Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner; Mr. Coutinho, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2 as also Mr. Palekar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1, in both the petitions. 2. This common judgment shall dispose of both the writ petitions, since common question of law is involved. 3. Rule. Rule made returnable forth with. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents waive service of notice. By consent, heard forthwith. 4. By these petitions, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 14/06/2013 passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge-II, South Goa, Margao, respectively, in Civil Revision Applications No. 25/2011/FTC/II and 26/2011/FTC/II. 5. A notice dated 20/03/2006 was issued by the Deputy Director of Panchayats, South Goa, Margao, to the petitioner and respondent no. 1, stating that it had received a complaint about illegal construction of pucca house No. 595/A and a cowshed in the property ...
Milind Prabhu Vs. State of Goa and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-11-2013
P.C.:- The petitioner has approached this Court, challenging the validity of Regulations No.17.1 to 17.10 of the Goa Land Development and Building Construction Regulations, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the said Regulation) being violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. 2. Mr. Pangam, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that Regulation No. 17.5 will have an effect of taking away the business of hoarding, as most of the roads in Goa are having width of less than 10 metres. The learned Counsel submits that the said Regulation is taking away the right guaranteed to a citizen under clause (g) of sub-section (1) of Article 19 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees right to carry on any occupation, trade or business. The learned Counsel submits that though, in view of sub-section (6) of Article 19 it is permissible for the State to impose reasonable restrictions, the onus is on the State to establish that the restriction so imposed...
Suresh Vishwanath Kumavat Vs. Kailas Gokulsheth Kharote
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-11-2013
Oral Order: 1. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent, heard finally. 2. The petitioner is the accused in SCC No.449/2010, pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vaijapur. The said case is in respect of an offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It has been filed by the respondent no.1 herein. 3. For the sake of clarity, the petitioner shall hereinafter be referred to as the accused and the respondent no.1 as the complainant. 4. The entire evidence adduced during the trial was recorded by one Magistrate. The examination of the accused u/s 313 of the Code was also done by the same Magistrate. Arguments were also heard by the same Magistrate and the case was kept for pronouncement of judgment. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate was transferred to some other Court. The successor Magistrate passed an order which reads as under: Summary case. Try de novo as Regular Summons Case. 5. The petitioner is aggrieve...
Housten Vincent Rebello and Others Vs. State of Goa, Through Chief Sec ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-11-2013
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) The Petitioners have approached this Court for a writ direction or order quashing and setting aside the resolutions dated 19.08.2009, issued by the Respondent no. 4. 2. The Petition has been amended subsequently seeking a declaration that the resolution passed by Respondent no. 2 dated 7th/8th April, 2007 and 20th/21st May, 2009, wherein Respondent no. 2 had resolved not to approve 10+2 course conducted by National Open School, Respondent no. 6, for admission for Pharmacy course for the purpose of registration as a Pharmacist, is arbitrary, illegal and bad in law. 3. Various rival contentions have been advanced at the bar. 4. Shri Shivan Dessai, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, submits that the said resolution is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the Medical Council of India and the Council for Dental Medicine of India have recognised the said 10+2 course conducted by the Respondent no. 6. It is submitted that...
M/S. Konel Corporation Pvt Ltd., Through Himanshu M. Shah, Director Vs ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-2013
Narendra Kawde, Member: (1) Complainant is a small scale industrial unit engaged in designing, engineering, manufacturing and supplying of materials handling equipment on turnkey basis. The complainant is banking with the opponent, Union Bank of India, Goregaon Branch, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as Opponent Bank) and availing cash credit and other facilities extended by the Opponent Bank since quite long time. Opponent Bank sanctioned credit limit by letter dated 07/04/2000 for execution of projects at Sikka, Jamnagar, Gujarat. The credit limit was for the period of 15 months. Regular credit of Rs.95 lacs and adhoc credit of Rs.190 lacs was sanctioned and communicated by the said letter with rate of interest thereon @16.32% p.a. Reserve Bank of India announced waiver of interest on the credit facility for execution of work in earthquake area of Gujarat thereby stipulating the conditions that the measures indicated in the scheme were applicable to the earthquake affected persons in...
Rajendra Narayanji Narnaware and Others Vs. the Regional Director, Mun ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-10-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. The petitioners herein have filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the order dt.28.10.2013 passed by respondent no.1 in Appeal No.2/2012-13. 3. The question that is raised is as to whether the petitioners as Councilors of Municipal Administration, Municipal Council, Saoner would incur disqualification for their absence from the meetings of the Municipal Council. 4. The facts, briefly stated, are as under : There was a special meeting of Municipal Council on 15.2.2012 which was attended by the petitioners. The next meeting was scheduled on 12.4.2012, which was cancelled. The another meeting of the Municipal Council was on 14.6.2012, during which the petitioners remained absent without seeking or obtaining any leave for their absence. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that from 14.6.2012 it was es...
Shrigonda Taluka Sakhar Kamgar Union and Others Vs. the State of Mahar ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-10-2013
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Heard learned respective Counsel for the parties. 2. Writ Petition No. 3694 of 2012 is filed by nine Trade Unions of workers claiming to represent 15,000 workers who work on land of respondent no.2 Maharashtra State Farming Corporation Ltd. It is claimed that these workers are earning their livelihood since last three generations on these lands. Their prayer is to declare Maharashtra Act No. VIII of 2006 published in Maharashtra Government Gazette on 17-4-2006, Ordinance No. III of 2006, published on 17-2-2006, as unconstitutional. Petition has been filed on 11-4-2012 and amended on 4-5-2012 to incorporate challenge to Maharashtra Act No. I of 2012. 3. Writ Petition No. 2828 of 2007 is filed by very same Trade Unions and challenge therein is to Ordinance No.1 of 2006 and consequential Maharashtra Act No. VIII of 2006. This petition filed on 22-9-2006, has not been amended thereafter. 4. This Court has on 4th October 2012, passed orders on Civil Application No....
Prabhakar Vs. Gajanan and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-10-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal is filed against the Judgment and Award, dt.25.10.2004 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Akola in M.A.C.P. No.119 of 1999 whereby compensation was awarded in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- including no fault liability amount with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of petition till realization of the amount. 2. The facts, briefly stated, are as under: That the claimant Gajanan Pralhad Sapkal, aged about 28 years, labourer by occupation went to attend a fair at village Dhargad on 10.8.1998. He decided to return home at Akot. a tractor bearing registration no.MH-30 B-5864 along with trolley bearing registration no.MH-30 E-2886 was standing there. The driver of the tractor was calling the persons for traveling upto Akot by the said tractor-trolley. The claimant also decided to travel by the said tractor-trolley. About 50 persons were sitting in the trolley and the driver namely Purshottam was driving the tractor rashly and negligently and ...
Board of Trustees for Jawaharlal Nehru Port Vs. Gateway Terminals Indi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-2013
Oral Judgment: By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short said Arbitration Act), petitioner has impugned the arbitral award dated 28th June, 2012 passed by arbitral tribunal allowing the claims made by the respondent. 2. Some of the relevant facts for deciding this petition are as under: (a) On 10th August, 2004, petitioner entertained into licence agreement with respondent for redevelopment of bulk terminal to a container terminal on built, operate and transfer (BOT) basis at Jawaharlal Nehru Port, Navi Mumbai. The project involved demolition of bulk storage, shades, extension of wharf to make it suitable to take load of more than 8 Rail Mounted Quay Cranes (RMQC) and movement of tractor trailers, extension of north and south approach bridges, construction of new approach bridge to wharf, construction of roads to withstand container movement, construction of yard, yard with electrical supply for refrigerated cargo, construction of ...
Smt. Maria Teresa Philomena D'Rocha Pegado Vs. State of Goa, through t ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-10-2013
B.R. Gavai, J. The petitioner has approached this Court praying for a declaration that Rule 5 of the Goa Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2002 is unconstitutional, illegal and ultra vires Section 15(1)(1A)(d)(h) of The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957. The petitioner has also prayed for a writ of mandamus, commanding respondents No.1 and 2 to cancel the quarry lease executed between them and respondents No.3 and 4 on 28th September, 2000. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the order dated 12th October, 2004 in interlocutory proceedings in Civil Suit No.133/2004. However, it is submitted at the Bar that now the civil suit itself has been dismissed and first appeal challenging the same has been filed before this Court. In that view of the matter, it would not be appropriate for us to consider the relief in so far as prayer clause (c) is concerned. 2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present petition, are as under: The petitioner claims...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »