Mumbai Court February 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.
Pappu Alias Akhilesh Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-14-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard. 2. ADMIT. 3. Heard finally by consent. 4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-II, Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as "respondent No.1") on 9th July, 2012 in exercise of his powers under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act. The petitioner has been directed to remove himself from territorial jurisdiction of Police Commissionerate, Nagpur and Superintendent of Police, Nagpur (for the sake of brevity "Nagpur City" and "Nagpur Rural") for a period of one year. The petitioner has already removed himself in obedience of the order passed by respondent No.1. 5. It is admitted position that an inquiry was held by respondent No.2 before respondent No.1 could pass order which is impugned in the present petition. It is also not disputed that about 21 criminal cases were pending against the petitioner in the Courts at Nagpur, mainly pertaining to Gittikhadan Police Station, Nagpur. The said 21 cases pending against the petition...
Prabhu Motiram Pamnani Vs. Krishi Utpanna Bazar Samiti
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-14-2013
Common Oral Judgment: Since the issues involved in both the writ petitions are identical, they are heard together and are decided by this common judgment. 2. The petitioners are the original non-applicants. An application was filed by the respondent market committee under Clause 13 of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order for grant of permission to issue quit notice to the petitioners. It was the case of the respondent committee that the shop premises were allotted to the petitioners only for the market year 1989-90. It was the case of the committee that the vacant possession of the shop premises was to be handed over by the petitioners to the committee after the end of the market year on 30.9.1990. Since the petitioners failed to vacate the premises, the application was filed by the committee under Clause 13 of the Rent Control Order for grant of permission to issue quit notice to the petitioners. 3. The petitioner filed the reply and denied the claim of the resp...
Mrs. Terezinha Fernandes, Junior Stenographer (Regular Establishment) ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-14-2013
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Kanade, J.) Heard Mr. Pangam, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Kakodkar, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 3. By this petition which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: (A) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the Respondents to pay to the Petitioner, all arrears of salary in terms of ACP Scheme Scale of Rs.4500-125-7000 with effect from 26/8/2004 and continue to pay the same with interest at the rate of 15% per annum; (B) This Hon'ble Court also be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the Respondents to revise the Petitioner's Pay Scale in terms of the Sixth Pay Commission Recommendations with e...
Bhushan S/O Vijay Ahire Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through Secretary ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-14-2013
Sunil P. Deshmukh, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent heard finally. 2. The petitioner, was a candidate for driver's post and had participated in the selection process pursuant to the advertisement dated 01.10.2011 issued by respondent No. 2 for recruitment, to various posts, inter alia, from reserved category of scheduled caste. 3. The advertisement dated 1.10.2011 stipulated various conditions. The conditions crucial and relevant to the challenge are:- (a) Eligibility criteria referred to for the post of driver is SSC pass and driving licence of heavy motor vehicles. (b) The candidate should apply on or before 15.10.2011 along with all necessary documents. (c) The applications not conforming to the requirements were liable to be rejected by the Municipal Corporation under their authority. (d) Subsequently, corrigendum dated 04.10.2011 has been issued amending minimum educational qualification to passing of 7th standard, apart from having heavy motor vehicles drivi...
Videocon Industries Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Kedia
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-14-2013
Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. The background facts of the case, as narrated in the revision application, are as under: It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner company is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The plaintiff company is carrying on business of manufacturing and sale of various electronic items such as Colour Television sets etc. and home appliances. The petitioner herein is Power of Attorney holder of the plaintiff and he has filed Special Civil Suit No.94 of 2008 in the Court of 3rd Joint C.J.S.D., Aurangabad for recovery of an amount of Rs.43,74,361/- against the defendant. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff / petitioner that the defendant / respondent opened account with Ranchi Branch of plaintiff company and purchased goods from petitioner company from time to time. On 15th September, 2007, the accounts were settled between the plaintiff and defendant and it was found that a sum of Rs....
Mohd. Sabir S/O Mohd. Hanif Vs. Govind S/O Badrinarayan Rathi
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-13-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard learned Counsel Mr. Mahesh Rai for the petitioner and learned Counsel Mr. S.P. Joshi, Advocate h/f Mr. S.S. Sharma for the respondent. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of learned Counsel for the parties. 3. Perused the impugned judgment and order rejecting the application for condonation of delay of 5 months 20 days. 4. The petitioner is an accused in the case pending before the learned Magistrate under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The cheque in question, according to the petitioner, was interpolated. He, therefore, filed an application for sending the cheque to the Document Examiner. The said application was rejected. The said order was challenged before the Sessions Court after a delay of about 5 months and 20 days. The explanation given by the petitioner before the Sessions Court was that the petitioner thought that he could examine the Handwriting Expert though his application for sending the cheque to the Document Examiner w...
Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-13-2013
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Union of India, Chairman, CBDT and Commissioner of Income Tax assail the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Nagpur in Original Application No. 2075 of 2003 on 26th September, 2003. By the said order, the Central Administrative Tribunal has allowed the challenge raised by respondent No.1-employee and has quashed the charge memo dated 07.11.2000 on the ground that the same suffered from inexplicable delay and some of the charges therein were in relation to discharge of quasi-judicial functions by the said respondent. This Court had on 26th April, 2004 admitted the matter and stayed said judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal. This Court also permitted the Departmental Enquiry to proceed further till the Enquiry Officer furnished his report. If the employee was found to be guilty, the petitioner-employer was asked to seek permissio...
Piraji S/O Sonaji Tidke Since Deceased Through Lr. Vs. Amrut S/O Gyano ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-13-2013
P.C. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties the matter is taken up for final hearing. The following substantial questions of law would arise for consideration in this Appeal from Order. (1) Whether the Appellate Court failed to exercise the authority under Order 41 Rules 24 and 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure when evidence on record is sufficient to enable the Appellate Court to pronounce the judgment? (2) Whether findings of the Appellate Court that specific issue of easementary right was necessary to be framed is perverse since the plaintiff has failed to prove that defendants are trying to create new road from Gut Nos.311, 312, 313? (3) Whether Appellate Court erred in remanding the matter for retrial under Order 41 Rule 23A of the C.P.C. when specific authority has been given to the Appellate Court under Order 41 Rule 25 of the C.P.C. for framing the issue, omitted to frame or try any issue by the trial Court and r...
Limo Cortez Alias Limo Narvekar and Others Vs. the Chief Town Planner, ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-13-2013
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Kanade, J.) After we allowed the Misc. Civil Application No. 140 of 2013, we permitted the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners to argue the case on merits, he has argued the matter at length. He has argued fully each and every point and also has given detailed reply in rejoinder on behalf of the Petitioners. By that time the Court time was over and therefore we pronounced the Order and informed the parties that we are not inclined to entertain the petition and dismissed the petition with costs which are quantified at Rs. 1 Lakh which are to be paid within four weeks. We have further observed that if the costs are not paid within a period of four weeks, the same shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue and the proceeds shall be paid to the Goa Bar Association Library. 2. On the next date, due to paucity of time the Judgment could not be dictated in the open Court, however, we informed the parties that taking into consideration the peculiar ci...
Naser BIn Sayyad Chaus Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-13-2013
Oral Judgment: (S.B. Deshmukh, J.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the Petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. Petitioner in this Writ Petition is praying for following reliefs:- "A. This writ petition may kindly be allowed; B. By issuing Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction in the nature, the impugned order passed by the Ld. Div. Commissioner Aurangabad, dated 02.02.2013 may kindly be quashed and set aside." 3. Present Writ Petition by the petitioner is filed on 7.2.2013. In pursuance to the notice issued by this Court, on behalf of the respondents, affidavit-in-reply is filed. It has been sworn in by Smt. Vidya D/o Ramrao Mundhe, working as Tahsildar (G.A.D.) in the Office of the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that marriage of the daughter of the present petitioner i.e. Mona Begum is scheduled on 17.2.2013 at about 10.30 am. Petit...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »