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.
Parasmal Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through Collector and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-13-2014
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Chandurkar, J.) The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 28-2-1996 passed by the respondent No.2 refusing to condone the delay in filing an application for seeking enhanced compensation under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred as the said Act for short). On 24-9-1979, an award was passed under Section 9 of the said Act, acquiring the lands of the petitioner. The petitioner had thereafter sought reference under Section 18 of the said Act, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded to him. The reference proceedings were decided on 17-2-1988. Some other land owners, whose lands were also acquired by the same notification by which the land of the petitioner was acquired, had preferred first appeals under Section 54 of the said Act before this Court. The aforesaid first appeals were decided on 22-3-1993 and the compensation as awarded in the reference proceedings was enhanced. On that basis, the present petit...
Wadhwa Residency Private Limited and Another Vs. Municipal Corporation ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-2014
AnoopV. Mohta, J. 1. The property could not be developed because of inordinate delay in granting a permission to the Petitioners, to change and utilise the œrailway reservation? as the œamenities? under The Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991 (for short, œDC Regulations?). Therefore, this Petition. 2. The Petitioners are the owners of plot No. 50, 50/1 to 50/7 and 50/35 to 50/44 of village Vikhroli at LBS Road, Ghatkopar admeasuring 71145.10 sq. meters. It is situated in Special Industrial Zone (I-3 Zone) in N-Ward of Municipal Corporation as per the sanctioned development plan. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 are the authorities under the provisions of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (for short, œMMC Act?) and the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short, MRTP Act). Respondent No. 6 is the State of Maharashtra and Respondent No.7 is the functionary of Respondent No.6. 3 The Petitioners main prayers are as under:- &oelig...
Randolf Savio Philips Vs. Florence D'Souza
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Rao, learned counsel for the appellant. None present for the respondent though duly served. 2. Admit. Heard finally in view of the notice issued by this Court for final disposal at the stage of admission, vide order dated 25.7.2013. 3. This appeal raises a short question which is as follows:- Whether the District Court has jurisdiction to entertain a civil suit instituted under Section 18 of the Foreign Marriage Act, 1969 (œthe FMA, 1969? for short) read with Section 38 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954( œthe SMA, 1954? for short) in view of the judgment rendered by the High Court of Bombay at Goa in Letters Patent Appeal No. 31 of 1998 on 19.6.2000 in the case of Monica Variato Vs. Thomas Variato, 2000(2) Goa L.T. 149? The appellant herein has contended that his marriage with respondent was solemnized under the provisions of the FMA, 1969. It appears that some matrimonial dispute arose between the appellant and the respondent as a result of whic...
Prabhakar and Others Vs. Vaijnath and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-13-2014
1) The first application is filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of 981 days caused in bringing legal representatives of deceased respondent No.3 (original defendant No.2 - Pralhad) on the record and also for setting aside abatement and for bringing legal representatives of deceased defendant No.2-Pralhad on the record. The second application is filed by present respondent No.1 (original plaintiff) for dismissal of the appeal on the ground that legal representatives of present respondent No.3-Pralhad were not brought on record of Regular Civil Appeal No.19 of 2008 which was pending in District Court and if the said appeal had abated automatically, the present proceeding also needs to be treated as abated entirely. Both the sides are heard. 2) Regular Civil Suit No.28 of 2002 was filed by present respondent No.1 for relief of partition and separate possession of his alleged share in the landed property. It is his case that defendant No.1-Apparao (deceased father of appellant)...
Wadhwa Residency Private Limited and Another Vs. Municipal Corporation ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-2014
AnoopV. Mohta, J. 1. The property could not be developed because of inordinate delay in granting a permission to the Petitioners, to change and utilise the œrailway reservation? as the œamenities? under The Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991 (for short, œDC Regulations?). Therefore, this Petition. 2. The Petitioners are the owners of plot No. 50, 50/1 to 50/7 and 50/35 to 50/44 of village Vikhroli at LBS Road, Ghatkopar admeasuring 71145.10 sq. meters. It is situated in Special Industrial Zone (I-3 Zone) in N-Ward of Municipal Corporation as per the sanctioned development plan. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 are the authorities under the provisions of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (for short, œMMC Act?) and the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short, MRTP Act). Respondent No. 6 is the State of Maharashtra and Respondent No.7 is the functionary of Respondent No.6. 3 The Petitioners main prayers are as under:- &oelig...
Randolf Savio Philips Vs. Florence D'Souza
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-13-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Rao, learned counsel for the appellant. None present for the respondent though duly served. 2. Admit. Heard finally in view of the notice issued by this Court for final disposal at the stage of admission, vide order dated 25.7.2013. 3. This appeal raises a short question which is as follows:- Whether the District Court has jurisdiction to entertain a civil suit instituted under Section 18 of the Foreign Marriage Act, 1969 (œthe FMA, 1969? for short) read with Section 38 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954( œthe SMA, 1954? for short) in view of the judgment rendered by the High Court of Bombay at Goa in Letters Patent Appeal No. 31 of 1998 on 19.6.2000 in the case of Monica Variato Vs. Thomas Variato, 2000(2) Goa L.T. 149? The appellant herein has contended that his marriage with respondent was solemnized under the provisions of the FMA, 1969. It appears that some matrimonial dispute arose between the appellant and the respondent as a result of whic...
Heritage View Co.Operative Housing Soc. Ltd. and Others Vs. Kiran H. H ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-2014
Narendra Kawde, Member: 1. Complainant is a Co-operative Housing Society. Earlier the original Complaint was filed through Shri Kewal C. Jain, a duly authorized representative of the Complainant Societys Adhoc Committee, alleging deficiency in service against the Opponents Mr. Kiran H. Hemani and Mr.Harsukhlal A. Hemani, who are the builders and developers of the Complainants Housing Society building. Alleging deficiency in service against the Opponents for non-compliance of statutory obligations of executing deed of conveyance, obtaining occupation certificate, management of corpus fund and maintenance, not providing amenities as per the agreement, not attending leakages and seepages in the Complainants society building, the consumer complaint is filed praying for directions for redressal of the grievances and slapped with monetary claims on account of failure to fulfil the statutory obligations as laid down under the Provisions of Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1964 (hereinafter...
Rajesh Bansidhar Agarwal Vs. Brahma Bazaz Land Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-2014
Usha S. Thakare, Judicial Member: 1. Being aggrieved by the order passed by Learned District Forum, Pune in consumer complaint No.168/2010 dated 25/11/2013, original complainant has preferred the present appeal. By the order under challenge, Learned District Forum was pleased to dismiss the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant by holding that relationship between complainant and opponent is not that of consumer and service provider. 2. According to the complainant/appellant, he had entered into an agreement with opponent for purchasing land bearing plot No.38, admeasuring 1 acre from survey no. 277/19, 277/15 situated at village Warak, Tal. Mulshi, Dist. Pune. The total survey no. is admeasuring 91 acres. The opponent is a private limited company dealing in land development. On 14/01/1997 the said agreement was executed in favour of the complainant and opponent agreed for execution of sale deed of plot for Rs.1,60,000/-. On that day, an amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid by the com...
Ajay and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through Its : the Princi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-2014
N.W. Sambre, J. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of parties. 3. The present petitioners, claiming to be appointed as Data Entry Operators on contract basis, have questioned the communication dated 9.11.2012, issued by the Director of Education (Primary), directing all the Education Officers (Primary), Zilla Parishad in the State of Maharashtra, to start the process of recruitment of Data Entry Operators on contract basis afresh. 4. The petitioners claim that in view of the directions issued by the Honourable Apex Court, the Central Government has floated a scheme with an intention to provide cooked food to the students of the Primary Schools with effect from 1995-96, which is identified as 'Mid-Day Meal scheme'. The said scheme came to be implemented through the State Government at the level of Director of Education. 5. For achieving the object of implementation of the scheme in the entire State, the State has resolved to fill up 397 pos...
R.N.A. Classic Chs Ltd., Represented by Secretary Shri Nikunj Shah Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-2014
1. Rule in all the Petitions, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The above group of Petitions take exception to the common order dated 23/09/2013 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, cooperative Societies, Mumbai Division, Mumbai by which order the Revision Applications filed by the Petitioner-Society above named came to be dismissed and resultantly the order dated 30/08/2012 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies H/W Ward, Mumbai came to be confirmed. As a consequence, the membership of the Petitioner-Society of the Respondent No.2 to each of the above Petitions came to be confirmed. 3. By treating Writ Petition No.10847 of 2013 as the lead matter, the facts giving rise to the above Petitions can be summarized thus: The Petitioner-Society is comprised of the flat/shop purchasers who have purchased the flats/shops in the building known as R.N.A. Classic situated at Plot No.32, North Avenue Road, Street No...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »