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.
Barkatali Abdul Razzak Kazi and Others Vs. Manzoor Abdul Razzak Kazi a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-2014
Oral Judgment: 1) At the outset, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners Shri. Kulkarni, on instructions of the Petitioners, seeks deletion of the Respondent No. 2, who, according to the Petitioners, is a formal party, in the context of the present Petition. The Respondent No. 2 is accordingly allowed to be deleted at the risk of the Petitioners. 2) Rule, with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard. 3) The Writ Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order dated 26th November, 2013, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Panvel, by which order, the application for amendment of the Plaint, filed by the Petitioners/ original Plaintiffs under Order I Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as œthe CPC?), read with Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, came to be rejected. 4) The facts necessary to be cited for adjudication of the above Petition, in brief, can be stated thus: The P...
Sumedha Vs. Krishnakumar
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-11-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. The learned counsel for Respondent accepted that costs, as directed by this Court on the last occasion, has been received. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Applicant and learned counsel for Respondent, finally. 3. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that in this matter, criminal complaint S.T.C. No.2256 of 2009 is pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.6 at Latur. The matter is under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Judicial Magistrate on 7th February, 2013 passed order that the trial of the case shall proceed de-novo, as evidence recorded in the matter earlier, was by another Magistrate. The learned counsel submits that in the Revision filed by the present Respondent (original complainant) being Criminal Revision No.10 of 2013, the Sessions Court has erroneously held that the evidence recorded in the matter is not as per summary trial. According to the learned counsel, the trial Court had relied on the Judgments of the...
M/S. Arole Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shaikh Sadullah ShahabuddIn and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-2014
1. Rule, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked against the order dated 13/9/2013 passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune by which order the Application No.5 of 2009 filed under Section 36(2) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act (herein after referred to as the said Act) came to be allowed and resultantly the permission granted by the Joint Charity Commissioner under Section 36(1)(b) of the said Act came to be revoked. 3. The facts giving rise to the above Petition can be stated thus : The property in question which was the subject matter of the permission granted under Section 36(1)(b) of the said Act belongs to the public trust known as Dhakata Shaikh Salla Durgah which was registered as such under the said Act in the year 1952. By the judgment rendered in Appeal No.539 of 1957 the mode of succession o...
M/S Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. the Regional Provident Fund Commissi ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-11-2014
1. By this petition, the legality and correctness of the order passed on 1.7.2013 by Employees Provident Fund, Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi has been challenged. In an inquiry initiated under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (œthe PF Act? for short) upon a complaint that there was no compliance being made in terms of the PF Act in respect of the workers engaged by the petitioner through contractors, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (œthe Commissioner? for short), found that workers engaged by contractors in connection with the work of the petitioner were eligible for provident fund benefits as the workers were covered by the definition of œemployee? under Section 2(f) of the said Act. The Commissioner in the said inquiry, identified the number of eligible employees and also determined the sum of Rs.1,06,00,537/- (Rupees One Crore Six Lakhs five hundred and thirty seven only) as payable by the petitioner towards ...
Rajendra D. Seth Vs. Rekha Jha Alias Rekha R. Seth
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-11-2014
1. Heard Mr. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Ms. Matkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable and heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioner has taken exception to the order dated 27.02.2013 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Panaji (œAppellate Court? for short) in Criminal Appeal No.29 of 2012 and the judgment and order dated 16.01.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, (B-Court), Ponda (œTrial Magistrate? for short) in Criminal Case No.59/AOA/DVA/2011/B. 4. The petitioner is the opponent whereas the respondent is the applicant in the said Criminal Case No.59/AOA/DVA/2011/B. The parties shall, hereinafter, be referred to as per their status in the said Criminal Case. 5. An application has been filed by the applicant under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (œthe Act? for short), before the Trial...
The Collector, Amravati Camp and Another Vs. Sau. Vimal Devidas Kale
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-11-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This second appeal is preferred against judgment and order dated 25.3.2004, passed by the learned Fourth Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Amravati, in Regular Civil Appeal No.215 of 2003, whereby the appeal was dismissed, which arose from judgment and order dated 12.11.2002, passed by the learned Second Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Amravati, in Regular Civil Suit No.20 of 2001, whereby the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff. 2. The question arose in this appeal is, whether the lower Courts were justified to consider the case of the plaintiff as the project affected person in view of the provisions of The Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986. 3. It appears that the case of the plaintiff is that she owned and possessed the agricultural land bearing Survey No.300/2 admeasuring 1H 75R, the State of Maharashtra had acquired 2H 95R belonging to the plaintiff as she also owned other land bearing Survey No.300/4 admeasuring 1H 20R situ...
Sundarabai Govind Dhuri and Others Vs. Diago Minguel Pereira and Other ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-11-2014
1. Heard Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Dias, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents no.1 to 10 and Mrs. Aras, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.14. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioners have taken exception to order dated 18/07/2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, 'A' Court, Mapusa in Special Civil Suit No. 14/2008/A. 4. Respondents no.1 to 10 are the plaintiffs in the said Special Civil Suit No.14/2008/A; the petitioners are defendants no. 1 to 19; respondents no 11 to 14 are defendants no. 20 to 23; and respondents no. 15 and 16 are newly added defendants no. 24 and 25. For the sake of convenience, parties shall, hereinafter, be referred to as per their status in the said Suit. 5. The plaintiff no. 5 has filed affidavit-in-reply and has produced various documents. 6. The said Special Civil Suit No. 14/2008 has been f...
Special Land Acquisition Officer (North) Goa Tillari Irrigation Develo ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-11-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. M. Salkar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants and Mr. R.G. Ramani, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The above appeal challenges the judgment and award dated 30.12.2006 passed by the learned Reference Court in Land Acquisition Case No. 67/2001 whereby a reference preferred by the respondent under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( herein after referred to as œthe said Act?) was partly allowed and the compensation for the land acquired was fixed at the rate of Rs.20/- per square metre. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that pursuant to a notification under Section 4 of the said Act dated 15.01.1992 land admeasuring 4675 square metres from the property surveyed under No. 7(part) and an area of 650 square metres from the property surveyed under no.8 (part) was acquired for the left bank main canal of Tillari Irrigation Project in the village of Assonora in Bardez Taluka. The Land Acquisition Officer pas...
Syndicate Bank a Nationalised Bank Vs. Vinod Kumar Amin
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-2014
1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner a nationalised bank challenges the Part-I Award dated 28.5.2003 and the Part-II Award dated 7.9.2010 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal no.2 in Reference No.CGIT-2/31 of 2001. By the impugned Award the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (for short œIndustrial Tribunal?) has directed reinstatement of the Respondent-workman on the post on which he was last working viz. of a clerk and has awarded continuity of service with full back wages. The facts in nutshell are as under:- 2. The Respondent-workman had joined services of the Petitioner in the year 1977 as a clerk and worked on the said post discharging duties as a clerk-cum-typist for 22 years. In the course of his employment in Mumbai, he was posted at several branches of the Petitioner. He was an active member of the Union and also a Committee member. There was some incident which had taken place between t...
Vishwanath Vs. Pandurang
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-11-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 11th October 2011 passed by the Adhoc District Judge-2, Wardha in Regular Civil Appeal No. 83 of 2004. The appeal was dismissed. The appeal arose out of judgment and order dated 21st June 2004 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Wardha in Regular Civil Suit No. 261 of 2000 whereby suit was dismissed. 2. Facts in brief are that appellant and respondent are real brothers. They inherited suit land bearing survey nos. 56 and 57, total area 5.83 HR situated at village Hiwara, Tahsil Sevagram, District Wardha. This ancestral agricultural land was triangular in shape. Both the brothers had entered into a registered Partition Deed (exhibit 51) whereby the aforesaid agricultural land was agreed to be partitioned pursuant to the terms contained therein. The land was divided by drawing east-west boundary. Plaintiff Vishwanath was given half portion (2.92 HR) on southern side. The northern portion admeasuring 2...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »