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.
Shanti Thallapali and Another Vs. Surana Sethia Hospital and Another
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-2014
Mrs. Usha S. Thakare, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. Complainants have filed present complaint under Section 17(1)(a)(i) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by alleging deficiency on the part of opponents. 2. Complainant No.1 is a Director of Shanti Clearing Agency Pvt. Ltd. Said Company is registered under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956. Complainant No.1 was appointed as Director of said Company by Resolution dated 25/07/2008 on monthly remuneration of Rs.20,000/-. Complainant No.2 is the husband of complainant No.1. He is Managing Director of said Company. Complainant No.1 played an active role in day-to-day management of said Company. Opponent No.1 is a hospital situated at Sion-Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai. Opponent No.2 is a surgeon with opponent No.1 and also associated with L.C. Manek Polyclinic and Nursing Home. It is alleged that complainant No.1 is the victim of medical negligence caused by the opponents. 3. According to complainants on 26/04/2009 at midnight, complainant...
RiyazuddIn RaffiuddIn Nagpur and Others Vs. Union of India Through the ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-2014
Chameli Majumdar, Member (J). 1. In these three matters a common question of law is involved and common relief has been prayed for and, as such, with the consent of the parties, they are heard together and a common order is being passed. 2. The applicants, on the date of their retirement, were issued with individual letter, whereby an amount of Rs. 1,29,757/-in O.A. No. 2212/2012, Rs. 45,297/-in O.A. No. 2235/2012 and Rs. 36,791/-in O.A. 2236/2012 respectively were sought to be recovered from their terminal benefits. The applicant in O.A. 2212/2012, being aggrieved by the said order, approached this Tribunal on 27.11.2012. This Tribunal, referring to various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, directed as follows: "The payment due to the applicant is of two aspects GPF and Group Insurance, the latter being only Rs. 10,476/-. There is absolutely no objection for withholding of the said amount of Rs. 10,476/-by the respondents towards any dues, which again is subject to outcome of the c...
Rekha, Nagpur Vs. Union of India, Through Its G.M. Central Railway and ...
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: "i) The respondents may be directed to pay the settlement dues and family pension to the applicant within due course of time as the case has gone very late in dealing with by the respondents. ii) The respondents may also be directed to pay the settlement dues alongwith 18% interest thereon the settlement dues. iii) The respondents may be directed to consider the application of applicant for appointment on compassionate ground. iv) Any other benefits their Lordships may deem fit." 2. The husband of the applicant, who was working in the Railways, died on 20.05.2006. The applicant has made out the case that before the husband of the applicant was appointed as Safaiwala initially in 1991 in Railways, the applicant got married to him on 22.06.1988. A child was born out of the saidwedlock on 05.04.2005. The applicant submitted her application for the death benefits of her husband an...
Vasantrao Sadashiv Lotlikar and Others Vs. Rama Sadashiv Lotlikar and ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
Oral Judgment: This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20/06/2011 passed by the learned Ad-Hoc District Judge “ I, FTCI, South Goa, Margao (First Appellate Court, for short) in Regular Civil Appeal No. 333 of 2010 by which the said appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 14/12/2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao (Trial Court, for short) in Special Civil Suit No. 136/90/A, came to be dismissed. 2. The appellants were the plaintiffs in the said Civil Suit No. 136/90/A whereas the respondents were the defendants therein. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the manner in which they are arrayed in the cause title of said suit. 3. The plaintiff no. 1 and deceased plaintiff no. 2 are husband and wife and plaintiffs no. 2(a), 2(b) and 2(c) are their children whereas the defendants no. 1 and 3 are brothers being children of the original defendant no. 5, since deceased. The defendants no. 5(a) to 5(f) are the legal re...
Ashok and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
B.R. Gavai, J. 1. The appellants take exception to the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli in Sessions Case No.87/09 dated 3.5.2010 thereby convicting the appellant no.1 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- and in default, to suffer R.I. for six months and convicting both the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer R.I. for five years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default, to suffer R.I. for six months. 2. The prosecution case in brief is as under :- MaltabaiHichami was married to one Sunil Madavi. Her husband expired in 2004. After the death of her husband, she started residing at Gattepayli with her father the accused no.2. Maltabai fell in love with accused no.1 Ashok and due to the sexual relations between them, Maltabai became pregnant. A son was born...
The Commissioner of Income Tax-13 Vs. M/S. Puja Prints
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
P. C.: This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961 (the Act) challenges the order dated 18 February 2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). This appeal relates to Assessment Year 2006-07. 2 The following questions of law have been formulated by the revenue for consideration by this Court:- (a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was right in holding that the reference made by the AO to the valuation officer per se is bad in law? Further, whether the ITAT was justified in observing that the reference to the DVO u/s. 55A of the IT Act 1961 is to be made when the value of the property disclosed by the assesee is less than the fair value and not vice versa thereby ignoring the provisions of section 55A(b)(ii) of the Act 1961 and paragraph 26 to 28 of circular No.96 dated 25.11.1972 of the CBDT? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was right in directing the AO to ...
Parimal Vs. Mahekar Education Society of Mehekar, Through Its Secretar ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. The petitioner has put to challenge the judgment and order dated 6.1.2000 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal in Appeal No.114/1998 that was preferred by the present petitioner. The petitioner /appellant had preferred Appeal against the termination of his services by an order dated 13.8.1998. The School Tribunal dismissed his Appeal holding that the posts advertised were two posts of Assistant Teacher and one post for Physical Training Instructor (PTI) but appointments of two PTIs in place of one post were made including the petitioner and as against two posts of Assistant Teacher, only one candidate had been appointed. Two candidates who were appointed as PTIs, were the petitioner and respondent no.7-Sandip Molse. It is in this context, the Tribunal held that the appointment of the petitioner was not legal and proper and, therefore, his Appeal stood dismissed. The respondent no.7 herein was not a party to the said Appeal and the Appeal came to be...
Parimal Vs. Mahekar Education Society of Mehekar, Through Its Secretar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. The petitioner has put to challenge the judgment and order dated 6.1.2000 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal in Appeal No.114/1998 that was preferred by the present petitioner. The petitioner /appellant had preferred Appeal against the termination of his services by an order dated 13.8.1998. The School Tribunal dismissed his Appeal holding that the posts advertised were two posts of Assistant Teacher and one post for Physical Training Instructor (PTI) but appointments of two PTIs in place of one post were made including the petitioner and as against two posts of Assistant Teacher, only one candidate had been appointed. Two candidates who were appointed as PTIs, were the petitioner and respondent no.7-Sandip Molse. It is in this context, the Tribunal held that the appointment of the petitioner was not legal and proper and, therefore, his Appeal stood dismissed. The respondent no.7 herein was not a party to the said Appeal and the Appeal came to be...
Hausu Dhondba Uike and Another Vs. Sahebrao Chintaman Salam and Anothe ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
1. This appeal is preferred against judgment and decree passed on 03/5/2003 in Regular Civil Appeal No.217 of 2002 by Second Additional District Judge, Nagpur thereby reversing judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No.17 of 1999 on 22/4/2002 by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Katol. 2. The appellants are the brothers, so also the respondents are brothers. Respondent No.1 is cousin of the appellants. The appellants owned agricultural field bearing Survey No.110 situated at village Wai, as particularly described in plaint paragraph-1. The financial condition of the appellants being poor and respondent No.1 being cousin of the appellants, the appellants decided to allow respondent No.1 to cultivate the field in stead of letting it lie fallow. Therefore, about 7 to 8 years prior to filing of the suit, the suit was filed in the year 1999, the appellants permitted respondent No.1 to cultivate the said field (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit field') and that was how the responden...
Nilgiri Gardens Co-operative Housing Society Limited Vs. M/S. Kailash ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
Narendra Kawde, Member: 1. Complainant is a Co-operative Housing Society who has filed this consumer complaint through its Authorised Representatives, (1) Mr.V.S. Gopakumar and (2) Mr.Hemand Bhardwaj, alleging deficiency of service against the Opponents as Lease Deed has not been executed in favour of the Complainant Society though all the prerequisite conditions have been fulfilled. Complainant prayed for directions to Opponents to execute Lease Deed of land admeasuring 27090.29 sq. meters situated at Sector 23/24, CBD Belapur Road, Navi Mumbai. Complainant Society also prayed for compensation of Rs.89,52,148/- and further Rs.10,00,000/- for mental agony together with interest @18% per annum on the amount of compensation claimed. 2. During the process of adjudication it was brought to the notice of this Commission that Opponent Nos.1(a) and 1(b) had expired. Therefore, complaint as against these Opponents stand abated. Complainant made Chairman ,Vice Chairman and all the Directors of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »