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.
M/S. Gold Resorts and Hotel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ramkrishna Janardhan Bhat Al ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-25-2014
1. This petition is directed against the order passed on 13.1.2014 by Additional President, Administrative Tribunal of Goa, Panaji, Goa in Miscellaneous Civil Application No.102/2014 in Land Revenue Appeal No.3/2014. 2. Petitioner is the owner of a plot of land admeasuring 10,09,877 square metres (hereinafter referred to as œsaid property?). Petitioner has purchased the said property which forms a part of total land having area of approximately 28,00,000 square metres in survey no.328/1 of village Loliem, Goa. Petitioner's name was duly mutated in form I and XIV of survey no.32 of village Loliem. After name of petitioner was mutated in form I and XIV of village Loliem Goa, as per procedure, petitioner applied to the Deputy Collector and SDO for partition of the suit property out of total area in survey no.328/1 of village Loliem, Goa. The partition proceedings were registered under No.LRC/Part/228/2011/1179. Petitioner has submitted that in the partition proceedings that were ini...
Vijay Ramchandra Raut and Others Vs. Divisional Commissioner and Other ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-25-2014
Oral Judgment: 1] Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the matter finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2] The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 05.03.2014 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, dismissing Appeal No. 12/BVP16(2)/Dhanodi/201314 filed by the petitioners challenging their disqualification under Section 14(1)(j5) the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as œthe BVP Act), on the ground that the petitioners have failed to submit a certificate of the concerned Panchayat along with the resolution of Gram Sabha, certifying that the petitioners reside in a house owned by them and has a toilet in such house and they are using such toilet. 3] The relevant consideration in the order of the Commissioner is reproduced below; œHowever, as amended by the Bombay Village Panchayat and Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis (Second Amendment) Act, 2010, the period of ...
Premanand Gajanan Naik and Another Vs. Sachit Gajanan Naik and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-25-2014
1. By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order passed on 20.12.2013 in Regular Civil Suit No. 40/2013/D allowing the impleadment of respondent no.1 as defendant no. 2 to the suit. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner no.1 and respondent no.1 are brothers and co-owners of immovable property situated at Miranda road, Margao Goa. The petitioners submit that petitioner no.1 and respondent no.1 obtained a construction licence in their joint names for erection of a building on the said immovable property from the MMC Margoa, respondent no. 2. They further submit that petitioner no.1 and respondent no.1 obtained joint licence for construction of the said building and after completion of the building project, respondent no. 2 issued occupancy certificate jointly to petitioner no.1 and respondent no.1. 3. The petitioners submit that said immovable property stands jointly in the names of the petitioner no.1 and respondent no.1. They further submit that sometime in...
Bhagwat Sheshrao Bhutekar Vs. Tulshiram and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-25-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr.Sawan Alaspurkar, learned Counsel holding for Mr.Anand Parchure, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr.Abhay Sambre, learned Counsel for Respondent nos. 1 to 3. 2. This Second Appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law: a) Whether the impugned Judgments and Orders are unsustainable and contrary to law requiring interference by this Court? The answer is in the affirmative for the following reasons : 3. The Second Appeal arises out of Judgment and Order dt.25.3.2013 passed by the learned Ad hoc District Judge-2, Buldhana in Regular Civil Appeal No.117 of 2009, which was dismissed. Said appeal arose from the Judgment and Order passed in Regular Civil Suit No.18 of 2007 on 13.11.2009 by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Chikhali. The suit was filed to recover possession of the encroached land by the defendant. The plaintiff averred that the suit land was encroached upon by defendant. According to plaintiff nos. 1 to 3 in the trial Court, a...
Citizen Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-2014
P.B. Joshi, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. The complainant is a Co-operative Bank having its Central Administrative Office at Helena 57, Mount Carmel Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai - 400 050. The complainant is the holder of a Bankers Indemnity Insurance Policy No.46 111 4000158 (hereinafter called œthe said policy?) issued by the opponent/Insurance Company. Said policy was valid for a period from 01/07/1990 to 30/06/1991 and it covered various risks including inter alia, loss of money securities on account of any dishonest or criminal act of the complainants employees. 2. As per complainant on 21/03/1990 one Mr.Patrick Fernandes opened a current account with the Byculla Branch of the complainants Bank in the name of M/s.Sahil Body Shop. From time to time, said Mr.Patrick Fernandes was allowed to withdraw sums in excess of available funds from the aforesaid account in connivance and collusion with one Mr.Joseph Rodrigues, who was Manager of said Branch at that time. On or about 12/09...
Madhu Ashok Kapur and Others Vs. Rana Kapoor and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-2014
1. The suit is filed by shareholders of a banking company challenging resolutions relating to appointment of directors as well as claiming declarations concerning the rights of the Plaintiff shareholders under the Articles of Association of the company and injunctive reliefs against other shareholders based on these rights. On the application of the Plaintiffs for interlocutory reliefs, objections to the jurisdiction of the Court were raised by the Defendants. Preliminary issues concerning jurisdiction were accordingly framed by this Court under Section 9 A of the Code of Civil Procedure. Evidence was led on these issues. The issues are being decided by this order. 2. The preliminary issues framed by this Court are as follows: (I) Whether the suit, as filed, is maintainable in law? (ii) Whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit? 3. A brief overview of the pleadings of the parties and their evidence is as follows: 4. Plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 are widow, daughter and s...
Malu Gaonkar (Since Deceased) Represented by His Legal Heirs and Other ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-24-2014
1. This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 31.10.2013 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, œF? Court Margao, in Regular Civil Suit No. 88/2009/F, thereby allowing the application filed by the respondents/ plaintiffs under Order 6 rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC for amendment of the pleadings in the plaint. 2. It is the case of the respondents that they are owners in possession of the suit property bearing survey nos.72/2, 72/3, 72/4 of village Cuncolim, Salcete, Goa, this property having being purchased by them vide sale deed dated 11.12.1975 from one Mrs. Maria Anuciacao Ormezinda Furtado. The Respondents have submitted that sometime in the year 1988 when land acquisition proceedings in respect of the portion of the said property were going on, it was discovered by them that one Malu Gaonkar of whom present petitioners are the legal heirs, had conspired with one Cristovam Furtado to collect from the Government, the compensation payable to the owner of ...
Rahul Krishnamohan Sharma Vs. Sangita Krishnagopal Sharma
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-2014
P.C. 1. By this petition filed under section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, the petitioner seeks revocation of the letters of administration dated 20th September, 2013 passed by this court in favour of the respondent. For the purpose of appreciating the controversy involved, it would be appropriate to refer to the family tree which is annexed at Ex.1 to the affidavit in reply filed by the respondent. 2. Mr.Karamchand Sharma had two sons viz. Krishnamohan Sharma and Krishnagopal Sharma. It is not in dispute that Mr.Karamchand Sharma had left a Will dated 16th January, 2005 in respect of which the probate has been granted by this court on 18th September, 2006 in favour of the executor of the said Will Mr.Krishnagopal Sharma. On 13th November, 2012 Mr.Krishnagopal Sharma expired leaving behind him Mrs.Sangeeta and two daughters viz. Shikha and Shivani Sharma. 3. Mr.Krishnamohan Sharma, another son of the deceased Mr.Karamchand Sharma expired leaving behind him widow Mrs.Hemlata S...
Rajiv K. Mehta Vs. Rekha H. Sheth and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-2014
1. By consent of parties, both these notice of motions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. 2. Notice of Motion No.368 of 2011 is filed by defendant no.1 inter alia praying for rejection of plaint in suit No.2521 of 2008 under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and also under the provisions of Order XXIII or any other applicable provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Defendant no.1 also seeks rejection of the plaint and/or for striking off the unnecessary and/or scandalous and/or frivolous and vexatious and seeks other reliefs. Notice of Motion No.3050 of 2008 is filed by defendant no.13 inter alia praying for dismissal of the present suit on various grounds. Some of the relevant facts which emerged from the plaint and affidavits filed by the parties are summarized as under:- 3. The plaintiff claims to be a trustee of Lilavati Kantilal Mehta Medical Trust (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Trust'). According to ...
Prakash Shalikram Kadu Vs. Gandhi Shikshan Sanstha, Through Its Secret ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-21-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri Dhole, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Jibhkate, the learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Smt. Hiwase, the learned AGP, for Respondent No.3. 2. The challenge in this petition is to the judgment and order dated 23.06.2006 passed by the School Tribunal, Nagpur, dismissing Appeal No. STN/15/2002, filed under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, (in short œthe M.E.P.S.Act?), challenging his dismissal from service by an order dated 14.02.2002. The tribunal has dismissed the appeal holding that the petitioner was not qualified to hold the post of an Assistant Teacher as he was not possessing the training qualification of B.Ed. The tribunal has further held that the petitioner was qualified for being appointed as Physical Training Instructor (P.T.I. In short), but, in fact, he was not appointed as P.T.I. It has been held that the appointment of the petitioner was not i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »