Mumbai Court March 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.
Anand Dhananjay Nalawade Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-2014
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Oka, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and the learned AGP for the Respondents. Taken up forthwith for final disposal. 2. The Petitioner applied for grant of a caste certificate. The Petitioner claims that he belongs to a caste Thakur which is notified as a Scheduled Tribe. An Application was made by the Petitioner under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (for short œthe said Act?). The Application made by the Petitioner was rejected by the third Respondent. Being aggrieved by the said order of the third Respondent, an Appeal was preferred by the Petitioner in accordance with Section 5(1) of the said Act. The Appeal was allowed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee and a direction was issued to the third Respondent to ...
Satyanarayan Ramaiyya Maddiwar Vs. Shankarrao Ramaiyya Maddiwar and An ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-18-2014
Oral Judgment: 1) This appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law, thus: i) Whether the courts below had fallen in error in wrongly interpreting the agreement arrived at between the parties i.e. so called Sammati patra? ii) Has the first appellate court fallen in error in holding that an underground drainage is likely to cause nuisance? 2) Heard submissions of learned counsel appearing for rival parties at bar. 3) This second appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 1.10.2007, passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Gadchiroli, in Regular Civil Appeal No.15 of 2006, whereby the appeal was dismissed, which arose from judgment and order dated 30.1.2006, passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Sironcha, in Regular Civil Suit No.14 of 1998, whereby the suit was decreed. 4) The dispute pertains to the ancestral property which was subdivided amongst the coparceners bearing City Survey No.571 (old City Survey No.572). The parties who were b...
Employees' State Insurance Corporation and Others Vs. A.V. Tungare and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-2014
G.S. Kulkarni, J. 1. What are the consequences of admission of charges by a delinquent employee before the Inquiry Officer in a disciplinary inquiry and whether after recording of such admissions, the inquiry can still proceed or can be closed to submit a inquiry report is the moot issue which arises in the present proceedings. 2. By the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Employees State Insurance Corporation challenges the judgment and order dated 8.3.2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Mumbai Bench in Original Application No.808 of 1994. By the impugned Judgment the Central Administrative Tribunal has allowed the Original Application filed by the Respondent who was the employee of the Employees State Insurance Corporation whereby the order of termination of the 1st respondent's services is quashed and set aside. It is held that the 1st respondent would be entitled to 50% of the wages from the date of dismissal from service up to the da...
Manoj Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-14-2014
1. The applicant is the husband of the non-applicant no.2 herein. He is facing prosecution vide Regular Criminal Case No. 154 of 2011, pending before the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Sakri [District : Dhule]. The said case arises on a complaint filed by the non-applicant no. 2 herein. The learned Magistrate has, by an order dated 22-8-2011, issued process against the applicant, requiring him to answer to the charge of offences punishable under Sections 193 of the IPC, 465 of the IPC and 471 of the IPC. Being aggrieved thereby, the applicant has filed this Application invoking the inherent powers of the court and praying that the proceedings of the said Criminal Case be quashed. 2. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the applicant shall hereinafter be referred as "the accused", and the non-applicant no.2 as "the complainant". 3. I have heard Mr. R.S. Deshmukh, the learned Counsel for the accused. I have heard Mr. R.N. Dhorde, the learned Senior Advocate for the complainant. I...
Sanjay Tarakumar Tibdiwala Vs. Jawed
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. By an order dated 10/03/2014, the petitioner was directed to file a specific affidavit clearly stating therein whether he intends to deposit the entire amount as ordered by the Compensation Court alongwith interest accrued thereon before this Court. If the petitioner pleads of financial difficulties, he shall submit a list and details of his immovable properties by filing an affidavit to that extent. 3. An affidavit has now been tendered across the bar and a copy thereof is served on the respondent's Advocate. It is an admitted position that the judgment of the Workmen's Compensation Court dated 15/12/2009 in W.C.Application No. 19/2001 has not been challenged by the petitioner and has therefore attained finality. 4. Through the affidavit, the petitioner submits as follows: (a) He is not liable to pay the compensation. (b) By a...
State, Through Police Inspector Vs. Rupesh Dabolkar and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-14-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. De Sa, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. This is a State appeal against acquittal. 3. The respondents (accused) were tried by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class in Criminal Case No. 35/S/2003/A for offences punishable under Sections 324, 341, 504, 506(II) r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.). The said case was a culmination of a charge sheet filed by Quepem Police alleging that on 21/09/2002 at 22.30 hours at Ganesh Shetkar Shop, Cotto, Amona junction, all the accused in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully restrained Shri Sameer Naik (PW2) by catching hold of his T-shirt and hands and assaulted him with soda bottles on his head thereby causing simple injury to him and further gave him bad words and also threatened to kill him. 4. The respondents had pleaded not guilty to the charge framed by the learned Judicial magistr...
Samarth Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs. Govind and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-14-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard counsel for petitioner- complainant. Notice to respondent No.2 only at admission stage. The Writ Petition is heard finally at admission stage. In the trial Court, in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, application Exhibit 18 was filed for discharge, which came to be rejected. Subsequently, the accused filed yet another application Exhibit 47 for discharge, in which detailed orders were passed, discarding the grounds raised by the accused for discharge. Another application filed by the accused for taking action under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short) also came to be rejected. Judgment was in favour of the complainant as far as regards the grounds which had been raised by the accused in the trial Court. However, in the revision, the revisional Court expanded the jurisdiction of revision so as to consider additional point and while considering those points, the revisional Court has dismissed the com...
Joaquim Vicent Coutinho (Deceased) and Others Vs. Menino Salvador F. C ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-14-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. S. Kakodkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Mr. R. Gawas, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 4 (a) 4(b)( i to vi) and Mr. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent no.5 and legal heirs of respondent nos. 6 and 7 ( i to v). 2. The above appeal challenges the judgment and award dated 10.07.2007 passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 120/2000 whereby a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( herein after referred to as œthe said Act? ) was disposed of by directing the compensation awarded to be paid to the respondents herein. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that land admeasuring 475 square metres was acquired by the Government for the purpose of constructing a sump pump house in the Village of Cuncolim of Salcete Taluka bearing survey no. 435/1 of Cuncolim Village. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award under Section 11 of the said Act but however, the appellants as well a...
Federation of Churchgate Residents and Others Vs. the Municipal Corpor ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-2014
M.S. Sanklecha. J. 1. By this Public Interest Litigation, petitioners are essentially challenging the permission granted on 12 April 2012 by the Municipal Commissioner (herein after referred to as 'erstwhile Commissioner') of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (herein after referred to as Corporation) to respondent No.6 namely “ Vasant Sagar Properties Pvt. Ltd. (herein after referred to as Vasant Sagar) to construct a building on its property situated in 'A' ward bearing plot No.11, C. S. No.1689 of Fort Division at 'A' Road, Off Marine Drive, Mumbai 400 020 (herein after referred to as the said property) with the height of 58 meters. The impugned permission dated 12 April 2012 was granted in terms of Regulation 67(2)(iii)(b) of the Development Control Regulation for Greater Mumbai, 1991 (DCR 1991) which allows reconstruction of a Building with a height in excess of 24 meters (excluding height of stilt on the ground floor) with special permission of the Commissioner. 2. Bri...
Madhavrao and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-14-2014
Oral Judgment: (N.W. Sambre, J.) 1. Heard. 2. The petitioners claim that their land was acquired for the purpose of K.T. Weir at Killari. The notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act came to be issued on 29.3.1990. The possession of the land owned by the petitioners was taken on 15.11.1988, whereas after completing the acquisition proceedings, award came to be passed on 5.3.1992. In view of the fact that the possession of the land was taken on 15.11.1988 and award under Land Acquisition Act was passed on 5.3.1992, in view of the policy of the Government reflected in Govt. Resolution dated 1.12.1972, the petitioners are claiming rental compensation from the date of taking over possession till the date of passing of the award. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners invited attention of this Court to the judgment passed under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act in a Reference moved by the petitioners on 4.9.1998. While dealing with the claim of the petitioners for enhan...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »