Mumbai Court July 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.
Smt. Sitabai R. Naik and Others Vs. the Special Land Acquisition Offic ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-12-2013
Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Both the above appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment as they pertain to the lands acquired under the same notification and involve similar question of law. 3. Vide Notification bearing No. RD/LQN/176/71 dated 17/11/1971 issued under section 4(1) of the Land acquisition Act, 1984, (L. A. Act, for short) and published in the Government Gazette on pages no. 245246 of Series II No. 36 dated 2/12/1971, vast land from various villages was acquired for Salaulim Irrigation Project (Submergence area). This acquisition, inter alia, included lands of the appellants of both the appeals and also of one Shri Narendra Atmaram Nadkarni, from Curpem and Portem villages. By awards dated 29/1/1977 and 24/3/1977, passed under Section 11 of the L. A. Act, respectively in cases no. SLAO/13/77, pertaining to Curpem Village and SLAO/27, pertaining to Portem Village, the Special Land Acquisition Officer (S.L.A.O.) offered following rate per square metre...
Surjina Rebelo (Now Deceased) Through Her Legal Representatives and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-12-2013
Oral Judgment: By this Second Appeal, the appellants take exception to the judgment and decree dated 30th April, 1998 passed by Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao by which Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 146 of 1993/I has been dismissed. By the impugned order, the appeal preferred by the present appellants against order dated 1st October, 1993 dismissing Regular Civil Suit no.1582 of 1960 has been dismissed on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation. 2. Civil Suit No. 5847 of 1950 was filed by Smt. Brigida da Silva Antao, the predecessor of respondent nos. 1 to 3 in respect of the property Raurilem. In the said suit which was filed under Portuguese Law, the plaintiff sought permanent injunction restraining late Baldomero Rebelo from interfering with the possession in respect of the suit property and application for temporary injunction was also filed in the said suit which was granted pursuant to which certain coconut trees existing in the suit property were enjoyed ...
Lalit Laxmandas Soni and Another Vs. the State of Union Territory and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-2013
Oral Order: 1 These two applications can be conveniently disposed of by this common order as the applicants in both the applications are the same and the questions needing determination are also same. 2 The applicants are the accused in two cases registered by Nani Daman Police Station. The cases are in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 34 thereof. In one case, i.e. C.R.No.30 of 2013, the applicants were apprehended on 24.1.2013. While they were in custody in that case, they were apprehended in C.R.No.101 of 2012 on 12.2.2013. The police completed the investigation of both these cases and filed charge-sheets in both the matters. The learned Magistrate by two separate orders, one passed on 3.4.2013 and the other on 15.4.2013, directed the applicants to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each. Aggrieved by the orders releasing the applicants on bail, the Union Territory of Daman moved the Sessions cou...
Arun Digambar Joshi Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-2013
PC : 1. The Petitioner who is stated to be a director of an educational institution at Solapur and in the field of education for nearly forty three years, has challenged the constitutional validity of Section 16 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (`The Right to Education Act'). Section 16 of the Right to Education Act provides as follows: "S.16 : Prohibition of holding back and expulsion: No child admitted in a school shall be held back in any class or expelled from school till the completion of elementary education." The contention of the Petitioner is that the restraint against holding back a child admitted to a school in any class till the completion of elementary education, has resulted in a deterioration of educational standards. On this ground, it has been urged that the restraint that has been enacted in Section 16 is violative of Article 21A of the Constitution. 2. The Right to Education Act was enacted in order to provide for free and compulsor...
Javed S/O Edirish Memon Vs. Syndicate Bank, Through Its General Manage ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-11-2013
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Chandurkar, J.) 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard by consent of the parties. 2. Heard Shri Parsodkar for the petitioner, Shri Anilkumar Advocate for respondent nos.1 and 2 and Shri S. B. Ahirkar, Advocate for respondent no.3. 3. The facts relevant for adjudicating the present controversy are that the petitioner was appointed as a Probationary Officer with the respondent no.1 Bank on 27-9-2008. During his course of employment with the respondent no.1 Bank, the petitioner was selected for appointment on the post of Dy. Advisor (Banking and Foreign Trade) in the Central Bureau of Investigation. This appointment was to be on contract basis. The petitioner was informed about his aforesaid selection on 19-4-2011. The petitioner, therefore, on 3-5-2011, tendered his resignation from service to the respondent no.1. The said request for resignation was, however, rejected by respondent no.1 on the ground that investigation in an ATM fraud case was pendin...
Madhav S/O Gundaji Shingade and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra Th ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-11-2013
Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the application is taken up for final disposal. 2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. This Civil Revision Application was extensively heard on 10th June, 2013 and arguments of the Counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.P. were recorded. The order dated 10th June, 2013 reads thus; "1. Heard learned Counsel for the revision applicants. He submits that initially, award was passed on 31st March, 2012. However, there were certain queries. Therefore, after removal of those queries, the award was signed on 7th August, 2012 and notice was issued to the applicants on 14th August, 2013, which was received on 22nd August, 2012. The applicants were present in the office of the Land Acquisition Officer on 22nd August, 2012. However, the L.A.O. was not present in the office. On 10th October, 2012 when payment was made to the applicants, it is specific contenti...
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Roshan Ali Ramjan Ali Somji a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-2013
This Civil Revision Application is directed against the judgment and order dated 2.4.2011, delivered by the District Court, Pune in Civil Appeal No.462 of 2009. 2. By this judgment and order, the lower appellate court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the present petitioners-the original defendants in Civil Suit No.129 of 2006. The applicants-original appellant/defendants were aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 15.07.2009. 3. The respondents before me are the original plaintiffs. A suit was filed in the trial court on 1.3.2006 alleging that the present applicants are the successors in title of ESSO Standard Eastern Inc. Their predecessors were inducted in the premises of the predecessor in title of the respondents-plaintiffs under a deed of lease dated 1.5.1962. The lease expired on 30.4.1982. The present applicants continued in possession of the immovable property and claimed protection of the Rent Control Act. The predecessor in titl...
Ku. Vijaya Deorao Nandanwar and Others Vs. Chief Officer, Municipal Co ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-10-2013
Oral Judgment: (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties along with connected matters, therefore, a common judgment, as facts and circumstances are similar and so also the referred and the relied judgments and the laws. 2. By this petition, the petitioner (in W.P. No. 5530/12) has invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and prayed as under: Protect the services of the petitioner in view of latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kavita Solunke in SLP No. 5821/12 decided on 9.8.2012 (Annexure No.6), reported in 2012(5) Mh.L.J. 921 by quashing and setting aside the termination order dated 18.2.2010 issued by the respondent (Annexure no. 5 ) and reinstating the petitioner in the services as Assistant Teacher, in the interest of justice. 3. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher by the respondent/Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Wardha, against the vacancy reserved for Scheduled Tribe categ...
Sau. Kalpna W/O Pankaj Rozatkar Vs. Pankaj S/O Supadu Rozatkar
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-10-2013
Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 2. This application is filed for transfer of the proceedings of Hindu Marriage Petition No. 161 of 2007 pending before the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kalyan to the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon. Since the facts of the case are stated by the applicant in the application, as and when it is necessary this Court will refer the said facts, however, it is not necessary for the purpose of deciding this application to reproduce the facts. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that, the distance between Jalgaon to Kalyan is more than 400 Kms. And therefore, it is inconvenient for the applicant-wife to travel from Jalgaon to Kalyan to attend the proceedings instituted by the respondent-husband. It is submitted that, Special Civil Suit No. 208 of 2011 is filed by the respondent-husband before the Civil Court at Jalgaon for compensation against the applicant, wh...
Gotya @ Raju Durgya Jadhav Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-10-2013
A.I.S. Cheema, J. 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Matter is heard finally with the consent of parties. 2. The Petitioner Convict is challenging the decision of the State, dated 30.10.2012, which is an order passed under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The State has considered the facts and particulars of the offence proved against the petitioner as well as the law and relevant Circulars, put petitioner in Category 2(c) prescribing period of imprisonment as 26 years as specified in Annexure I of Government of Maharashtra Resolution No.RLP-1006/C.R.621/PRS-3, dated 15th March 2010. The guidelines deal with premature release under "14 Year Rule" of Prisoners serving life sentence. 3. The petitioner has moved this Court claiming that he has been put in wrong category and that the Circular No.RLP-1092/13/252/ PRS., dated 11th May 1992 should have been relied on as in the said Circular, there was no category for offence relating to burns. If that Circular would have ...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »