Mumbai Court October 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.
Vikramsinh Jaysingrao Ghatge Vs. The Municipal Council and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-2014
Oral Judgment: (G.S. Kulkarni, J.) 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Respondents waives service. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties and at their request taken up for final hearing. 2. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner has prayed that the reservation nos.8 and 9 made in the development plan of the year 1986 of the Kagal Municipal Council, District Kolhapur for the purpose of extension of Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB) and for a primary school and a play ground in respect of the petitioner's land, being survey No.247/3/1 situated at Kagal District Kolhapur be quashed and set aside. It is further prayed that the respondents be directed to permit the petitioner to undertake development of the land. The facts in brief are: 3. The Petitioner is the owner of the land bearing R.S.No.247/2/1 admeasuring 3 hectares situated at Kagal (for short the land).The Government in its Urban Development Department had sanctioned a revised ...
Municipal Labour Union and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Throug ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-2014
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Since both sides agree that the challenge in these Writ Petitions is common, they are being decided by this common judgment. 2. For properly appreciating the arguments of the parties, the facts in Writ Petition No.2720/2013 are referred to. 3. The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the legality and validity of Section 127(2)(aaa), Section 99 (partly) and Section 152T of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 and now the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act. The provisions as particularly indicated in the prayer clauses together with Notifications are impugned as being ultra vires Part IXA of the Constitution of India and particularly Articles 243W and 243X. The prayers read as under: (a) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to invoke it's writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus and be pleased to; (i) hold and declare tha...
Dnyanshwar Vs. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-01-2014
C.V. Bhadang, J. 1. Heard Advocate Shri Shelat for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Shri Rao for the respondents. 2. The petitioner joined the service as a Sepoy at Central Prison, Nagpur on 1.11.19964 and was eventually confirmed on 1.11.1965. The petitioner had put in 26 years of service before his dismissal on 8.9.1990, which order is subject matter of challenge in this petition. 3. On 29.4.1988, it is said that the petitioner was on leave and had gone to the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Darwha District Yavatmal for his personal work. It so happened that the petitioner entered the Court room, chewing Pan. The learned Magistrate, taking cognizance of the incident, issued a show-cause-notice to the petitioner and proceeded to convict him for the offence punishable under Sections 116 and 117 of the Bombay Police Act (Fort short the Act). The petitioner was accordingly fined for Rs.50/ for the said offence. It appears that this incident and consequent...
Deepak Mahaveerprasad Gupta Vs. Sonu Gupta and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Applicant is the Respondent in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.737 of 2010 pending in the Court of 3rd Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vashi, under provisions from Domestic Violence Act. In the said application learned Judicial Magistrate has passed an interim order directing the Applicant to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.1,00,000/- to the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Respondent No.1 is the wife of the Applicant and Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are his daughters. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are aged about 15 and 11 years, respectively. The Applicant has further been directed to provide residence to the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 or to pay a monthly rent of Rs.30,000/-. 2. This order was challenged before the Sessions Court in an appeal filed by the Applicant. The said appeal has been dismissed by the Sessions Court, Thane. The Applicant was married to Respondent No.1 on 11.02.1997. He has filed a divorce petition bearing H.M.A. Petition No.403 of 2003 under Hindu Marriage Act,...
Devanand Vs. Bank of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-01-2014
C.V. Bhadang, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner was working as a computer operator/clerk in respondent no.1 Bank of Maharashtra, in its Jaripatka Branch at Nagpur. The petitioner opted for voluntary retirement and was relieved from service on 12.9.2008. The petitioner was sanctioned a pension of Rs.13,500/ per month on his retirement. On 26.11.2012, the petitioner was informed by a communication by the Deputy General Manager (Inspection and Audit) of the Bank about serious charges leveled against him. It was alleged that during the period from 31.5.2004 to 26.5.2008, the petitioner had entered into certain financial irregularities, in which the petitioner had opened five accounts in fictitious name and deposited 46 cheques of the customers of the Bank in the said account and had thereby committed misappropriation to the tune of Rs.96,43,599/. It appears that the petitioner gave a reply to the sa...
Shripad Gawas and Others Vs. State of Goa, through its Chief Secretary ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-01-2014
Oral Judgment: (Mohit Shah, CJ.) 1. This Writ Petition has been placed before the Full Bench in view of the order of reference dated 30th September, 2010 passed by the Division Bench of this Court. The reference arises in the context of the Government of Goa, Directorate of Health Services, Group C, Non-Ministerial, Non-Gazetted Posts, Recruitment Rules, 1990 (for short, "the Recruitment Rules"). 2. The Rules are made in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The posts are mentioned in the Schedule to the Recruitment Rules. Rule 3 provides that the method of recruitment to the posts, age limit, qualifications and other matters connected therewith shall be as specified in Columns 5 to 13. Rule 5 confers power on the Government to relax any provisions of the Recruitment Rules with respect to any class or category of persons. 3. In this writ petition and reference, we are only concerned with the post of Sanitary Inspector. Relevant columns...
Sanjeevkumar Harakchand Kankariya Vs. Union of India, through the Mini ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-01-2014
R.M. Borde, J. 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. 2. The petitioner is seeking a writ, order or direction to the State of Maharashtra for refund of entire amount of court fees to such of the litigants including the petitioner who have presented proceedings in the Civil Court and those proceedings have been disposed of in adaptation of any of the modes prescribed under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The petitioner also seeks to quash notification dated 08.05.2013, issued by Law and Judiciary Department, Government of Maharashtra, bearing No.HCA.2010/C.R.87/D19, issued under Section 43(2) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959, on the ground that the notification is contrary to provisions of Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 read with Sections 20 and 21 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987. The petitioner also seeks a declaration that Respondent No.2 has no authority in law to...
Prabhakar Vs. Nivruti and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-01-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 2nd September, 2005 passed in Criminal Complaint No.484/2004, by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Karanja, thereby acquitting the respondent of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under : The respondent-accused had issued eight cheques of Rs.10,000/ each as payment of purchase price of the rice procured by him from the appellant on 18.11.2000. These cheques could not be encashed by the appellant due to insufficient funds in the account of the respondent. As the notice issued under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, N.I. Act) was not complied with, the appellant filed five criminal cases under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the respondent-accused. The respondent-accused entered into a compromise out of the Court with the appellant and in pursuance of the same, on 28.6.2003, sought permission...
National Project Construction Corporation Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtr ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-01-2014
A.P. Bhangale, J. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by the consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside Order, dt.11.9.2013 passed by the Regional Officer of Respondent No.2/Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, a body constituted under the provisions of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Act, 1961 ( hereinafter referred to as MIDC), cancelling allotment of Plot No.33A/1, admeasuring 55,620 Sq. Meters situated in MIDC, Industrial area, Hingna under the (incorrectly described as Lease in petition) agreement to lease dt.8.11.1993 and to direct the MIDC to consider the proposal of the petitioner to utilize Plot No.33A/1, MIDC Industrial area, Hingna, Nagpur under subsection (5) of Section 42A of the MIDC Act. The petitioner has also prayed that the Government of Maharashtra be directed to give reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 3. The facts, briefly sta...
Executive Engineer, MSEDCL and Another Vs. Anjali Anil Tare
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-01-2014
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by the consent of the parties and heard finally. 2. This Court has considered the submissions of the rival parties at length. The petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated 19.11.2013, delivered by the Industrial Court, Jalgaon in Complaint (ULP) No.38 of 2009, filed by the respondent. 3. A short issue has been raised for the consideration of this Court. In two other Writ Petition Nos. 741 and 745 both of 2013, this Court has decided a similar challenge on 24.9.2014, 4. The respondent was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in 1977. She passed her lower division grade examination on 30.3.1980 and later on she became eligible for promotion as Upper Division Clerk (UDC). On promotion, she was working as UDC till 1997, when she was transferred from Jalgaon to Parbhani. In order to continue at Jalgaon, due to personal reasons, she opted for a reversion from the post of UDC to LDC. She joined the office of the petitioners at Jalgao...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »