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.
Hiralal Dagdulal Pagaria Died Through Legal Representatives Padma Vija ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-07-2014
1) This proceeding is filed against the judgment and order of Rent Suit No.10 of 2005 and Rent Appeal No.2 of 2013. The suit was filed in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Aurangabad and the decision given in favour of the landlord was challenged in the District Court Aurangabad. The suit for relief of eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement for personal use of the landlord and on the ground of default was decreed by the trial Court. Relief of recovery of arrears of rent was also given. In appeal filed by the tenant, the judgment and decree given on the ground of default is set aside but remaining decision is confirmed by the appellate Court. Both sides are heard. 2) The suit was filed under section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act,1999. The property bearing CTS No.8956 and Municipal No.4-17-72 admeasuring 78.34 square meters situated at Juna Mondha Aurangabad is involved in the matter. This property is in the possession of present applicants. The prope...
State of Goa, Through Its Chief Secretary, Secretariat and Others Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-07-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. S. Dhargalkar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants and Mr. P. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The above appeal challenges the judgment and award dated 31.01.2007 whereby a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein after referred to as "the said Act") came to be partly allowed and the compensation for the land acquired was fixed at the rate of Rs.105/- per square metre. 3. The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants has vehemently challenged the impugned judgment and pointed out that the Reference Court has gone on the wrong premise that the Land Acquisition Officer has offered compensation of Rs.61.41 per square metre when on the contrary the amount offered was Rs.40/- per square metre. The learned counsel further pointed out that the said error of the Reference Court is reflected while fixing the compensation for the land acquired at para 17 of the i...
Efigenio Dias and Another Vs. Joaquim Manuel Aries Gomes and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-07-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This First Appeal arises out of the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Trial Judge in Civil Suit no. 267/2004 on 27.12.2007, by which Civil Suit filed by the Appellants (original Plaintiffs) is dismissed. By the said Judgment, the learned Trial Judge has dismissed the counter claim filed by the defendants. The Original Plaintiffs have filed this Appeal. There is no challenge to the dismissal of the counter claim. 2. The basic facts which are necessary for the consideration of the issues are as follows: The Plaintiff claims that the six separate properties having Matriz no. 929, 930, 931, 932, 933 and 934, admeasuring 67200 square metres of survey no. 114/1 of Village Cavelossim, were joint piece of property. The Plaintiffs claim that they are the exclusive owners of Matriz no. 933. The Plaintiffs have given the details as to how they acquired the title in the suit property and have submitted that they are in peaceful and continuous possession of the suit proper...
Gajanan Babulal Bathulwar and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Thr ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-07-2014
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Chandurkar, J.) 1. These writ petitions filed by convicts seek to challenge validity of the proviso to Rule 19 of the Bombay (Furlough and Parole) Rules 1959 as amended by the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) (Amendment) Rules 2012. The Bombay (Furlough and Parole) Rules 1959 would hereinafter be referred to as the Rules of 1959. BACKGROUND FACTS: 2. Criminal Writ Petition No.272 of 2012 has been filed on behalf of 78 convicts. It has been stated that in view of the amendment of 2012 to Rule 19 of the Rules of 1959, the petitioners are deprived from seeking release on parole within a period of one year from their earlier release. Criminal Writ Petition No.355 of 2012 has been preferred by a convict whose application for parole has been rejected on the ground that he has sought release on parole within a period of one year from his earlier release. The petitioner in the said criminal writ petition had sought parole on account of his daughter's illness. In Crimin...
Miss. Komal Singh and Another Vs. Inspector General, Prisons, Governme ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-06-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Menezes, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Amonkar, learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the respondent. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent heard forthwith. 3. The present petition, filed by the sister and mother of the prisoner, for whom parole is sought, takes exception to the order dated 24/02/2014 passed by the respondent on an application dated 10/02/2014 thereby rejecting parole to the brother of the petitioner no. 1, on the ground that no emergent situation exists for granting parole. The petitioners have sought release of the said prisoner, Rajendra Singh on parole. Affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the respondent resisting the application. 4. It is seen that the prisoner namely Rajendra Singh, the brother of the petitioner no.1 and son of the petitioner no. 2, a life convict, was on furlough w.e.f. 16/01/2014 to 12/02/2014 for a period of 28 days. Unfortunately, during the said period of furlough i....
Deorao and Others Vs. Ganpat, (Since Deceased), Through His Legal Repr ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-06-2014
1. This Second appeal filed by the original Plaintiff arises from the Judgement and order dated 28-02-2002 passed by the Adhoc Additional District Judge Nagpur in Regular Civil Appeal no.254 of 1993 which was allowed by setting aside the decree for possession and damages awarded by judgement and order dated 01-02-1993 in R.C. Suit no.827 of 1986 passed by the 4th Jt. C.J. J. D. Nagpur in which counterclaim was rejected .The first appellate court negatived the claim of the plaintiff that the defendant made encroachment over the suit plot in January 1982 and held that the defendants possession was protected under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 . 2. The suit was instituted on 02-05-1986. The dispute relate to the land Khasra no. 6/1, a plot no 3 admeasuring 1650 Sq. Feet (30 feet X 50 feet approx.) situated at Manewada , Balaji Nagar at Nagpur which as alleged was agreed to be sold for the sum of Rs.3000/- out of which the sum of Rs.500/- earnest money was paid (vide Ex...
Sao Jose De Areal Villagers Union, Through Its President, Salvador Fer ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-06-2014
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias,learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Mr. Y. V. Nadkarni, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.7. Mr. K. Noorani, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for respondents no.1 to 3, 5 and 6 and Mr. R. Menezes, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4. Rule. Heard forthwith. 2. The above Public Interest Litigation came to be filed seeking the following reliefs: a) For a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby quashing and setting aside the following judgments and orders passed by the respondent no.6. i) Judgment and order dated 4/3/2010 passed in Panchayat Appeal No.65/2009. ii) Judgment and order dated 15/04/2010 passed in Panchayat Appeal No.97/2009. iii) Judgement and order dated 15/10/2010 passed in Panchayat Appeal No.171/2009. iv) Judgment and order dated 8/7/2010 passed in Panchayat Appeal No.199/2009. b) For a writ of certiorari or a wri...
Bhausaheb Rajaram Dhanwate Vs. Mula-pravara Electric Co-operative Soci ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-06-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. By order dated 01/07/2002, this Court, after hearing the learned Advocates for the respective sides, admitted the petition and declined interim relief. 2. Mr.Barde, learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted the facts of the case in brief and which are as follows: (a) The petitioner, who is about 55 years of age today, joined employment of the respondent as a Labourer on 01/04/1977. (b) He was orally terminated on 30/04/1978. (c) Provisions of Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were not complied with by the respondent. (d) The petitioner raised an industrial dispute on 13/03/1989. (e) Since there was no settlement between the parties, the matter was referred to the Labour Court at Ahmednagar and was registered as Ref.I.D.A.No.66/1990. (f) By an award dated 20/05/1995, the reference was partly allowed and the Reference Court granted reinstatement to the petitioner without continuity and without back wages. (g) Unsustainable reasons ha...
Shailesh Volvoikar Vs. State Represented by the Pp
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-06-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Bras De Sa, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. By this Revision Application, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 30/03/2012 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge “ I, Panaji in Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2012 and has prayed to acquit him of the offence with which he has been charged in Criminal Case No. 201/S/2010/A. 3. The petitioner is the accused in the said Criminal Case no. 201/S/2010/A whereas the respondent is the complainant. Parities shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said Criminal Case. 4. The accused faced trial for offences punishable under Sections 279, 304-A and 337 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C., for short). The case of the prosecution, in short, was that: On 12/02/2010 at around 5.20 p.m. the accused drove Swaraj Mazda Pick Up bearing no. GA-02/U-5879 in a rash and negligent m...
M/S Nrb Bearings Limited Vs. Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner Employe ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-06-2014
PER COURT : 1. By an order dated 25/01/2012, after hearing the learned Advocates for the respective sides, this petition was admitted. 2. Mr.S.V.Dankh, the learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that a short point arises for the consideration of this Court. 3. A settlement between the petitioner Management and its Union was signed on 15/05/2005, providing for a Tiffin Allowance. Clause No.1.5 of the said settlement reads thus : 1.5 DEMAND NO. : TIFFIN ALLOWANCE The Company agrees to increase the existing Tiffin Allowance from Rs.6,50/- per day to Rs.11/- per day on actual attendance towards Tiffin, which will be reimbursed on monthly basis. Other terms and conditions remain unaltered. In case of Full Shift OT working, Tiffin Allowance will be paid. The amount shall not be reckoned for the purpose of any statutory benefit such as Provident Fund, Bonus, Gratuity, Leave, Salary encashment etc., 4. According to him, it is clear from Clause No.1.5 reproduced above that the Tiffin Allow...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »