Mumbai Court April 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.
Village Panchayat Surla and Others Vs. State of Goa Through Its Chief ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-15-2014
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Mr. S. N. Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents. 2. The above petition came to be filed in public interest espousing the cause of the farmers of Surla Village due to the mining activities undertaken by the respective mine owners namely respondent nos. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 16. This Court passed an interim order on the basis of the minutes of the order which were duly signed by the concerned parties. The said minutes of order is dated 08.08.2007 and reads thus: (1) The learned counsels appearing for the Respondent no. 8 to 14, 16 and 17, state that the balance portion of the Nullah up to the bayem bridge remaining to be de-silted, shall be completed on or before 30th May, 2008. The learned Advocate General assures the Court that the Executive Engineer/Canal Officer of the Water Resources Department, shall supervise such balance work of de-silting and file a repo...
Javed Ahmed Khatib and Others Vs. Mohammed Arif Shafeeq Ahmed Patel an ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-15-2014
1. CRA Nos. 66/2012, 84/2014 and 85/2012 are admitted. Notice made returnable forthwith. Both the sides agreed to argue the matters for final disposal. Writ Petition No. 625/2009 is already admitted. Heard all the sides. 2. The dispute is in respect of management of Jumma Masjid, Patel Mohalla, Panvel, Tahsil Panvel, District Raigad. This institution is registered under Bombay Public Trust Act [hereinafter referred to as 'the Trust Act' for short] and at present also registered under Waqf Act 1995. In the office of learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Raigad the institution is registered along with the scheme of management. Waqf Suit No. 20/2009 was filed by petitioner from CRA No. 84/2009. At Exh. 5 application for relief of temporary injunction was filed. This application is rejected by Waqf Tribunal by order dated 15.6.2009 and this order is challenged in the revision. The petitioner from CRA No. 84/2009 has filed remaining two revisions also. CRA No. 85/2009 is filed to challeng...
Shrimati Shrirang Naik and Others Vs. Vijaykant Sonu Naik and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-15-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 2. The only point which arises for my consideration is: Whether the impugned orders passed by both the Courts below rejecting the application of the petitioners for seeking permission of the Court to suitably modify the order of the temporary injunction dated 14.05.2009, passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 52/2007 are un-reasonable and arbitrary? 3. In the suit that was filed by respondents no. 1 to 5 against the remaining respondents and present petitioners seeking declaration that decree dated 16.12.2006 passed in Special Civil Suit No. 128/2001 was null and void and also seeking perpetual injunction against remaining respondents and present petitioners, who are defendants 2 to 14 in the suit before the trial Court, an application seeking temporary injunction during pendency of the suit was filed by respondents no. 1 to 5. The application, by an order passed on 14.05.2008, was granted by the trial Court. ...
Laxman and Another Vs. Deorao
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-15-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dt.20.2.2012 passed by the learned District Judge-6, Nagpur in Regular Civil Appeal No.101 of 2009. The appeal was partly allowed in absence of any appearance on behalf of the respondents in the first Appellate Court. The suit was partly allowed whereby the plaintiff was declared exclusive owner of suit land bearing Survey No.48, admeasuring O.51 R., suit land bearing Survey No.26 admeasuring 0.75 R at village Lapka and suit land bearing Survey No.159/1 admeasuring 1.05 hector of village Dhamangaon plus house property described in the schedule appended to the plaint on the basis of alleged partition that took place 35 years back. The said appeal arose from the Judgment and Order dt.17.4.2008 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.56 of 1999 by Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Ramtek, District Nagpur, by which the suit was dismissed. The grievance of the appellant is that, in the first Appellate Court, the appeal was heard and the f...
Union of India, Thro' the General Manager, Central Railway and Others ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-15-2014
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Chandurkar, J.) 1. The issue involved in the present writ petition is as regards entitlement of the respondent to grant of Family Pension. 2. The husband of the respondent, one Hari Borkar, was employed as a Ladderman with the Indian Railways. During the course of service, he expired on 12.08.1970. Hence, the respondent, his widow, sought settlement of the dues, including payment of Family Pension. On 18.02.1994, the respondent submitted an application giving various details as regards her entitlement for the Family Pension. On 02.09.1996, the Indian Railways informed the respondent that as her husband was employed as a 'Substitute' Ladderman, there was no provision for grant of Family Pension. Though the respondent made a representation on 10.10.1996, the same was not accepted on the ground that the pension scheme was not applicable to a 'Substitute' Employee. The respondent, thereafter, filed Original Application No.37/1998 before the Central Administrative Tribu...
The Indian Seamless Metal Tubes Limited (Tubes Works) Vs. Kailash Namp ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-11-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides. 2. The petitioner is a factory covered under the Factories Act, 1948 and situated at the address mentioned in the cause title of the petition. The respondent was a workman appointed on 01-01-1984. 3. The respondent had filed Complaint (ULP) No. 265/1987 before the Industrial Court at Ahmednagar on 02-12-1987, claiming permanency and benefits incidental and consequential thereto. The said complaint was subsequently allowed and it was held that the petitioner-employer had indulged in unfair labour practices under item No. 6 Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act by engaging the respondent as a temporary with an intent and object of depriving him of the status and privileges of permanency. Non compliance of Standing Order 4(C) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Act, 1946, was held to be an act of unfair labour practices under item No. 9 of the said schedule. 4. By a charge-sheet dated 14-09-1989, the responde...
Am Developers and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-2014
Oral Judgment: (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) 1. The owner built the Amar Mahal Building on plot No.86 and 87 in sub-sector-III at Chembur, Mumbai (The property/premises) in the year 1956-57, which according to the Municipal Corporation, now is in the list of dilapidated Buildings (C-1 Category) in their Disaster Management Plan, 2012. Therefore, admittedly, three notices (the notices) under section 354 (The section) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act (MMC Act) issued from time to time, i.e., 11.6.2007, 9.5.2008 and 9.5.2013 to demolish and to vacate, being dangerous and inhabitable property/building. 2. There is no dispute that the Petitioner (in Writ Petition No.794 of 2014) is the landlord, owner and developer of the premises/property. The Respondents are some of the occupants/tenants. Some of them are the Petitioners in Writ Petition (L) No.707 of 2014 filed on 13.03.2014. 3. The landlord/owner has prayed to implement the notices' as the structure/premises is in dangerous and dilapidate...
Priya Shivaji Gadade Adult Vs. Laxmi PravIn Chavan and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and by consent, the matter is heard finally. 3. By this petition filed under Articles 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the judgment and order dated 14th March, 2013, passed by learned Judge of the Small Causes Court at Pune in Election Petition No.7 of 2012. By the impugned order, learned Judge of the Small Causes Court allowed the election petition filed by respondent No.1 and set-aside the petitioner's election from Ward No. 56- B of Pune Municipal Corporation as Councillor. The petitioner is further disqualified from being elected or being a Councillor for the term of seven years from the date of the said order. 4. The uncontroverted and undisptued facts are follows: The general election of Pune Municipal Corporation was held on 16th February, 2012, in which petitioner and respondent Nos. 1 to 11 were contesting elections from Ward N...
Conception Fernandes and Another Vs. Tasneem Shaikh and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-11-2014
1. This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 2.9.2013 passed on an application at Exh.84 filed under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC in Regular Civil Suit No. 20/2010/A by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vasco-da-Gama. 2. The petitioners, who are original defendants filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC for amendment of their written statement. By the proposed amendment, the petitioners submit certain clarifications were sought to be introduced in the written statement so as to elaborate the stand and the defence taken by the petitioners. It was their contention that these pleadings were necessary for deciding the real controversy involved in the case and could not have been incorporated by them in the written statement earlier inspite of due diligence on their part. They submitted that their earlier counsel was instructed on these facts by them but he was of the opinion that it was not necessary to include them in the written statement as basic facts were already stated ...
Emirates Islamic Bank Vs. Chandra Dev NaraIn Singh and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-2014
1. The plaintiff has taken out this Chamber Summons for condonation of delay of 4495 days in filing Summons for Judgment in the above Summary Suit and to allow plaintiff to file a Summons for Judgment and place it for hearing. The defendants have opposed Chamber Summons and have contended that the suit be dismissed. The plaintiff has sued for recovery of certain monies under a foreign judgment passed by the Court in Dubai. The plaintiff has taken out various interim applications in the suit but not a Summons for Judgment. The plaintiff claims that in 2005 the plaintiff has changed its advocate and due to inadvertence not filed the Summons for Judgment. 2. The delay is of about 13 years in taking out Summons for Judgment. It is indeed a gross delay. It would have to be seen whether it can be condoned or not. 3. It may be mentioned that there is no time limit by way of period of limitation set out either in Order 37 of the CPC or in the High Court Original Side Rules (Rules) to take out ...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »