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.
Sanjay Hari Nagpal Vs. Mohini Shelters Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-2014
Usha S. Thakare, Presiding Judicial Member: (1) The complainant has filed present complaint u/s.17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by alleging deficiency in service on the part of opponent as he failed to hand over the flat to him as per agreement. (2) The complainant is a resident of Mumbai. He claims himself to be a consumer and the opponent as a service provider. The opponent is a builder who undertook the task of re-development of flats and to hand over to the original members of the society. (3) According to the complainant, the opponent had impressed upon the complainant and other members/owners of New Shri Ram Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Concerning re-development of complainants society. The opponent assured the complainant and offered additional area to be given upon surrendering the entire area in respect of each flat. The opponent also assured to the complainant and members/owners that on payment of sum of Rs.1960/- per sq.ft., all the members including compl...
Shaikh Shaifque Vs. Mohammed Ibrahim Moh. YasIn and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-2014
1 Rule, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties i.e. the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 made returnable forthwith and heard. 2 It is not necessary to issue notice to other Respondents as the Petitioner herein is the returned candidate and the Respondent No.1 herein was the Election Petitioner, and therefore, they are the main contesting parties. 3 The writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked against the order dated 12/12/2013 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Malegaon by which order the Election Petition being No.2 of 2012 filed by the Respondent No.1 herein was allowed and resultantly the election of the Petitioner from Ward No.23B of Malegaon Municipal Corporation came to be set aside. 4 The facts necessary to be cited for the adjudication of the Petition can be stated thus:- The Petitioner herein had filed his nomination from Ward No.2...
Gokuldas Kumbharjuvenkar Vs. the Chief Secretary, State of Goa and Ano ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-05-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Teles, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Phaldessai, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable and heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the Orders dated 21/11/2012 and 02/08/2001 passed by the respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 respectively. 4. On 30/06/2001, the Officials of Excise Department conducted surprise inspection of the premises œManik Wines? of the petitioner situated at Bicholim Municipal Market and took into custody liquor goods, which were allegedly not manufactured by the petitioner and suspecting that they were not genuine. When the panchanama was conducted, Shri Praveen Polle, who was acting as a shop caretaker was present and he signed as one of the panchas. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 04/07/2001 was served on the petitioner. The said cause notice reads as under: SHOW CAUSE NOTICE Shri. Gokuldas J....
Pushpanjali Tip Up Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Renudevi Choudhary and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-2014
The suit is in respect of shares purportedly pledged by the Plaintiff with Defendant Nos.1 and 2 under loan agreements separately entered into by the Plaintiff with Defendant No.1 and with Defendant No.2. It is the case of the Plaintiff that in spite of recovery of the entire outstanding loan with interest, Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have fraudulently sold or transferred shares held as security in breach of the loan agreements as also in breach of trust. 2 By the present Notice of Motion, the Plaintiff has sought an interim injunction restraining Defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 (who is the depository participant with whom Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have accounts) from transferring any of the balance shares lying in the depository accounts of Defendant Nos.1 and 2. An interim injunction is also sought against Defendant Nos.4 and 5, who are the depositories in respect of the said shares, from transferring any of the balance shares lying in the DP accounts of Defendant Nos.1 and 2. 3 It appears that since...
Mahesh Prathamik School and Palna Kendra, Through Its Head Mistress an ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-05-2014
Oral Judgment: Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the matter finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 14.10.2011 passed by the Ist Labour Court at Nagpur in Misc. Application (IDA) 37/2010, rejecting the application for setting aside the exparte order. The petition also challenges the order dated 16.06.2005 passed by the Ist Labour Court at Nagpur, in IDA Case No. 61/1997, whereby the petitioners are directed to pay an amount of Rs. 44,098/- to the applicants Smt. Radhikabai Ninawe and Rs. 58,800/- to the Sewantabai Muley towards difference of wages within one month from the date of the order. 3. There is a dispute raised by the petitioner regarding entitlement of the respondents to difference of salary. The claim of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 was that they were working as peon, but were not paid salary accordingly. This fact is disputed. Undisputedly, the Secretary of the society expired on 13.06....
Madhukar Sukhdeo Thube Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-05-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Leave to amend by deleting the name of the respondent no.2, granted. Necessary amendment be carried out forthwith. 3. Since a limited issue is involved in the matter, Rule is issued and made returnable forthwith by consent. The learned APP waives service. By consent, heard finally. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant tenders a certified copy of the roznama of the Trial Court, which is taken on record and marked x for identification. 5. The applicant is the accused in RTC No.557/2012 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ahmednagar. He is challenging the order dated 29.10.2012 passed by the learned Magistrate framing a charge of offences punishable under section 498A of the IPC, 323 of the IPC, 504 of the IPC and 506 of the IPC against him. It is submitted that there was no material to disclose the commission of an offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC. However, the main contention of the applicant is only that, charge came to be...
Village Panchayat Calangute Through Its Sarpanch/Secretary and Another ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-05-2014
Oral Order: (R.S. Dalvi, J.) 1. The Notification no.19/19/DP/PAN/Notification/Part/2012 dated 04.06.2012, is essentially challenged in the above Writ Petitions by two Village Panchayats and by certain Villagers. The exercise of passing this Notification came about in Writ Petition no. 716 of 2009, which is rightly argued by the Petitioners as being the genesis for the issue of the aforesaid Notification. 2. In the Order dated 23.02.2010, the Court saw that the dispute regarding the boundary of the Village Panchayats of Cancolim and Calangute which comes in the way of demolition of illegal structures. The Court called upon the Director of Panchayats to demarcate in loco, the boundary line between the two Panchayats. The Director was entitled to take assistance of the Director of Land Survey (DRSR). The report of demarcation was to be submitted. 3. Thereafter, this Court passed a further Order on 15.03.2010 in further compliance of the Order declaring the local areas of Village Panchayat...
Agasti Sarv Seva Sangh Vs. Rohidas Dharma Rathod
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-05-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. S.T. Shelke, the learned counsel for the applicant. Heard Mrs. Sangeet the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. By consent admitted and taken up for final hearing, forthwith. By consent calling for record and proceedings dispensed with. 3. The applicant had filed a criminal case against the respondent alleging commission of offences punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Process was ordered to be issued against the respondent only with respect to the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It appears that the complaint remained pending for a number of years, as the presence of respondent i.e. the accused could not be secured by the applicant inspite of orders passed by the Court to issue summonses or warrants for securing the presence of respondent. On 31.08.2013, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint in default by the following order, which was...
Umakant Bhaskarao Nawarkhele Vs. Sou.Sneha Umakant Nawarkhele and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-05-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant. Heard the learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2. Heard the learned APP. 2. By consent, admitted and heard finally. 3. By consent, calling for the Record and Proceedings is dispensed with. 4. The applicant is the husband of the respondent no.1. The respondent no.2 is minor child of the applicant and the respondent no.1. The applicant is aggrieved by the order dated 2.8.2013 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad, awarding maintenance @ Rs.5,000/- p.m. each, to the respondent nos.1 and 2 herein from the date of the petition. He has, therefore, approached this Court by filing the present revision application. 5. Though a number of contentions have been raised in the revision application, in the oral arguments what is submitted is that, the impugned order came to be passed without participation of the applicant in the inquiry proceedings that took place before the Family Court. It is submitted that, th...
Naveen Luthra and Another Vs. Avr Logistic Pvt. Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-05-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Both these applications can be conveniently disposed of by this common order as the parties are the same and the question needing determination is one and the same. 2. Heard Mr. P.K.Lakhotiya, the learned counsel for the applicants. Heard Mr. A.S.Gandhi, the learned counsel for respondent No.1. Heard Mr. S.B.Pulkundwar the learned APP for the respondent no. 2 “ State. 3. RULE. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 4. The applicants are the accused in two cases filed against them by the respondent no.1 herein. The cases are in respect of offences punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. They are pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aurangabad. By the present application, the applicants have challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate to entertain the complaints and deal with the alleged offences. 5. That, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aurangabad has territorial jur...
- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- Next ›
- Last »