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.
Chandrakant Pednekar and Another Vs. Pradeep D. Chodnekar and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-04-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Narvekar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Ramani, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable and heard forthwith. 3. By this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 23/04/2013 passed by the learned District Judge-II, South Goa, Margao (Appellate Court) in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 16/2013 and also the order dated 30/10/2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Quepem (Trial Court) in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 9/2012/A. 4. The petitioners were the defendants and the respondents were the plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No.64/2009/A. Parties shall, hereinafter, be referred to as per their status in the said Civil Suit. 5. The plaintiffs had filed the said suit for eviction of the defendants from the suit portion situated in 'Chodnekar Building' at Bepquegal, Churchorem, Goa; for mesne profits and for payment of arre...
Kiran Amol Ambhore Vs. Amol Ramdas Ambhore
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-04-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Admit. By consent of the parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. The appellant-wife has put to challenge judgment and order dated 30.10.2013 passed by District Judge-1, Akola in M. J. C. No. 29/2013 by which custody of child Aryan, aged 6 years has been ordered to be handed over to the respondent-husband. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant-wife, challenged the impugned order on the ground that the learned District Judge did not make requisite enquiry before making the order of handing over custody of the son born out of the wedlock. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, she had authorised her Advocate to enter appearance and look after her interests in the said M. J. C. No. 29/2013, but her Advocate failed to appear in the said court. The District Judge proceeded ex parte and passed the impugned judgment and order. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, it was the fault of the Advocate of the appellant who neither appeared nor c...
Jitendra Raghuraj Deshprabhu and Another Vs. Mohan Navso Kalsekar and ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-04-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. D. Pangam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. A. Phadte, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2a to 2c and 3a. 2. Rule. Heard forth with the consent of the learned counsel. 3. Mr. Phadte, learned counsel waives service on behalf of the respondent nos. 2a to 2c and 3a. 4. The above petition challenges the orders passed by the learned Mamlatdar and the learned Dy. Collector whereby in the proceedings under Section 4 of the Mamlatdar's Courts Act, the learned Mamlatdar has granted a relief inter-alia directing the petitioners, their agents, contractors not to interfere and disturb the respondents from using the natural flow of water from the suit spring for the purpose of domestic use and for irrigating the agricultural land at any point of time. 5. Mr. Pangam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has taken me through the impugned order passed by the learned Mamlatdar and drew my attention to the findings of the learned ...
Rakesh Sukanuji Dafade and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through It ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-2014
AnoopV. Mohta, J. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of all the parties along with other connected matters. Therefore, this common judgment as the issues are similar, so also referred judgments and the law. 2. In the present matters, the caste in question does not fall within the ambit of œScheduled Tribe? and/or œScheduled Tribe?, but it does fall within the ambit of œSpecial Backward Class (SBC)/OBC? i.e. œMahadeo Koli?, œKoli? and œKoli M?. In all the matters, the Petitioners were appointed and confirmed prior to 28.11.2000, based upon the Caste Certificates. The Petitioners got all the benefits as belonging to the class œMahadeo Koli?/Koshti SBC/Koli SBC. The respective caste claim/certificate was rejected by the concerned Scrutiny Committees, based upon the then prevailing procedures/circulars and thereby invalidated their caste certificates. The Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta...
Bhujang Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-04-2014
V.M. Deshpande, J. 1. By the present Criminal Appeal, the appellant [Original Accused No.1] is challenging the judgment and order dated 12th February, 2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Basmathnagar, Dist. Hingoli, in Sessions Case No.32 Of 2009 thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable U/Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, [In short, the I.P.Code ] and directing to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- [Rs. Two Thousand only] and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six [6] months. The appellant / accused was also convicted for the offence punishable U/Section 201 of the I.P.Code and was directed to undergo imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- [Rs. One Thousand only] and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one [1] month. 2. Originally the Charge was framed against five persons alongwith the present appellant, by the learned ...
Western Coalfields Ltd., Through Its Chairman-cum-managing Director, C ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-04-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 22-2-2000 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, setting aside the order passed by the petitioner-employer withholding the gratuity of Rs.25,000/- payable to the respondent No.3-employee. This order was confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Authority by its order dated 25-10-2000. Hence, the employer is before this Court. 2. The undisputed factual position is that the respondent No.3-employee was chargesheeted on 10-10-1995 for certain acts of misconduct. During the pendency of an enquiry, the respondent No.3-employee retired from service on 31-10-1997, on attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years. The penalty of Rs.25,000/- imposed upon him for the loss caused to the petitioner-employer, as a result of an enquiry, was deducted from the gratuity payable. Undisputedly, the order dated 3-3-1998 passed after his superannuation for recovery of the amount from the gratuity payab...
Narayan Sakharam Diukar Vs. Sadanand Vithal Naik Parulekar, (Since Dec ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-04-2014
Oral Judgment:- 1. Heard Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. M. B. Da Costa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The above appeal came to be admitted on the following substantial question of law by order dated 16.07.2009. œWhether the year in which encroachment has been alleged in the plaint is determinative in a suit for restoration of possession of the encroached land and for recovery of possession based on title particularly when the Court has negated the defence of acquiring the title by prescription raised by defendant? 3. Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has purchased the property pursuant to the sale deed dated 20.05.1981 which was surveyed under nos.207/1 and 207/2 besides another property known as 'Gorbat' as identified in the Schedule attached to the said sale deed. The learned Senior Counsel has taken me through the said sale deed and p...
Princeton Universal Llp Vs. Sadhana Nayyar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-2014
1. The plaintiff is the owner of the suit property being bungalow Sangeeta of Plot No.1, Guzder Scheme, C S No.584, Santacruz South Avenue Road, Santracruz (W), Mumbai 400 054. The plaintiff claims ownership rights under a registered conveyance deed dated 14th December, 2012. The plot of land conveyed to the plaintiff consists of a bungalow, a garage and an open space bounded by the compound wall. The compound wall has two gates called main and alternate gates; one on the east side and the other on the south side. 2. The defendant is a tenant in respect of the ground floor flat in the said bungalow. She claims her entrance from the alternate gate on the south side of the suit property. Adjoining to her flat is a garden. 3. The defendant claims that she has been in use of the garden since last 50 years that she was a tenant in her flat. The defendant has produced water bills of the municipality showing the water connection not only in her flat, but also in the garden. One bill is for wa...
Ami Merchandising Pvt.Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-2014
1. Heard Mr. P.K.Dhakephalkar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.D.Rairikar, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 to 3, Mr.Amit Jagoo, learned Counsel for respondent No.4 and Ms.Nishigandha M.Gurav, learned Counsel for respondent No.5 at length. Rule. The learned Counsel for the respective respondents waive service. At the request and by consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged i) the judgment and order dated 14/07/2008 rejecting the application made by the petitioners for leave to defend ii) the order dated 14/07/2008 rejecting the Intervenor's Application dated 11/06/2008 filed by one Mr.Nirav Modi and iii) the judgment and order dated 14/07/2008 passed by the Competent Authority (Rent Act) Konkan Division, Mumbai (for short 'the Competent Authority') in Case No. 7 of 2008 a...
Shatrughan Dada Kamble and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-2014
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned counsel for the Respondents waive service. Taken up for final disposal. 2. Writ Petition No.1849 of 2013 is filed by Academy of Fine Arts and Crafts Trust (Management) and Writ Petition No.7387 of 2013 is filed by Shatrughan Dada Kamble (Employee). Since both these petitions challenge the same impugned order, they are taken up for hearing together and are disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The main question that arises in these petitions is what is the purport of Rule 36(2)(a)(i) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Rules, 1981 (Rules of 1981). This sub-rule specifies that the Enquiry Committee shall consist of one member from amongst the members of the Management nominated by the Management. The issue is whether the Management can nominate a person outside the Management and whether the condition of appointing a person within Management is a mandatory provision which will vitiated an enquiry. 4. The Employee was work...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »