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.
Niwas Dattatraya Lad and Others Vs. Punjab and Maharashtra Co-operativ ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-2014
Oral Judgment: (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) Rule, returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the respective Respondents waive service. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. The Petitioners have invoked Articles of the Constitution of India and thereby praying to quash and set aside order dated 07 July 2011 passed by the Central Registrar, Co-operative Societies, whereby an Arbitrator is appointed to settle the disputes between the parties. 3. The submission is revolving around section 84 of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the œMSCS Act 2002?) and rule 30 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the œMSCS Rules 2002?). The Apex Court in Greater Bombay Coop. Bank Ltd. v United Yarn Tex (P) Ltd. [(2007) 6 SCC 236] has expressed as under: œ31. The Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 was enacted by Parliament and Section 74 thereof deals with various disputes including recovery of deb...
A.G. Ranade Vs. Union of India, Through Commissioner and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-2014
(BOMBAY BENCH, CAMP: NAGPUR) Arvind J. Rohee, Member (Judicial): 1. This is a second round of litigation before this Tribunal challenging the impugned order dated 08.05.2008 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Respondent No.2 as the Appellate Authority thereby confirming the penalty of removal of the applicant from service imposed by Respondent No.3, the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 19.11.2007 (Annexure A-2) and the subsequent order dated 23.06.2009 passed by the Revisional Authority during the pendency of this proceeding, confirming the order passed by the Appellate Authority. 2. The applicant was appointed as Lower Division Clerk at Kendriya Vidyalaya, Ajni, Nagpur. On 25.07.2005 a Memorandum of Charge (Annexure A-3) was served on the applicant, initiating departmental proceeding against him on the ground that he allegedly demanded and accepted gratification of Rs.100/-from one Shri P.G. Joge, TGT, Kendriya Vidyalaya, Ajni, Nagpur for not initiating any action against him on the ...
TeijIn Limited Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary Department of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-2014
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Kanade, J.) 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent of parties, matter is taken up for final hearing. 3. By this Petition which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner is seeking an order or direction for quashing and setting aside the impugned orders dated 03/01/2011 and 09/03/2011 passed by Respondent No.3 on behalf of Respondent No.2. Petitioner further seeks an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents to correct its record so as to reflect that 3rd to 9th year annuities for the Patent No.207883 as paid and also to correct its record so as to reflect that 10th year annuity for the Patent No.207883 as paid. Petitioner is further seeking restoration of Patent No.207883 or in the alternative a direction directing the Respondents to proceed with the application for restoration of Patent No.207883 on merits and in accordance with law. 4. Petitioner is a Japanese Corp...
Govind Vs. the Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-10-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard finally. Admit. By consent, taken up for final hearing. Original record, received, perused. 2. Ex Officio Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udgir, on 7.9.2009, while deciding M.A.C.P.No.55/2008, dismissed the claim petition against original respondent No.3 (the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.), and hence feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, original respondent Govind, owner of the vehicle is before this Court. 3. FACTS: Deceased was proceeding to Udgir on his vehicle (M-80) and had dash with Tempo bearing No.MH-26-B-3507, coming from opposite direction, and the deceased suffered, died at the spot. He was 50 years old, hale and hearty, an agriculturist, and family claimed that he had a good earning. On assessing the evidence, Rs. 2,75,000/- were awarded in favour of claimants with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum. 4. The gravamen of submission from Mr. Mundhe, learned Counsel for the appellant, owner of the vehicle is, exonerating the Insurance ...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Its Divisional Manager and Aut ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-10-2014
1. Heard. The appeal is admitted on 8.10.2009. Record and proceeding received. Perused. 2. The appellant Insurance company criticized the award recorded by the learned Member, M.A.C.T. Jalgaon in M.A.C.P. No. 267 of 2001 dated 15.9.2008 awarding Rs.16,91,412/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. 3. Mr. Gatne, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company says, the award calls for interference on three counts viz. (a) multiplier was inappropriate, (b) salary details are puzzling and (c) panchnama of spot vibrantly demonstrates the case of contributory negligence of the deceased with the tanker driver. 4. The deceased unfortunately at his 32 years of age while plying his bike, came from the opposite direction of the tanker ran at a right rear wheel. He was crushed over head, succumbed due to fracture at several vital body parts. F.I.R. of the driver was immediately lodged depicting as to what has happened at the spot. 5. The appellant Insurance Com...
Dattu and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-10-2014
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. S.J. Salunke, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Heard Mr. P.N. Muley, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service on behalf of respondent. By consent, heard finally forthwith. 3. The petitioners are the accused in Sessions Case no. 174/2012 pending before the Assistant Sessions Judge at Beed. The trial of the said case is in progress. Witness summonses have been issued and served upon a number of witnesses. In the course of trial, the first informant Gangadhar (PW-3) was examined as a witness. After his examination-in-chief was over, the accused persons made an application (Exhibit 73) and prayed that the cross examination of the said witness be deferred till the evidence of the other witnesses would be completed. Accused stated in the said application that, otherwise they were likely to be prejudiced in their defence and the purpose ...
Balaji and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through District Colle ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-10-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Admit the appeal. Heard finally. Perused the record and in particular sale deed at Exh.16 and earlier award at Exh.17 concerning LAR No.83/2004. 2. The appellant feels aggrieved by the order of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Biloli, dated 3rd May, 2012, whereby he directed respondent State to pay additional compensation which was enhanced to Rs.8,40,960/- for bare market value of 2 H. 92 R. land from Gat No.61 at the rate of Rs.2,88,000/- per Hectare and Rs.3,30,009/- for well. 3. Mr. Patil, learned Counsel for the appellant says, the sale instances under sale deed Exh.15 done about 9 years before the notification dated 15.5.2008 and the sale deed at Exh.16 was for the period of around seven years before the said notification. He urged, considering the escalation in prices of immoveable property at least a scale of 12 per cent per annum for the intervening period to be added to the enhancement. Learned Counsel says, even if one proceeds to the award ...
Kishor Vs. Ambadas
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-10-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This second appeal was admitted on 16.4.2007 on the following substantial question of law:- œWhether the reasons recorded by both the Courts for holding that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of contract are perverse and unsustainable?? 2. Suit for specific performance of contract was filed by appellant (original plaintiff) bearing RCS No. 139 of 2001 before the Civil Judge, JD, Amravati. According to plaintiff, he agreed to purchase open space with super structure admeasuring 213.75 square feet out of Plot No. 179, Nazul Sheet No. 92/1 situated at Takarkheda, Amravati. On 15.12.1997 token money of Rs. 501/- was paid by plaintiff to defendant and then on 24.12.1997 plaintiff paid Rs. 4400/- to the defendant on which date agreement for sale was executed. Total consideration was fixed at Rs. 16,000/- and the sale deed was to be obtained on or before 30.6.1998. According to plaintiff, in addition to above, he had paid Rs. 2000/- to defenda...
The Corlim Citizen Civic and Consumer Forum Vs. State of Goa, Through ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-10-2014
Oral Judgment: (Smt. R.S. Dalvi, J.) Rule. Made returnable forthwith. 2. The petitioner has taken exception to the construction put up by respondent nos. 10 and 11 on various grounds. The petitioner has cited various illegalities/irregularities. The construction has been completed. The petitioner has filed the petition after the construction came up. 3. With regard to the construction of respondent no.11, the grievance of the petitioner is that the approval of the Town and Country Planning Authority itself is incorrectly granted. That approval is shown in the plan annexed at Exhibit R10/I to the petition ( page 160). The plan has been approved under No. TIS/6934/ COR/TCP/11/838 dated 17.05.2011. It accompanies the technical clearance order passed by the Town and Country Planning Authority dated 17.05.2011. It shows the total area of the plot to be 1600 square metres which is as per the sale deed executed by the developer. The part of the land has been acquired by the Government to the ...
M/S Parakh Sales Corporation Vs. Manoj
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-10-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant finally this being Revision Application. This Civil Revision Application has been filed by original plaintiff against order dated 5.7.2011, passed by Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad, permitting counter claim of the respondent-defendant to be taken on record and giving directions to frame additional issue in view of counter claim as plaintiff had filed written statement. 2. Plaintiff brought the suit for recovery of Rs.16,24,222/- claiming that plaintiff-partnership is having Head Office at Nasik, and that at Aurangabad the defendant was orally appointed as Manager of the firm on consolidated salary of Rs.7000/- per month. It is claimed that the defendant left the service of plaintiff on his own on 1.9.2006. Plaintiff checked accounts and filed the suit for the recovery of amounts giving particulars in para 8 of the plaint. One of the item is that, defendant had received excess payment than as agreed by way of salary...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »