Mumbai Court September 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.
Disha Construction Vs. Jaysen S. Mastakar and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-2013
1. The above Suit is filed by the Plaintiff for (i) a declaration that the Suit Contract (Exhibits O, U and II to the Plaint) is valid, subsisting and binding upon the Defendants; (ii) a mandatory order and injunction directing Defendant Nos. 1 to 28 to comply with the Suit Contract (Exhibits O, U and II to the Plaint); (iii) an order directing Defendant Nos. 1 to 27 to sign and execute the Tripartite Agreements in terms of Clause 4 of the Second Supplemental Agreement (Exhibit-II to the Plaint); (iv) a mandatory order and injunction directing Defendant Nos. 1 to 28 to forthwith hand over quiet, vacant and peaceful possession of the property more particularly described in Exhibit-A to the Plaint, for the purpose of carrying out redevelopment thereof in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Suit Contract (Exhibits O, U and II to the Plaint); (v) a perpetual order and injunction restraining Defendant Nos. 1 to 28 from, in any manner selling, transferring, alienating, dealing wi...
Shubham Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through Its Secretary, Medical E ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-13-2013
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Heard Adv. Mr. S.B. Talekar, with Adv. Mr. M.S. Nilwant for the petitioner; learned GP Mr. S.V. Kurundkar for respondent nos.1, 2 and 4; and Adv. Mr. K.C. Sant for respondent no.3. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 3. By this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner / student, a minor, through his mother, has approached this Court challenging denial of respondent nos.1 and 2, to consider his eligibility for admission to M.B.B.S. course in State quota. The said denial is based upon provisions of Rules 4.4, 4.5 and 9.1.4.2 of the NEETUG-2013 Rules and hence, there is a prayer for declaring the same as ultra virus Articles 14, 15, 21 and 29(2) of the Constitution of India. Submission, in brief is, the domicile of the petitioner in the State of Maharashtra and accordingly his merit in the National Entrance Test needed to be considered and given due weightage. Mere fact, that he has passed S.S.C...
Pratap @ Prakash Kripaldas Chugh Vs. Manu Parumal Raghani and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-2013
1] Heard. 2] Leave granted. 3] By consent of parties, appeal and application are taken up for final hearing. 4] Applicant-the original complainant approached the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Kurla, and Criminal Complaint No.4405/SS/2007 was filed. It was a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 428 of the Indian Penal Code. 5] Complainant's version reads as follows:- (a) Accused and deceased Ram Kanhyalal Chhabria were partners of a firm. Both of them were known to the complainant. (b) Considering the acquaintance, they requested for friendly loan. (c) Complainant gave loan of Rs.18 lakhs. (d) Deceased Ram Chhabria delivered a cheque of Rs.18 lakhs dated 19.05.200 and present respondent-accused executed a promissory note in favour of the complainant in discharge of their joint and several liability. (e) The cheque was dishonoured. (f) Payment was not made inspite of service. (g) The notice sent to Ram Chhabria was returned with postal remark tha...
Dr. Saraswati W/O. Sudam Munde and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-11-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard all the sides by consent for final disposal. 2. The first application is filed by Dr. Smt. Mundhe in R.C.C. No. 163/2012, which is filed by Appropriate Authority for offences punishable under sections 3-A, 4(5), 5, 6, 8 and 19 of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'PCPNDT Act' for short) and also under the Rules framed under this Special Act. The second application is filed by the State against Dr. Smt. Mundhe, for cancellation of bail, granted to her by Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai, District Beed in C.R. No. 42/2012 registered in Parli City Police Station. The chargesheet is filed in this crime for offences punishable under section 304, 312, 314, 315, 316 and 201 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code and also for offences punishable under section 3, 4-B and 6 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as '...
Jahed NaziruddIn S/O ZaheeruddIn and Others Vs. the State of Maharasht ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-11-2013
1. This writ petition is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 10.08.2012 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad in Inam Appeal No. 2/1997. By the impugned judgment and order, the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, rejected the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. There is no adjudication by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, on merits of the appeal. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that, the genesis of the litigation commenced with the application filed by respondent nos. 2 to 9 herein before the District Collector (Land Reforms), Beed. It is the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that, the petitioners raised several objections in their written reply about locus of the applicants to file the application before the District Collector (Land Reforms), Beed, and also the point of limitation. So also, objection is raised on the point that inherent nature of lands being a service inam lands, it...
Sivram Shripat Gambhir Vs. State of Gujarat and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-2013
Oral Judgment 1. Here is a case where absence of the petitioner on account of his insanity/mental retardation/mental illness made him to suffer an order of compulsory retirement on the charge of unauthorised absence from duty. 2. The petitioner who put in about 31 years of service came to be served with a chargesheet dated 06.09.2002, alleging absenteeism from duty after 11.01.2000 and departmental inquiry was initiated against him. However, the petitioner did not attend the departmental inquiry and the departmental inquiry was concluded in his absence. Based on the inquiry report, the petitioner was served with second show cause notice, to which, the petitioner did not respond and ultimately the disciplinary authority the respondent No.4, passed order dated 13.01.2004 under Rule 3 of the Bombay Police (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1956, of compulsory retirement against the petitioner. In the said order, the period from 11.01.2000 till the date of the order, is considered as leave wit...
Smt. Vachalabai Haribhau Lingayat Vs. Estate Manager, Aurangabad Housi ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-10-2013
1] Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, heard forthwith. 2] This Writ Petition takes exception to the judgment and order, dated 23.1.2000, passed by the Competent Authority in Case No. 79 of 1997 in respect of Plot No. 860, out of 38 Open Plot, New Aurangabad, Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority, Mumbai-51 and the impugned order, dated 15.11.2011, passed by the Appellate Office-1 in Appeal No. 5 of 2000 under Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976. 3] It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner is owner of plot no. 860, out of 38 open plot, and the petitioner has constructed plot no. 860 as per Rules and Law and as per necessary permission granted by the Competent Authority under the said Act. The petitioner submits that the office of respondent initiated eviction proceedings u/sec. 66 (1)(a)(iv) of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) ag...
Jagannath Rangnath Chavan Vs. Suman Sahebrao Ghawte and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-10-2013
Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 2nd January, 1989 passed by learned District Judge, Ahmednagar in Regular Civil Appeal No. 6/1984 by which the decree of dismissal of Regular Civil Suit No. 17/1983 dated 30.11.1983 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Newasa was reversed and the lower Appellate Court passed the decree for partition and separate possession, the original defendant no.1, the appellant herein, had filed the instant Second Appeal in this Court. FACTS: 2. Nana had three children the only son by name Tukaram and two daughters-Suman (Plaintiff No.1) and Shanti @ Vimal (Plaintiff No.2). The two daughters had filed Regular Civil Suit No.17/1983 against the present appellant, who was defendant no.1 and another defendant, challenging the sale deed dated 28.3.1968 executed by their brother Tukaram in favour of the present appellant/defendant no.1 and, in the alternative, for partition and separate possession. Nana had died on 19.07.1967. The plaintif...
Maniram Satyanarayan Chaudhari Vs. Estate Manager, Aurangabad Housing ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-10-2013
1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the parties finally. 2 This writ petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 23rd January, 2000 passed by the Competent Authority, Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Board, Aurangabad (hereinafter referred to as the MHADA) in Case No.44 of 1997 and the judgment and order dated 15th November, 2011 passed by the Appellate Officer under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the MHADA Act), Aurangabad in Appeal No.7 of 2000. 3 It is the case of the Petitioner that, the MHADA had allotted the tenement to the Petitioner from 19th November, 1988 and accordingly, the Petitioner had taken possession of the said tenement and since then, the Petitioner is residing in the said tenement. It is the further case of the Petitioner that the Estate Manager had filed eviction proposal against the Petitioner under Section 66(1)(a)(iv) of the MHADA Act, before the Competent Authority ...
Shivashankar Swami Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Ano ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-2013
Oral Judgment: 1 The appeal is directed against order and judgment dated 31.8.2004 in L.C.Suit No.3951 of 1999 delivered by the learned Judge, Bombay City Civil Court, at Mumbai, whereby the suit was dismissed. 2 The brief facts of the case are that it was a suit filed by the plaintiff /appellant in the City Civil Court with prayer for declaration that notice issued to him under Section 354-A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, bearing no.KW/BF-I/397/354-A of 1999-2000 dated 5.7.1999. The notice was issued in respect of room admeasuring about 21' x 19' with a mezzanine floor constructed with B.M.Walls and A.C.Sheet roof situated at Room No.1, Philip Misquitta Chawl, Milan Subway Road, Santacruz (West), Mumbai 400 054, as illegal, improper, bad in law and not enforceable. Plaintiff prayed for permanent injunction seeking to restrain Municipal Corporation from demolishing the suit premises pursuant to the aforesaid notice. It was contended that the plaintiff / appellant's father ha...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »