Mumbai Court January 2014 Judgments
Mohd. Iqbal Sheikh Amir Vs. the District Selection Committee, Through ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) Looking to the nature of controversy involved in the matter, we have heard the matter by consent of Shri S.Z. Sonbhadre, learned Counsel for Petitioner, Mrs. K.S. Joshi, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Respondent No.1, Mrs. I.L. Bodade, learned Counsel for Respondent no.2, Mr. D.M. Kale, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and Mr. J.J. Chandurkar, learned Counsel for Respondent No.5. Rule is thus issued in the matter making the same returnable forthwith. Liberty to correct name of respondent no.5 is granted. Necessary correction be carried out forthwith. 2. The impugned order dated 11.04.2012 is passed by respondent no.2, rejecting objection of petitioner and holding that respondent no.5, who has secured 421 marks out of 800 in B.Ed. written examination, is above petitioner, who has secured 364 marks out of 700. This order is passed because of earlier directions issued by this Court in its order dated 27.02.2012, while disposing of Writ Petition...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs. the Controller of Legal Metrology G ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
Heard Mr. Costa Frias, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Noorani, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs: œ(a) For a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records and proceedings of Appeal Case no. Secy/CLM/01/2013 on the file of the respondent no.2 and on perusal of the same that this Court be pleased to quash aside the impugned judgment and order dated 4/9/13 passed therein by the respondent no.2 and appeal of the petitioner be allowed. (b) For an appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Vasco-da-Gama not to proceed with the trial of Criminal Case No. 78/OA/LMA/2013/A pending the hearing and final disposal of the Petitioner's appeal before the respondent no.2.? 4. The case of t...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Aba Pawar and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
P.C.: 1. The appellants who stand convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 324 read with 34 of IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and each to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of which to undergo further RI for 1 year, and further RI for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default of which to undergo further RI for 3 months, with a direction that the substantive sentence shall run concurrently, by the Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Islampur, by judgment dated 22.1.2007, in Sessions Case No.103 of 1999, by this appeal question the correctness of their conviction and sentence. 2. The facts in brief, as are necessary for the decision of this appeal, may briefly be stated thus: (i) PW-12 API Sunil Kulkarni who on 1.9.1997 was attached to Islampur Police station, was entrusted with the investigation of Crime No.180 of 1997 which was registered under Section 302, 323 read with 34 of IPC on the bas...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs. the Controller of Legal Metrology G ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
Heard Mr. Costa Frias, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Noorani, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs: œ(a) For a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records and proceedings of Appeal Case no. Secy/CLM/01/2013 on the file of the respondent no.2 and on perusal of the same that this Court be pleased to quash aside the impugned judgment and order dated 4/9/13 passed therein by the respondent no.2 and appeal of the petitioner be allowed. (b) For an appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Vasco-da-Gama not to proceed with the trial of Criminal Case No. 78/OA/LMA/2013/A pending the hearing and final disposal of the Petitioner's appeal before the respondent no.2.? 4. The case of t...
Tag this Judgment!Vicente Da Costa, Proprietor, M/S. Star Earth Movers Vs. P.E.E. Dourad ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
Heard Mr. Agni, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Coutinho, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. Mr. Coutinho, learned Counsel, waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent. By consent, hearth forthwith. 4. The petitioner has taken exception to the order dated 16/11/2013 passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge-I, FTC-I, Margao (First Appellate Court, for short), in Regular Civil Appeal No. 244/2010/FTC-I whereby, the application for leave to lead secondary evidence came to be rejected. 5. The facts giving rise to the petition may be briefly stated as under : The petitioner had filed a Special Civil Suit No. 02/2002/A before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Margao (Trial Court, for short) for recovery of money and other consequential reliefs. Inter alia, it was urged in the plaint that on 08/03/2000, the respondent had hired an excavator machine belonging to the petitioner to ...
Tag this Judgment!Sainath Vassant Naik Gaonkar and Another Vs. K.K. Daniel and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
Oral Judgment:- 1. Heard Mr. Shivan Desai, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Mr. C. A. Coutinho, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 and Mr. A. F. Diniz, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2. 2. The above appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law by an order dated 02.12.2008. (i) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondent nos. 1 and 2, is barred by limitation? (ii) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondent nos. 1 and 2, is barred under the Benami Transaction Act? 3. Mr. Desai, learned counsel appearing for the appellants before adverting to his submissions on the aforesaid substantial questions of law submitted that there is an additional substantial question of law which also arises in the present appeal as to whether the respondent nos. 1 and 2/plaintiffs have established the essential terms of the agreement to be entitled for the specific performance of the contract in the context that there is va...
Tag this Judgment!Mansoor K.K. Mohammed Vs. State Through P.P.
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
The appeal is filed against Judgment and order of Special Case No.66/2010, which was pending in the Children's Court created for the State for Goa at Panaji-Goa. The appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under section 354 I.P.C. and he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-. He is also convicted for offence punishable under section 8 (2) of the Goa Children's Act, 2003 and he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of six months and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-. Both the sides are heard. 2. In short, the facts leading to the institution of the appeal can be said as follows: The offence is committed against a girl child who was aged about 4 years at the relevant time. The accused was aged about 29 years and he was a married man. The father of the girl child was working as a security guard in campus known as œTropical Estate Private Ltd? at Morod, Sangolda and this complex is situated within the local jurisdiction o...
Tag this Judgment!Joao Sebastiao Lobo Vs. Administrator of Communidades of Bardez and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Kamat Malyekar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Rao, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents no.6 and 8 and Mr. Menezes, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.4. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable and heard forthwith. 3. By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30/08/2013, passed by the Administrative Tribunal in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 81/2013/CONDONE, in Comunidade Appeal. 4. Respondent no.1 is the Administrator of Comunidades, an authority constituted under the Code of Comunidades ('the Code' for short). Respondent no.2 is the Comunidade of Calangute. Respondent no.3 is the Clerk in-charge of respondent no.2. Respondent no.4 is the President of respondent no.2 for Triennium 2013-2016. Respondent no.5 is the elected substitute President of respondent no.2 for the said Triennium 2013-2016. Respondents no.6 and 7 are the ele...
Tag this Judgment!ignatious Dias Vs. Mario Francis Barretto and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. A. Kamat, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. D. Pangam, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The above appeal came to be admitted by an order dated 29.03.2007 on the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether in terms of Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 the appellant is entitled for the refund of the earnest money paid to the respondents in terms of Agreement of Sale dated 16.07.1991, Exhibit PW1/B? (2) Whether the Courts below had misinterpreted the agreement to hold that the amount of Rs.50,000/- was not by way of part of sale consideration? (3) Whether upon reading of clause 2 and clause 7 of the agreement the only interpretation that can be drawn is that Rs.50,000/- was paid as part consideration? (4) Whether Courts below were right in holding that the amount of Rs.50,000/- stands forfeited when there is no clause in the agreement providing for forfeiture? 3. During the course of the hearing of the above ...
Tag this Judgment!Sudhir G. Mujumdar and Others Vs. the Registrar, Guru Ghasidas Univers ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
M.S. Sonak, J. 1. Rule. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. The Petitioners are Citizens of India. The Petitioners claim to be the residents of the State of Maharashtra. The Petitioners have obtained degree of 'Bachelor of Physiotherapy' (œBPT? for short) from Dr. C. V. Raman University set up under the provisions of Chhatisgarh Nijji Kshetra Vishwa Vidyalaya Adhiniyam, 2002. 3. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners question the constitutional validity of Sections 20 and 21 of the Maharashtra State Council for Occupational Therapy and Physiotherapy Act, 2002 (hereafter referred to as œthe said Act?) on the grounds that they violate the provisions contained in Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. 4. In order to appreciate the grounds of challenge, a brief reference to the salient features of the said Act would be proper. 5. The said Act came into ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »