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.
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
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...
Santosh Datta Shirsath Vs. the Union of India and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-2014
Dr. Mrutyunjay Sarangi, Member (A): 1. The applicant had joined the Central Railway as a Booking Clerk on 3.8.1993. Subsequently he was promoted as Senior Booking Clerk. While serving as Senior Booking Clerk at Nashik Road Station he was issued with a Memorandum of Charge-sheet dated 2.2.2006 with two charges (i) overcharging the decoy passenger by Rs.10/-and (ii) possession of Rs. 34/-excess in Railway Cash. 2. The Inquiry Officer conducted the disciplinary inquiry and submitted his report on 14.6.2008 and came to the conclusion that both the charges against the applicant were not proved. On 21.11.2008, the Disciplinary Authority issued a disagreement note to which the applicant had replied. On 31.7.2009, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order in which although he held that the first charge was not substantiated and in the second charge there was no malafide intention in respect of the excess amount, he imposed the penalty of reduction of pay by two stages for 5 years with cumulat...
M.K. Gupta Vs. the Union of India and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-2014
Dr. Mrutyunjay Sarangi, Member (A): 1. The applicant joined the Indian Railways on 16.01.1981 and belongs to the 1979 Examination Batch of IRSE. In August, 2001 a major penalty charge-sheet was issued to the applicant and after a detailed enquiry the Inquiry Officer exonerated the applicant of all charges in March 2003. However, a disagreement note was issued by the Disciplinary Authority on 31.10.2003 and the applicant was compulsorily retired in April 2005. 2. The applicant challenged the punishment of Compulsory Retirement before the Bombay Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. 315/2005 in February 2007. The above mentioned O.A. was allowed with full consequential benefits. The order of this Tribunal was challenged in Writ Petition No. 2395/2007 by the respondents in February 2007. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court set aside the punishment order on procedural infirmities on 19.4.2007. The orders of the C.A.T. Bombay Bench was upheld and the matter was remanded to the Disc...
Balasaheb Kashinath Tambe and Others Vs. Nanasaheb Janardhan Khade and ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-13-2014
Per Court: 1. The petitioners are elected as members of the Gram Panchayat Lakh. 2. The respondent No. 1 filed a complaint bearing dispute Application No. 82/2011 and 81/2011 before the Additional Collector seeking disqualification of the petitioners for not submitting the election expenses within one month as contemplated U/Sec. 14-B of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act (hereinafter called as "Panchayat Act" for the sake of brevity). The Collector, allowed the said dispute and disqualified the petitioners on the ground of non submission of particulars of expenses within one month. The petitioners filed appeals before the Divisional Commissioner. The Divisional Commissioner dismissed the said appeals. Aggrieved thereby present petition. 3. Mr. Karpe, the learned counsel for petitioners in his usual lucid manner submits that, the Additional Collector did not get the jurisdiction to entertain the dispute U/Sec. 14-B read with Sec. 14(1-J)(4) of the Panchayat Act. The powers under the said...
M/S Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Union of India, Through G ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-13-2014
Oral Judgment: This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed on 15.4.1999 in OA No. 174/OA-1/RTC/Nagpur/97 by which Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the application of the plaintiff claiming compensation from the railway administration/respondent for shortage in delivery of motor spirit intended to be unloaded at Khapri. It was the contention of the appellant that it had booked a consignment of 27,020/- litres of motor spirit and it was loaded in tank wagon under railway receipt No. 27372 dated 9.10.1995 at its siding at Bajwa and it was intended to be delivered at Khapri. When tank wagon in question was placed for unloading on 14.10.1995 at Khapri, it was noticed that both the top and bottom seals were missing indicating shortage in the goods. Therefore, open delivery was demanded. It was granted and delivery was taken in the presence of the officials of railway administration. It was disclosed that there was a shortage of 801 litres of motor spirit. The appellant, th...
Abdul Rafique Abdul Hamid Vs. the Yavatmal Islamia Anglo Urdu Educatio ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-13-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. The School Tribunal, Amravati, by its judgment and order dated 7-7-2001, has dismissed Appeal No. 201 of 1992-A filed under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (œMEPS Act?), by the petitioner challenging his oral termination dated 29-9-2012 from service as an Assistant Teacher in the School run by the respondent No.1-Society. 2. The School Tribunal has recorded the finding that the appointment of the petitioner was made on temporary year to year basis and it was terminated by an order dated 28-5-1992 and after termination, the petitioner has worked only for 10 days occasionally. It has been held that the appointment of the petitioner was to teach Standards IXth and Xth which were not recognized and hence, he was not entitled to the benefit of Section 5(1) and (2) of the MEPS Act to treat his appointment on 24-6-1991 as on probation. 3. The undisputed factual position is as under: The petitioner w...
M/S Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Union of India, Through G ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-2014
Oral Judgment: This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed on 15.4.1999 in OA No. 174/OA-1/RTC/Nagpur/97 by which Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the application of the plaintiff claiming compensation from the railway administration/respondent for shortage in delivery of motor spirit intended to be unloaded at Khapri. It was the contention of the appellant that it had booked a consignment of 27,020/- litres of motor spirit and it was loaded in tank wagon under railway receipt No. 27372 dated 9.10.1995 at its siding at Bajwa and it was intended to be delivered at Khapri. When tank wagon in question was placed for unloading on 14.10.1995 at Khapri, it was noticed that both the top and bottom seals were missing indicating shortage in the goods. Therefore, open delivery was demanded. It was granted and delivery was taken in the presence of the officials of railway administration. It was disclosed that there was a shortage of 801 litres of motor spirit. The appellant, th...
Hiranand @ Dabbu Kimmatram Aswani Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Ano ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-2014
P.C. 1. This application is preferred by the original complainant for cancellation of bail granted in favour of the present respondent No.2 in the matter of offence under sections 115 and 120B of IPC registered under CR No.39 of 2010 of Pimpri Police Station,Pune. Respondent No.2/original accused No.1 was arrested on 20th January, 2010 for the offence of conspiracy to kill the complainant “ present applicant. Without going into much details as to various events happened regarding filing of bail applications before the trial Court and before this Court, suffice it to say that criminal bail application preferred before this Court bearing No. 704 of 2010 was granted on 10th March, 2010 (Coram : Shri B.R.Gavai,J). According to the applicant, respondent No.2 violated the conditions of bail and also indulged in criminal activities and a number of serious offences were registered against him. As such, according to the applicant “ original complainant, respondent no.2 has rendered ...
The Authorized Officer, Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund Idbi Tower ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-13-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. All these petitions involve common question of law and are based on same set of facts, as such are decided together. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 3. The respondent No. 1 in all these petitions are the workers of the respondent No. 2 company. The respondent No. 1 filed application U/Sec. 15 of the Payment of Wages Act for recovery of their wages along with compensation. The said applications filed under the Payment of Wages Act are rejected by the Labour Court at Jalgaon. The respondent No. 1 filed appeal before the District Court. In the appeal present petitioners were impleaded as parties as the present petitioners had sold the assets of the respondent No. 2/company by invoking its powers under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 (hereafter referred as to the "Securitisation Act" for the sake of brevity). The District Court allowed t...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »