Mumbai Court February 2014 Judgments
Mariala Fernandes Vs. Additional Director of Panchayat-i and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-27-2014
1. Heard Mr. Parsekar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Rodrigues, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents no. 2 and 3 and Ms. Linhares, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf respondent no. 1. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel for the respondents waive service of notice. By consent, heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 02/08/2013 passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge-2, FTC-II, South Goa at Margao in Civil Revision Application No. 34/2011. 4. Case of the petitioner in short is as follows: The petitioner demolished the old house existing in the property bearing Survey No. 81/2011 at village Betalbatim originally occupied by her and Rosa Maria Ratos and constructed an entirely new house bearing House No. 26 exclusively at her costs and by obtaining all the necessary approvals from the concerned authorities. The Village Panchayat of Betalbatim had issued ...
Tag this Judgment!Sujata and Another Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Subsidiary of Gener ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-27-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed on 27th August, 1999 in Claim Petition No.177 of 1992 by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, that the present appeal has been preferred by the appellants. 2. In an accident, which occurred at about 1.00 p.m. on 12.2.1992 husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellant No.2 died on spot when Jeep bearing registration No.MUK 7979 by which he was travelling dashed against a stationary truck parked on the road, which had registration No.WB-23-1458. The jeep was insured with respondent No.1 and it was being driven by respondent No.2, who was its owner as well. The truck involved in the accident was owned by respondent No.4 and insured with respondent No.5, while respondent No.3 was its driver. Since there was rashness and negligence on the part of the drivers of both these vehicles, the appellants preferred petition claiming compensation from all the respondents. 3. The petition was resisted by respondent N...
Tag this Judgment!Bapu Gunda Mirje and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through Its Mini ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. 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 Article 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked against the order dated 7-8-2013 passed by the Hon'ble Minister for State for Revenue by which order, the Appeal filed by the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein came to be allowed and resultantly the order dated 30-1-2013 passed by the Deputy Director Land Records, Pune Region, Pune, came to be set aside. 3. The facts necessary to be cited for adjudication of the above Petition can be stated thus: 4. The instant proceedings have arisen out of the application filed by the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein being Revision Application No.523 of 2009 for re-measurement of Survey No.254/2 situated at Mouje Hingangaon (Shindewadi) Tal Kavthemahankal, Dist Sangli. By virtue of the said application the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 were seeking modification in the Consolidation Scheme which...
Tag this Judgment!Vikrant Industries Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary, ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-27-2014
RavindraV. Ghuge, J. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal. 3. By this petition filed under Articles 226 read with 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the allotment of plots to Respondent No.4, Respondent No.5, Respondent No.6, Respondent No.7, Respondent No.8 and Respondent No.9 in the Latur MIDC Area and the additional MIDC Area at Latur. Coupled with the said challenge, the petitioner is also aggrieved by the refusal by Respondent Nos.2 and 3 MIDC to allot plots to the Petitioner for industrial and commercial purposes. 4. The Petitioner has, therefore, put-forth the following prayers:- "(B) By issue of Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in like nature, the allotment of plots in favour of respondent Nos.4 to 8 be quashed and set aside; (C) By issue of Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in like nature, the re...
Tag this Judgment!A.P. Kamble Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-2014
Oral Judgment (Per Anoop V. Mohta, J.): 1. Heard finally by consent. 2. The Petitioner/original Respondent No.2 in Original Application No.730/2011 has challenged impugned order dated 20 January 2014, thereby original Applicant/Respondent No.2's Application is allowed and transfer order dated 2.08.2011 of Respondent No.2 is quashed and set aside and as a consequence, order of transfer of Petitioner in his place is also quashed. The directions were issued to implement this order within two weeks from the date of the order. 3. There is no dispute with regard to the applicability of The Maharahstra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005 (for short, Act of 2005). Both the learned counsel appearing for the parties read and referred the provisions specially Sections 4 and 6 of the Act of 2005 which deals with the tenure of transfer and the Transferring Authority and its power. In the present case, Section 6 (b) is applica...
Tag this Judgment!A.P. Kamble Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-2014
Oral Judgment (Per Anoop V. Mohta, J.): 1. Heard finally by consent. 2. The Petitioner/original Respondent No.2 in Original Application No.730/2011 has challenged impugned order dated 20 January 2014, thereby original Applicant/Respondent No.2's Application is allowed and transfer order dated 2.08.2011 of Respondent No.2 is quashed and set aside and as a consequence, order of transfer of Petitioner in his place is also quashed. The directions were issued to implement this order within two weeks from the date of the order. 3. There is no dispute with regard to the applicability of The Maharahstra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005 (for short, Act of 2005). Both the learned counsel appearing for the parties read and referred the provisions specially Sections 4 and 6 of the Act of 2005 which deals with the tenure of transfer and the Transferring Authority and its power. In the present case, Section 6 (b) is applica...
Tag this Judgment!Amol Ramesh Pawar Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-2014
Oral Judgment: (P.V. Hardas, J.) Rule. Rule, made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this Petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner, the anguished father of the minor child aged two and half years seeks the custody of the child who is presently in the custody of Respondent No.6. It appears that the Petitioner was married to the daughter of Respondent No.6 on 23 November 2010. From the wedlock, the wife of the Petitioner gave birth to Tejas on 20 November 2011. The wife of the Petitioner died on 21 March 2012 due to burns. A complaint was accordingly lodged against the Petitioner, and Petitioner and others were prosecuted for the said offence. The Additional Sessions Judge at Satara acquitted the Petitioner and others for the offence punishable under Section 498 A, 302(2) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to learned counsel for Respo...
Tag this Judgment!Satish Menon Vs. Purvee and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned Counsel Shri H.G. Katekar for the applicant, learned Counsel Shri Vinay Dahat for non-applicant No.1 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri A.K. Bangadkar for nonapplicant No.2. 2. Admit. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The applicant is accused No.5 in Criminal Complaint Case No. 8288/2010 pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur and is facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The applicant had filed the revision application before the Sessions Court challenging the order of issuance of process against him on the ground that the applicant was not Director of the Company at the time of commission of the alleged offence. The revision application has been dismissed. 4. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the applicant was no more Director of the Company and therefore, he cannot be held vicariously liable for any...
Tag this Judgment!Gramaudyogik Shikshan Mandal, Aurangabad Through Its General Secretary ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-2014
1. Admit. 2. Record and proceeding received. Heard finally. 3. The appellant (Original plaintiff) feels aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned C.J.S.D. (Corporation Court) Aurangabad in Special Civil Suit No.19 of 2010, dismissing the appellants suit. RELEVANT FACTS 4. (a) The appellant is educational charitable trust, imparting technical education and training situate in land survey No.72 of village Satara, Tq. and District Aurangabad. A suit for declaration and perpetual injunction and for recovery of Rs.5,79,270/- was filed against the Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad. The suit was restricted to levy of property tax concerning library building meant for educational purpose. The plaintiff canvased, the property does not come within limits of Aurangabad Municipal Corporation, and without having authority it claimed Rs.21,92,937/- as an amount of tax on library building. An amount of Rs.5,79,270/- has been paid by the appellant under duress and urged for a decree t...
Tag this Judgment!Viraj Alcoholes and Allied Industries Ltd. Vs. Brihan Karan Sugar Synd ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-26-2014
1. This Appeal from Order is filed by the original Defendant of Regular Civil Suit No.1 of 2012 pending before the Court of District Judge, Amalner. The Respondent-original Plaintiff has filed the Suit for permanent injunction, damages, accounts and other reliefs, for infringement of copy right under the Copyright Act, 1957 and for passing off under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (œCopyright Act? and œTrade Marks Act? in brief). The District Judge has granted temporary injunction in favour of Plaintiff, restraining the Defendant from using, printing or publishing the impugned label, Annexure C attached to the Plaint, during the pendency of the Suit. Thus, this Appeal. I will refer to the Appellant as Defendant and Respondent as Plaintiff, the way in which they are arrayed before the trial Court. 2. In brief, the dispute is that the parties are manufacturers of country liquor. Plaintiff manufactures country liquor from sugar cane molasses. Defendant manufactures the same from the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »