Mumbai Court February 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.
Ananda Baburao Pawagi and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-2014
A.S. Oka, J. 1. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a writ of mandamus is sought directing the second Respondent (Special Land Acquisition Officer) to make payment of the amount payable under the Award made on 2nd May 2011 (for short œthe said award?) under Subsection (2) of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short œthe said Act?) together with interest accrued thereon till the date of payment. The specific prayer is that the entire amount of compensation including the interest be paid to the Petitioners on the Petitioners furnishing a bank guarantee for the entire amount. 2. A land owned by the Petitioners was acquired under the provisions of the said Act for the public purposes of submergence of NeeraDeoghar Project. The award under Section 11 of the said Act was made on 28th February 1996. The Petitioners did not apply for a reference under Section 18 of the said Act. An application under Subsection (1) of Section 28A of the s...
Vito D'Costa, since deceased through Legal Representatives and Another ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-14-2014
1. Heard Mr. Kantak, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Sardessai, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 8 and 9. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. 3. By consent heard forthwith. 4. By this petition, the petitioner has taken exception to the order dated 06/11/2013 passed by the learned District Judge-II, South Goa, Margao ('First Appellate Court') in Regular Civil Appeal No.39/2009. 5. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the petition, are as follows : Respondents no.8 and 9 had filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction before the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Margao ('Trial Court') being Regular Civil Suit No.750/2000/C against the petitioners and respondents no. 1 to 7. The petitioners, as defendants no.3 and 4, filed their written statement and counterclaim. Respondents no.8 and 9 then filed their written statement to the counterclaim and also filed additional written statement. Vide judgment and ...
Manikrao Ramji Chawake Vs. Ashok Ambadas Gawande and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-14-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. Admit on the following substantial question of law : Whether it is essential to get the map in respect of the disputed agricultural land prepared by the Court Commissioner as directed by this Court vide order dt.11.11.2003? 3. My answer to the above question is in the affirmative as in the cases where dispute is as to boundaries or boundary-marks of the immovable property and when parties do not agree to any map produced on the record, it becomes essential for the trial Court or the first Appellate Court as final Court on finding of facts to ensure that a competent Cadestral Surveyor is appointed as the Court Commissioner to prepare measurement map in respect of the suit properties so that after receiving authentic map or plan from the competent Official on behalf of the State Government, the trial Court is assisted meaningfully with a view to execute the decree that may be passed. Execution of decree is thus fa...
Smt. Nola Jonathan Ranbhise Vs. the Union of India, the Law and Judici ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-2014
M.S. Sonak, J. 1. By this Petition, the Petitioner inter alia, seeks a declaration that Section 28-A of the Bombay Civil Court Act,1869 is void on grounds of inconsistency with and repugnancy to the Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. 2. The declaration and consequential reliefs have been sought in the following facts and circumstances: A) On 25.3.1997, Mr. Ebenezer Walter Baker filed Regular Civil Suit No.167 of 1977 seeking 1/12th share in the properties of late Dr. Baker. The petitioner came to be impleaded as Defendant No.5 in the said Suit, which was ultimately dismissed for want of prosecution. B) Upon demise of Ms. Eunice D. Baker, the Petitioner vide M.C.A.No.417 of 1997 applied for probate under Section 276 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 in respect of her Will dated 4.4.1985 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division Pune. This was granted by the Civil Judge on 12.12.1997. C) Mr. Ebenzer Baker thereupon filed M.C.A. No.32 of 1999 under Section 263 of the Indian Succes...
Tarachand Shrawanji Shambharkar Vs. Prashant and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-14-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28th October, 2010, in W.C.A. No.19 of 1999 by the Commissioner appointed under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and 3rd Labour Court, Nagpur. The Claim petition under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 was filed by the present appellant claiming compensation for the injuries he suffered while driving a truck bearing registration No.MH-31-W-2717 on 29th June, 1997. The appellant contended that the accident occurred during the course of his employment with respondent No.1 and it arose out of that employment. He submitted that at the time of accident, respondent No.1 was the owner of the said truck, while respondent No.3 was its previous owner. He also claimed that the truck was insured with respondent No.2 with the insurance policy having been issued in the name of previous owner-respondent No.3. The petition proceeded ex-parte against the respondent No.1 and respondent No.3, but the respo...
Ananda Baburao Pawagi and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-2014
A.S. Oka, J. 1. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a writ of mandamus is sought directing the second Respondent (Special Land Acquisition Officer) to make payment of the amount payable under the Award made on 2nd May 2011 (for short œthe said award?) under Subsection (2) of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short œthe said Act?) together with interest accrued thereon till the date of payment. The specific prayer is that the entire amount of compensation including the interest be paid to the Petitioners on the Petitioners furnishing a bank guarantee for the entire amount. 2. A land owned by the Petitioners was acquired under the provisions of the said Act for the public purposes of submergence of NeeraDeoghar Project. The award under Section 11 of the said Act was made on 28th February 1996. The Petitioners did not apply for a reference under Section 18 of the said Act. An application under Subsection (1) of Section 28A of the s...
Bharat Moru Mahadik Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-2014
Oral Judgment: Rule, with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The Writ Jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked against the order dated 18th December, 2012 passed by the Respondent No. 4 and the order dated 14th April, 2013 passed by the Respondent No. 2, by which order, the Appeal filed by the Petitioner before the Respondent No. 2 has been disposed of on the ground that the same is not maintainable. 3. The controversy in the above Petition is as regards the election of the Respondent No. 5 as a president of Gramdam Mandal, village Gagode Budruk, Taluka “ Panvel, District “ Raigad. The Gramdam Villages are constituted under the Maharashtra Gramdan Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as œthe said Act?) pursuant to the movement initiated by Acharya Shri. Vinoba Bhave. The said Act provides for constitution of Gram Mandals and the matters connected there...
Aarti Industries Limited Vs. Union of India, Through the Secretary Min ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-2014
PC: Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, petition is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission. 2) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the challenge is to the order dated 7 September 2012 passed by the Government of India in Revision under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (œthe Act?). 3) The petitioner had exported goods on payment of duty aggregating to Rs.1,34,415/-. On export of their goods the petitioner filed rebate claim on 24 November 2009. However, as the rebate claim was not accompanied with original and duplicate copy of ARE-1 for the goods exported, a show cause notice was issued seeking to reject the rebate claim in the absence of requisite documents. The petitioner responded to the same and pointed out that the original and duplicate copies of ARE-1 of the goods exported have been lost in transit and a FIR of the loss has been lodged at Khanval Police Station. The petitioner sought to support its re...
Social and Cultural Association and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtr ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-14-2014
1. This Revision Application is by Social and Cultural Association, Kusumba, a registered Trust and its office bearers who are original Plaintiff Nos.1 to 4, 6, 8 and 9 in Regular Civil Suit No.541 of 2012 pending before Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dhule. Other Defendants from the Trust Defendant Nos.10 and 11 and the State and Assistant Charity Commissioner who have been arrayed as Defendants in trial Court, are arrayed here as Respondents. Original Plaintiff Nos.1 to 13 are present Respondent Nos.3 to 15. For the sake of convenience, I will refer to Petitioners as the Defendants and Respondent Nos.3 to 15, as Plaintiffs. 2. The present Revision was filed challenging orders below Exhibit 5 dated 1st September, 2012, vide which the resolution of the Trust expelling the Plaintiff Nos.2 to 9 from membership of the Trust was stayed and permission was granted to them to participate in the election held on 2nd September, 2012. The Revision has been filed also against the order dated 30th ...
Sukhlal Bhivsan Dhobi (Suryawanshi) Since Deceased Through His L.Rs: a ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-14-2014
1. Petitioner Sukhlal Bhivsan Dhobi (original Defendant) filed the present Revision against Respondents (original Plaintiffs D. H.) being aggrieved by order below Exhibit 21 passed in Regular Darkhast No.55 of 2004 by the trial Court, dated 15th April, 2005. Petitioner “ Defendant (J.D.) had filed application under Sections 47 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (œC.P.C.? in brief) and raised objection to the execution on two grounds. One ground raised was that the co-owner of the suit premises, Sanjay Sadashiv Sangale expired leaving behind his widow Megha and two sons and one daughter, but the sons were not made parties and so the decree was a nullity. Other ground raised was that as per Section 33 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short œMaharashtra Rent Act?), Civil Judge,(Junior Division) and where no Court of Civil Judge, (Junior Division) is functioning then Civil Judge, (Senior Division) is empowered to entertain and try the suit. In the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »