Mumbai Court February 2014 Judgments
Dyaneshwar Narso Naik Vs. State of Goa Through Chief Secretary and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-26-2014
Mrs. Roshan Dalvi, J. 1. Rule. Made returnable forthwith. 2. The petitioner has sought a writ of quo-warranto directing respondent No.3 to discontinue functioning as a member of respondent No.2 Village Panchayat and for a declaration that she has been disqualified to be such member and her office has become vacant under the provisions of Section 12(1)(d) r.w. Section 55(4) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. 3. Respondent No.3 is the elected member of the Village Panchatyat. She is stated to have participated in the meeting concerning a matter in which she has pecuniary interest. That matter was the renewal of construction licence issued to her husband. The licence was initially issued on 10th March, 2010. It would expire on 9th March, 2013. The meeting with regard to the renewal of the licence was held on 16th March, 2013 when the licence had already expired. It was resolved to grant the licence to her husband in the meeting dated 16th March, 2013. The renewal licence was actually gra...
Tag this Judgment!Madhuri NitIn Jadhav and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through Its ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-2014
AnoopV. Mohta, J. 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned counsel appearing for the respective Respondents waive service. Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 2. All these Petitions revolve around the issues relating to and connected to validation of castes certificates belonging to œThakar?/ œThakur? or œKa Thakur?, œKa Thakar?, œMa Thakur?, œMa Thakar? Schedule Tribe (ST) (for short œthe Thakur tribes?) of the State of Maharashtra. By this common judgment, we are dealing with basically the issues of œthe Constitutional area restriction removal?, œaffinity test?, œrelations certificates? and its effect on assessing the evidence/documents and the merits of the matter while granting /rejecting/validating the caste certificate. 3. Each case has to be considered on its own merits, as the relevant oral, as well as, documentary evidence are required to be dealt with independently, while deciding the case on its merits. However,...
Tag this Judgment!Shriram Dattarao Chaudhari and Another Vs. Madhaodas
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-26-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. The appellants and their Counsel remain absent. This appeal was listed for final hearing pursuant to order dt. 5.2.2014 passed by this Court. At that time, Mr.Kuldeep Mahalle, learned Counsel for the respondent had submitted that, in view of the ruling in AlokAgarwal and Others vs. Punam Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and Others reported in 2013 (1) Mh.L.J. 104, Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the controversy. 2. This appeal was admitted on 12.7.2005 on the following substantial question of law: œWhether the Civil Court would have taken cognizance of the suit filed by the present respondent for recovery of possession from the appellant in view of Section 91 of the M.C.S. Act ? The substantial question of law as above was framed by this Court after the appellant was heard for admission on July 12, 2005. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the substantial question of law would not really survive as the controversy is c...
Tag this Judgment!Vishal Shambu Volvoikar Vs. State of Goa Through Chief Secretary and O ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-26-2014
Roshan Dalvi, J. 1. Rule. Made returnable forthwith. 2. The petitioner is the Sarpanch of Respondent No.2 Village Panchayat. Respondent No.3 is an elected member thereof. The petitioner has contended that respondent No.3 has incurred a disqualification to be a member of Village Panchayat by virtue of having pecuniary interest in the subject matter of two resolutions passed in the Village Panchayat meetings held on 3rd July, 2012 and 18th January, 2013. 3. Respondent No.3 has claimed no pecuniary interest in the subject matter of those resolutions. He, therefore, claims that he had not incurred any disqualification. The Court would require to see whether respondent No.3 had pecuniary interest in either of subject matters of the resolutions. 4. One resolution relates to the grant of permission to the licencee of respondent No.3 for opening an Ice-cream Parlour in shop No.137/2 admittedly owned by respondent No.3. The other is the resolution with regard to the NOC of the Village Panchayat...
Tag this Judgment!Gramaudyogik Shikshan Mandal, Aurangabad Through Its General Secretary ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
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!M/S. Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works and Others Vs. the State of Maharash ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-26-2014
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. By these petitions, the petitioners have approached this Court challenging validity of the Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as œthe Act?) being unconstitutional. The petitioners have, in the alternative, prayed for striking down Sections 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 16, 18, 19, 20 and 24 of the Act. 2. The facts giving rise to the present petitions, in brief, are as under : The petitioner M/s. Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works, which is a partnership firm, was constituted originally by eight partners. Since dispute arose between the partners, the partnership firm came to be dissolved in January 1974. A suit for dissolution of partnership and for accounts was filed in 1974 being Special Civil Suit No.9/1974, which is pending before the competent Civil Court. In the said suit, Receivers came to be appointed from time to time in respect of properties of the partnership firm. The partnership ...
Tag this Judgment!People's Movement for Civic Action through Its General Secretary, Patr ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-26-2014
Mrs. Roshan Dalvi, J. 1. Rule. Made returnable forthwith. The petitioners have filed Petition No.403 of 2007 challenging the construction of a hotel by Respondent No.6 upon permission granted by respondent No.2 under orders dated 31st July, 1995, 8th October, 1998, 1st September, 2001 and 17th September, 2005 in respect of a specific plan dated 31st May, 1995 and the renewals thereto. Upon the prayer of quashing of these orders the petitioners require directions against respondent Nos. 6 and 7 to restore the original nature of the land upon which they have constructed the hotel in the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ). 2. Upon having seen that the hotel premises has been constructed in the No Development Zone (NDZ) of the CRZ without the approval of the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MEF), which is mandatorily required, the petitioners have filed Petition No. 659 of 2010 for quashing the NOCs of respondent No.4 dated 16th September, 2008, 5th July, 2010 and 6th July, 2010 and constru...
Tag this Judgment!Ravindra and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through Its Secretary, ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-26-2014
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Heard Shri P.B. Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri T.R. Kankale, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 and 2, Shri R.N. Ghuge, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 4 to 12, Shri Sonone, learned Counsel for respondent no. 13. Looking to the nature of controversy, we have heard matter by issuing Rule and making it returnable forthwith. 2. By inviting attention to the proceedings of no confidence meeting conducted on 06.08.2013 Shri Patil, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners points out that the motion of no confidence was not moved therein as mandated by the Bombay Village Panchayat (Meeting) Rules, particularly Rule 17 thereof. He submits that thus the motion of no confidence was not moved on 06.08.2013, and hence, the second such attempt in pursuance of notice dated 07.12.2013 issued by the respondent no.2 Tahsildar convening meeting on 13.12.2013 is, without jurisdiction and bad. He relies upon the express languag...
Tag this Judgment!Rukhminibai Pratisthan and Another Vs. Ravindra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-26-2014
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Admit. 3. By consent of the learned counsel appearing for all the parties, we have heard these Letter Patent Appeals finally. 4. These appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent are directed against the judgment and order dated 6.9.2011 of the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition No.8744/2010. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the above writ petition. The original writ petitioner, for short the management, is before us in LPA No.395/2011 and the original respondent no.3 in WP 8744/2010 is before us in LPA (St.) No.25309/2012. 5. The appellant in LPA 395/2011 is an educational institution and is managing and administering four schools, namely :- 1. Saraswati Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Sadawan, Tq. Amalner Dist. Jalgaon. 2. Kirti Vijay Patil Army School, Shirdon, Tq. Panvel Dist. Raigad. 3. Nawal Bhau Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Tade, Tq. Erandol Dist. Jalgaon. 4. V.N. Patil Madhyamik ...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Its Officer Vs. Sampat and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-26-2014
Oral Judgment: 1) Heard. Admit. Heard finally. These two appeals are pending for decision since long at admission stage. 2) The appellant/insurance company has questioned its liability to indemnify the claimants (Respondents in appeal) in vehicular accident occurred on 19.08.2000. 3) Mr.Chapalgaonkar, learned Counsel for the claimant in appeal No.287/2007 has raised a basic objection as to maintainability of the appeal, as the appeal is dismissed against owner and driver of the vehicle. 4) Mr.Totla, learned Counsel for insurance company says, the very stand and root in the matter is about fraud played on insurance company by owner of the vehicle. There is no contractual obligation against the appellant/insurance company with owner of the vehicle and dismissal of appeal will not make any adverse impact on assertions of appellant to stake claim against the claimants. Though the Award under challenge refers joint and several liability, however, since there was basic flaw in the course of ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »