Mumbai Court January 2014 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.
M/S. Neco Schubert and Salzer Ltd. Vs. Krushna Nagorao Lute and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-16-2014
Oral Judgment : 1. This petition claims the reliefs as under: œ1) Call for the records of Complaint No.ULPA 402 of 2003 decided by Member Industrial Court at Nagpur and upon perusal thereof - a. Set aside the order dated 9/1/2004 declaring it as illegal. b. Declare that the provisions of Item 2 of Schedule II of B.I.R. Act, 1946 is violative of Article 19 of the Constitution of India and set aside the said Item declaring it to be unconstitutional. c. Declare that in view of the amendment to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in 1982 (w.e.f. 21.8.1984), the Maharashtra Act No.1 of 1972 has been impliedly repealed and no complaint is maintainable under the said Act. d. Grant ad-interim stay to the effect and operation of order dated 9/1/2004 during the pendency of the main petition in the interest of justice. e. Grant any other or further relief including costs as may be deemed fit in the circumstances of case.? 2. Shri Marpakwar, the learned counsel for the petitioner-employer, sub...
Albino Fernandes and Others Vs. Village Panchayat of Siolem- Sodiem Th ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-16-2014
Oral Judgment: Affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, by giving advance copy to the learned Counsel for the respondents, is taken on record. 2. Heard Mr. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Sardessai, learned Counsel for the respondents. 3. By this petition, the petitioners have taken exception to the judgment and order dated 28/03/2006 passed by the Additional Director of Panchayats-II at Panaji, Goa, in Panchayat Appeal No. 182/2004. 4. The relevant facts, as stated by the petitioners, are as follows : The petitioner is lawful owner in possession of the house“property situated at Tropa Vaddo, Sodiem, Siolem, Bardez, Goa bearing Survey No.215/11-A of Sodiem village. The said property is bounded on the east by a public drain. The petitioner has always had a small compound wall on the eastern part of the said property abutting public drain which wall also served as retaining wall. Due to heavy flow of rain waters through successive monsoons, the said reta...
Sudhakar Shyamraoji Choudhari and Others Vs. the Secretary, Saraswati ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-16-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, assailed the impugned judgments and orders on the ground that the tribunal rendered the impugned judgments and orders by notifying that it was deciding the appeals on the preliminary issue as contemplated in the case of Anna Manikrao Pethe ..vs.. The Presiding Officer, School Tribunal and ors.; 1997 (3) Mh. L. J. 687. He then submitted that it was wholly improper on the part of the tribunal to decide preliminary issue particularly in the light of the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in SadhanaJanardhan Jadhav..vs..Pratibha Mahila Mahamanda and ors.; 2013 (2) Mh. L. J. 484which came after the impugned judgments were delivered by the tribunal. Mr. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, submitted that it does not mean blame to the tribunal for deciding the matters only on the preliminary issue but the impugned decisions ...
Walchandnagar Industries Limited Vs. the Municipal Corporation of the ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-2014
M.S. Sonak: 1. Rule. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. The Petitioner challenges constitutional validity of Section 406(2)(e) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act 1949 (now known as œMaharashtra Municipal Corporation Act?), which provides that no appeal against determination of the rateable value or capital value or tax fixed or charged under this Act shall be entertained unless the amount of rateable value or capital value or disputed tax claimed or chargeable upto the date of filing the appeal has been deposited by the Appellant with the Commissioner. 3. Shorn of irrelevancies, the facts and circumstances in which the challenge has been raised are that the Petitioner claims to be owner of the lands bearing Survey Nos. 87A/1A and 87A/3, Aundh, Taluka Haveli, Pune City admeasuring approximately 103 Acres and 21 Gunthas (hereinafter referred to as œthe said property?). In respect of the...
Mrs. Lilly P. Pandit and Others Vs. Mumbai Municipal Corporation of Gr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-2014
Oral Judgment: (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent and disposed of by a common judgment as facts and the law involved are common and connected. 2. Pursuant to notices under sections 351 and 354A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, (M.M.C. Act) the Respondent “ Corporation, based on the information which they have collected, treated the premises of the Petitioners' as œunauthorised horizontal extended premises?. The Petitioners in view of common notices filed a common Reply on 13 September, 2013 and also annexed the supporting documents. Respondent “ Corporation's Officer by an order dated 3rd January 2014 without calling upon the Petitioners, and/or parties, to justify their documents in support of case and without giving a hearing maintained the action by unreasoned order dated 3 January 2014 and directed them to demolish the structures within seven days. The action under section 475A of the M.M.C. Act is also threa...
M/S. Atul Agrawal and Sons Vs. M/S.Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-2014
Usha S. Thakare, Presiding Judicial Member: Heard Mr.Pravin Wagle, Advocate for the complainant and Mrs.Anita Marathe, Advocate for the opponent. Advocate Mrs.Marathe has filed Vakalatnama for opponent, taken on record. Complainant is claiming reliefs pertaining to motor vehicle which is bought by the Company i.e. M/s.Atul Agrawal and Sons. This company is dealing with business. The vehicle is in use of the company for enhancement of business. It is not for personal use or it is not for earning livelihood. Learned Advocate Mrs.Marathe rightly urged that the vehicle is purchased and used for commercial purpose and therefore, complainant will not fall within the definition of consumer as mentioned in Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Learned Advocate Mrs.Marathe for the opponent has placed reliance on latest ruling of Honble National Commission laid down in case of General Motors Pvt. Ltd. V/s.G.S. Fertilizers (P) Ltd. and Anr., II (2013) CPJ 72 (NC). In Para 10 it is...
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ria Rajan Alimchandani
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-2014
R.C. Chavan, President: This appeal is directed against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South Mumbai, partly allowing the consumer complaint No.262/2009, whereby the Forum Directed the Appellant Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant for mental agony, inconvenience and physical harassment with costs of Rs.5,000/-. The Forum also further directed the Appellant to hold an enquiry against the defaulting employee, fix the responsibility and recover the amount from the salary of the concerned employee. We have heard the Ld.Counsel for the Appellant and the Respondents Representative. The Complainant/Respondent had obtained a mediclaim policy which was valid from 11th March, 2009 till 10th March, 2010. The Complainant was hospitalized from 20th May, 2009. The expenses in the hospital were Rs.68,689/-. The TPA authorized payment of Rs.66,000/-. The Forum came to the conclusion that the Complainant had not paid to the hospital the b...
Rushali Pankaj Palesha Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-2014
Narendra Kawde, Member: 1. Complainant is a widow of late Pankaj Palesha. Complainant and her late husband jointly availed Housing loan facility extended by Bank of Maharashtra, Bajirao Road branch, Budhwar Peth, Pune. By way of additional security, Bank of Maharashtra availed œUNI HOME CARE POLICY? extending insurance cover to the borrowers, namely, complainant and her late husband. The nature of insurance provided is too fold. It covers fire risk for Rs.41 lakhs to the flat and Personal Accident cover of Rs.41 lakhs. The policy was valid for a period of 27/03/2008 to 26/03/2028. On 02/07/2010 late Shri Pankaj Palesha died as a result of an accidental fall from the terrace of his building. Complainant intimated incidence of death to the opponent and, simultaneously, police were also informed. Thereafter, the claim was submitted to the opponent no.1-United India Insurance Co. Ltd. by the complainant thereby claiming the entire amount of Rs.41 lakhs on account of cover for perso...
Sunita Nagpur Vs. Union of India, Through General Manager and Another
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-2014
Chameli Majumdar, Member (J). 1. The applicant has filed this Original Application with the following prayers: (a) Call for the records of the case from the respondents. (b) Quash and set aside the order of respondent No.2 dated 28.02.2007 (Ann.A.1), rejecting the appointment on compassionate Ground to the applicant (c) Direct the respondents to appoint the applicant on compassionate ground on a suitable post commensurate with her educational qualification. (d) Any other relief deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may kindly be granted. (e) Allow the application with cost. 2. The applicant, claiming herself as the widow of the deceased railway employee, has filed this Original Application challenging the communication dated 28.02.2007, issued on behalf of the Divisional Railway Manager, Nagpur, rejecting the representation of the applicant dated 05.07.2005 for appointment on compassionate ground, after the death of late Francis Desale, CandW Fitter, Nagpur. In the imp...
Mallavvabai Valyal Charitable Dental Hospital, Through Its President, ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-2014
Dhanraj Khamatkar, Member: (1) This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 28/06/2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solapur in Consumer Complaint No.676/09. (2) The facts leading to this appeal can be summarized as under: œThe original complainant/respondent had approached to the original opponent no.4 and the appellant for the dental treatment on 19/09/2009. The original opponent no.4 had taken x-ray and called the respondent for treatment of root canal on next day. While carrying out the root canal, needle of instrument was broken and went into abdomen of the respondent/original complainant. The opponent had referred the complainant/respondent to Markandeya Hospital and in the hospital, endoscopy was carried out. Similarly, the scanning was done in Ashiwini Hospital and in the scanning; the needle was detected in the abdomen of the complainant. Alleging deficiency in service and contending that the incident has caused because of the neglige...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »