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.
Abn Amro Bank Mumbai Pensioners Association and Another Vs. the Royal ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-2014
1. The plaintiff is an association of pensioners of ABN AMRO Bank. Defendant No.1, who is the only contesting defendant, (defendant) is the successor-in-title in title to ABN AMRO Bank. The plaintiff has sued for recovery of diverse amounts by way of pensionery benefits of its members upon the pension rules as also the assurances of the defendant to pay specified percentage of pensionable salary which has been increased by the defendant from time to time. The plaintiff has challenged the reductions made by the defendant in the percentage of pensionable salary agreed to be paid. This suit is filed for declaration that the reduction is bad in law and in breach of the contract of the defendant, that the defendant be stopped from reducing the pension of the agreed percentage, the challenge to the reduction of the specified percentage and an injunction against acting upon such reduction as also for deposit of specified amount towards the balance of the pension amount payable. 2. The plainti...
Sunita Narahari Parab and Others Vs. Usha Anant Lad
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-11-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Naik learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Sardessai, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the legality and proprietary of the order passed on 30.04.2013 by the learned District Judge-1, Panaji in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 64 of 2012 thereby quashing and setting aside the order of the trial Court rejecting temporary injunction application of the respondent and partly granting it. 3. By the order impugned herein the first appellate Court has restrained the petitioners from interfering with the suit property bearing Survey No. 359/23 and also restrained them from carrying out any construction. Further, they have been restrained from selling or alienating or changing the user of the property or transferring or disposing it of in any manner. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the prima-facie consideration of documents produced on recor...
Tilak Nagar Royal Co.Operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. M/S. Vinayak C ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-2014
P.B. Joshi, Judicial Member: 1. Complainant is a co-operative housing Society having registration No.MUM/MHADB/W-HSG(TC)/10434/1999-2000, situated at Tilak Nagar, Chembur, Mumbai 400 089. The Society consists of total 91 members including 36 old members and 65 new members and also 10 shops on the ground floor. The Society has four wings, A, B, C Aand D of which A and D wing has 28 flats each (total 56 flats) while B Wing has 14 flats and C Wing has 21 flats. The Opponent No.1 is a partnership firm in the business of builders and developers. The Opponents Nos.2, 3 and 4 are the partners of the said firm. On 10.05.2002 a Development Agreement was entered into between the Complainant and the Opponents. Rectification Deed was executed on 26.06.2002. Deed of Confirmation was executed on 07.08.2003. After reconstruction, the possession was given to different flat holders in the year 2005-2006 but legal possession was not given. No occupancy certificate was obtained and no completion certif...
Ajijur Rehman Firoz Ahmad Shaikh and Another Vs. Tara Gulab Gupta and ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-2014
Usha S. Thakare, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. Both these appeals are listed before me for hearing as per order passed by Honble Justice Mr.R.C. Chavan, President of this Commission in view of provisions of Section 16(1-B)(iii) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 since there is difference of opinion between two Members who had heard both these appeals. 2. By the order under challenge, Learned District Forum has partly allowed the complaint bearing No.527/2006. Opponent-Ajijur Rehman Firoz Ahmad Shaikh is directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,22,500/- to the complainant towards medical bills of treatment. He was further directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards mental pain and agony and amount of Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the litigation. 3. Being aggrieved by the judgement and order dated 06/03/2010 passed by District Forum, Thane in consumer complaint No.527/2006, appellant/original opponent-Ajijur Rehman Firoz Ahmad Shaikh has preferred appeal bearing No.390/2010. Being dissatisfied ...
Jugraj K. Ranka and Others Vs. Mulchand K. Ranka and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-2014
Per Court: 1. By this appeal, the appellant-plaintiffs assail the order dated 11 February 2014 passed by the learned Single Judge. The impugned order dated 11th February 2014 raised a preliminary issue to be tried under Section 9-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (herein after referred to as 'CPC'). 2. The appellants-plaintiffs have filed the present suit for a declaration that defendant No.1 holds share of 50% in defendant No.34-firm for and on behalf of the appellant-plaintiffs. The basis for the aforesaid claim made by the appellant-plaintiffs is the following:- (a) The Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 are brothers. Defendant No.1 is the eldest amongst all brothers. In 1972, defendant No.1, the plaintiffs and their father commenced the business of construction and development of immovable properties in the city of Mumbai. Since then, the business has been carried out as a joint family business and the profits earned are pooled together in a common hotchpotch wherefrom, the joint f...
Dr. Joao Filipe Do Rego and Others Vs. Deputy Collector (Dev) and Land ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. J. E. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants/respondents and Ms. Sapna Mordekar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents/appellants in the above appeals. 2. The parties shall be referred to in the manner as they are so described in the impugned judgment and award dated 29.07.2006. 3. Both the above appeals challenge the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court dated 29.07.2006 in Land Acquisition Case No. 42/1990 whereby a reference filed by the applicants was partly allowed and the compensation for the land acquired was fixed at the rate of Rs.230/- per square metre. 4. Briefly the facts of the case are that pursuant to a notification dated 18.02.1982, land admeasuring 2502 square metres from the property surveyed under P.T. Sheet No. 141 of Chalta No.1 of Panaji city situated at Miramar came to be acquired for the construction of parks, recreational and other development of Miramar ...
Leela Fondu Mayekar and Others Vs. Damodar Datta Zuwarkar and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-10-2014
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated 1/07/2013 passed in Civil Misc. Application No.30/2013 by Adhoc District Judge “ 1 (FTC), Panaji. The petitioners filed an application for condonation of delay, which was of 400 days, which occurred in preferring an appeal against the order dated 30/11/2011, passed in Regular Civil Suit No.42/2011/C by Civil Judge Junior Division, Panaji. 3. It was urged by the petitioners that petitioner no.4 was the only conversant party in the matter and as he suffered a paralytic stroke on 9/12/2011, i.e. immediately after passing of the order dated 30/11/2011, which was followed by a heart attack in March, 2012, for which ailments, the conversant party was on continuous medical treatment, he could not take a decision about preferring of the appeal. It was also submitted by him that having regard to ...
Aurangabad Electrical Contractors Association, Through Its Authorized ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-10-2014
A.M. Badar, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and with consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. By the instant petition, petitioners, who are associations of electrical contractors, are praying for setting aside Government resolution bearing No.CAT-1097/693/building-2 dated 27.1.2004 (Exhibit A) and Government circular No.CAT-03/11/CN/109/building-2 dated 24.3.2011 (Exhibit B) issued by Public Works Department of the respondent State of Maharashtra. 3. By the impugned Government resolution dated 27.1.2004, the State Government has resolved that composite tender for civil and electrical work needs to be invited for construction of buildings costing Rs.1/crore or more and by circular dated 24.3.2011, the Public Works Department of the State, after noting that the provisions of Government resolution dated 27.1.2004 are not being followed by giving excuse that estimate of electrical work is...
Dr. Joao Filipe Do Rego and Others Vs. Deputy Collector (Dev) and Land ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-10-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. J. E. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants/respondents and Ms. Sapna Mordekar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents/appellants in the above appeals. 2. The parties shall be referred to in the manner as they are so described in the impugned judgment and award dated 29.07.2006. 3. Both the above appeals challenge the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court dated 29.07.2006 in Land Acquisition Case No. 42/1990 whereby a reference filed by the applicants was partly allowed and the compensation for the land acquired was fixed at the rate of Rs.230/- per square metre. 4. Briefly the facts of the case are that pursuant to a notification dated 18.02.1982, land admeasuring 2502 square metres from the property surveyed under P.T. Sheet No. 141 of Chalta No.1 of Panaji city situated at Miramar came to be acquired for the construction of parks, recreational and other development of Miramar ...
Macchidra Namdeo Shelar Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-2014
Oral Judgment: (P.V. Hardas, J.) 1. Appellant who stands convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of which to undergo further RI for 4 months, by the Ad-Hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, by judgment dated 30.6.2004, by this appeal questions the correctness of his conviction and sentence. 2. Facts as are necessary for the decision of this appeal may briefly be stated thus: (i) PW-4 Head Constable Shri Suresh Salvi who on 24.3.2004 was on duty at Sassoon hospital was informed about the admission of Vijaya with burns in ward no.25 He accordingly proceeded to the said ward and requested the Medical Officer to ascertain the condition of Vijaya to give her statement. The Medical Officer accordingly ascertained the condition of Vijaya and opined that Vijaya was in fit condition to give her statement. PW-4 Head Constable Salvi accordingly recorded the statement of Vijaya at...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »