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.
New India Assurance Company Ltd., through Its' Divisional Manager Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-27-2014
1. This appeal arises out of judgment and award passed on 07/4/2003 in Claim Petition No.369 of 2002 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur. The appellant is insurer of the offending truck involved in the accident. Respondents No. 1 and 2 are the parents of deceased Dilip, who died in the vehicular accident, and respondent No.3 is driver of the offending truck. 2. Respondents No. 1 and 2 lost their son, Dilip, in a road accident which occurred on 22/5/2002. On 22/5/2002 deceased Dilip was driving motorcycle bearing registration No. MH-31/AZ-649 and was proceeding towards his village Kothurna. When his motorcycle came near Khapa-Parshivani road, one truck bearing registration No. GJ-6/V-4681 being driven rashly and negligently, gave a violent dash to the motorcycle of deceased Dilip. Deceased Dilip sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. He was 27 years of age at that time and was earning about Rs. 7,000/- per month from milk business. Respondents No. 1 and 2 were depen...
M/S. Central Cables Limited and Others Vs. the Union of India, Through ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-27-2014
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners pray for quashing of an order dated 25.11.1997 passed by Respondent No.3 “ Deputy Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise at Nagpur. By said order, Respondent No.3 confiscated a machine (capital goods) Gravi Mix Magruire WSB 420, valued at Rs.5,21,396/- under Section 111(d) and (f) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and in terms of its Section 125, gave option to pay fine of Rs.1,30,000/- in lieu thereof, in addition to payment of appropriate duty. He imposed penalty of Rs.35,000/- on petitioner No.1 under Section 112(a) of the Act, of equal amount on Managing Director personally and Rs.15,000/- on Purchase Officer of Petitioner No.1 “ Company. The Managing Director is Petitioner No.2 before this Court while the Purchase Officer is Petitioner No.3. Respondent No.1 is the Union of India while Respondent No.2 is the Commissioner...
Harsukh B. Gohel Vs. Vinod Kumar Bindlish and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-2014
P.C. : 1. This Notice of Motion is taken out by the Plaintiff for setting aside an order dated 18 February 2011 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, dismissing the Summary Suit for want of prosecution. 2. The suit claims a decree for a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- with interest from date of filing of the suit till payment and or realisation. The suit is filed on the basis of a Memorandum of Understanding executed between the Plaintiff and the Defendants. 3. By an order dated 10 December 2009, unconditional leave to defend was granted to the Defendants. The Defendants, thereafter, filed their Written Statement and the suit was posted for evidence. On 12 April 2010, the Plaintiff sought time to file his affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief along with the affidavit of documents and therefore, the suit was adjourned for a period of one week. On 19 April 2010 when the matter was taken up for hearing once again, the Plaintiff failed to file his affidavit in lieu of evidence as well...
Tatyasaheb Ramchandra Kale Vs. Navnath Tukaram Kakde and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
S.C. Gupte, J. Admitted. Taken up for hearing forthwith by consent of parties. 1 In this appeal, the Appellant has challenged an order passed by a learned Single Judge of this court in a writ petition refusing to grant interim relief to the Appellant, who was a petitioner in the writ petition. 2 In an election of the village panchayat held in the year 2010, the Appellant was elected as the Sarpanch for the village Theur in Taluka Haveli, District Pune, for a period of 5 years. The Gram Panchayat has 17 members. On 5 October 2011, Respondent No.7 along with 6 others, all of whom were members of the panchayat, moved a no confidence motion against the Appellant by giving notice under Section 35 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (œthe Act?). Respondent No.14 “ Tahsildar disposed of the notice on the ground that the notice was not tendered in the prescribed form. Thereafter, on 7 March 2012, Respondents Nos.1 to 13 submitted another notice to the Tahsildar. The Tahsilda...
Muslim Education Society, Wardha, Through Its Secretary, Dr. Babasaheb ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Chandurkar, J.) 1. Both these Writ Petitions can be conveniently disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Rule in both Writ Petitions made returnable forthwith. The Writ Petitions are heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 3. Writ petition no.2781 of 2013 has been preferred by the Muslim Education Society, Wardha being aggrieved by the deletion of its name from the list of Minority Institutions in Vidarbha. Consequentially, the communication dated 642013 issued by the Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Wardha is also challenged as in said communication, the name of the petitioner Society has not been shown as running a Minority School. According to said Society, on 1-6-1994, the Dy. Director of Education “ respondent No.4 had issued a communication recognizing the High School and Junior College run by said Society as a School run by the Minority Society and permission was, therefore, granted in terms of pro...
Antonio Menezes Vs. Vithola Shamba Shetye and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
Heard Mr. Sardessai, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Tari, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents no. 3, 4 and 5. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable and heard forthwith. 3. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28/06/2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bicholim in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 28/2012/A filed by respondents no. 3, 4 and 5 in Regular Civil Suit No. 3/1979/A. 4. Said Regular Civil Suit No. 3/1979/A has been filed by the petitioner and respondents no.8 to 12 (plaintiffs) against respondents no. 1, 6 and 7 (original defendants) for: (a) declaration that the defendants have no right whatsoever to the said property and that the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of the same; (b) for permanent injunction restraining the defendants their agents and representatives from interfering in any manner whatsoever with the plain...
Sushil Samir Co-operative Housing Society Limited Vs. District Deputy ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Kanade, J.) 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of parties. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, Shri Balsara, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.4 to 6 and the learned AGP appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 and 7. 2. By this petition, which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is challenging the impugned order passed by Respondent No.1 “ District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Mumbai City (3), who is the Competent Authority, appointed under section 5 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulations of Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (for the sake of convenience, hereinafter referred to as œMOFA Act?). The Petitioner is aggrieved by the conditions imposed by Respondent No.1, in which it was observed that only after the said conditions are complied with, the deemed conveyance will be executed as ...
Francisco Coutinho and Others Vs. Communidade of Canacona
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Sudin Usgaonkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. P. A. Kamat, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The above appeals came to be admitted by order dated 19.11.2007 on the following substantial questions of law. (a) Whether in the facts and circumstances, the Appellate Court could have reversed the order of the trial Court which has recorded a finding of fact that the appellant herein was in possession of the property coupled with the survey records, without the respondents establishing their title and long possession over the property ? (b) Whether the First Appellate Court overlooked the fact that the suit property and the parties being the same and the issue in both the case being directly and substantially the same i.e. in the suit No.39/90 and the present suit, the decree in No.39/90 acted as res judicata? (c) Could the First Appellate Court overlook that the respondent and its officers had not fulfilled the mandatory require...
Nilesh Mahadeorao Dhakare Vs. State of Maharashtra Department of Educa ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Chandurkar, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The issue raised in the present Writ Petition is whether the bar under provisions of Section 4(1) of the Maharashtra State Public Services Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Special Backward Category and Other Backward Classes Act, 2001 (for short œthe Act of 2001?) to fill in a post reserved for a particular reserved category by appointing a candidate from some other category would apply to a case governed by provisions of Rule 9(9)(a) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (for short œthe Rules of 1981?). 3. The petitioner who has obtained the qualification of H.S.S.C. D.Ed. and who belongs to Scheduled Caste had applied for the post of Shikshak Sevak pursuant to advertisement issued in that regard by ...
Coiro Malgo Velipo, (Deceased) Represented by Lrs. and Others Vs. M/S. ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
This second appeal is filed challenging the judgment of the first appellate Court in favour of the original plaintiffs, decreeing the suit for injunction which was dismissed by the trial Court. The plaintiffs' suit is for injunction against the defendants restraining them from carrying on with plantation of any nature at a place called Tudou, in village Verlem, and interfering with the plaintiffs' plantation. The plaintiffs claimed to be owning a vast piece of land consisting of various villages of which boundaries were given in the plaint. The plaintiffs claimed to be growing paddy, coconut trees, fruits and having various gardens therein. The plaintiffs claimed their title under a Sale Deed dated 26th December, 1952. The plaintiffs claimed that their employee one Surya Shankar Gaunkar used to supervise the property. 2. It was the case of the plaintiffs that the defendants were staying in the place called Tudou. The defendants were allowed to erect their huts for residential purpose a...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »