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.
Mahendra K. Raut and Another Vs. M/S. Gopalanand Rasayan and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. These Petitions are filed challenging the Award dated 28 February 1997 passed by the Labour Court, Thane, whereby the Labour Court, rejected the claim of workman for reinstatement with full back-wages and granted compensation of Rs. 20,000/-. 2. Writ Petition No. 3141 of 1999 is filed by the workman - Mahendra K. Raut, challenging the Award impugned and the Writ Petition No. 2983 of 2000 is filed by the Management “ Gopalanand Rasayan, challenging the Award. Mr. Raut is aggrieved by the denial of reinstatement with full back wages; while the Management is aggrieved by the direction to pay compensation and the finding that the punishment of dismissal is shockingly disproportionate. 3. Mr. Raut was employed with the Management. A chargesheet came to be issued against him on 2 May 1983 and 5 May 1983. The chargesheet dated 2 May 1983 alleged that Mr. Raut along with other workmen in willful insubordination and disobedience of the orders of the superiors, went on il...
Maharu Vs. Hemraj and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-02-2014
1) The appeal is filed against the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Appeal No.58 of 1998 which was pending in the Court of the District Judge, Jalgaon. The appeal of the present appellant, plaintiff, filed against the decision of Special Civil Suit No.62 of 1994 which was pending in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amalner, is dismissed by the First Appellate Court. Relief of specific performance of contract is refused to the appellant. Both the sides are heard. 2) The suit was filed in respect of agricultural land admeasuring 4 acres which is part of land Gut No.100 which total admeasured at the relevant time, 17 acres and 25 gunthas. The suit portion is the northern portion of Gut No.100/1 and in the agreement it was shown to be separated by East “ West bandh from remaining portion. 3) It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant is owner of the suit property and he agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff under written agreement dated 18-5-1977...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Its Divisional Manager Vs. Babula ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-02-2014
1. Heard both sides. 2. Aggrieved by the direction to pay compensation in a Motor Accident Claim Petition, the original respondent no.3 i.e. the insurer of the truck has preferred the present appeal. 3. Present respondent nos.1 and 2 i.e. the parents of the deceased Santoshkumar had filed the claim petition. They pleaded that on 10/2/1995 while deceased Santoshkumar was proceeding by his scooter bearing no.MH-20-G-4742 to Nawabpura area from CIDCO by Jalna Road in Aurangabad city, at that time, near Seven Hill "T" point, a goods truck bearing registration no. MRL-2007 gave dash to the said scooter. The accident had occurred due to the high speed of the truck as the truck driver i.e. the present respondent no.4-Dharmaji was driving the truck in rash and negligent manner. 4. As regards the quantum of compensation, the claimants submitted that the deceased was only 25 years old at the time of his untimely death. He was initially working with M/s. Vishnu Vijay Packages Pvt. Ltd. as an Acco...
State of Maharashtra, (Summons to Be Served on the Learned Government ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-2014
Oral Judgment: (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) 1. Heard finally by consent of the parties, in view of the urgency. 2. Civil Application No. 994 of 2014 for recalling and modification of Judgment/orders dated 20 March 2014 and 24 March 2014 in Writ Petition No. 5290 of 2013 along with other connected matters, is taken out by the Applicants -(i) State of Maharashtra, (ii) The Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs Department, (iii) Director of Medical Education and Research, (iv) The Director of Health Services and (v) The Secretary, Public Health Department, (for short, œthe State?), as all are concerned with the admission process of Post Graduate Course in Medicine for the year 2014-2015. 3. After hearing all the parties, we have expressed our respective opinion on the issue and basically Government Circular dated 2 July 2013 and all action based upon it, to the extent of deleting totally in-service reservation for the Post-Graduate Degree Course. 4. As there was difference of opinion, whic...
Sulemankhan and Others Vs. Bhagirathibai and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-02-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20th July 2012 passed by the District Judge-I, Akola in Regular Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2009. The said appeal arose from judgment and decree passed by the Joint Civil Judge JD, Akola in Regular Civil Suit No. 6 of 2009 whereby suit was dismissed. 2. Facts, in brief, are that the plaintiffs own and possess field Gat No. 26 admeasuring 5.88 HR situated at village Dhamana Bk, Tahsil Akot, District Akola. Plaintiffs complained of encroachment on their land by adjacent land owner and, therefore, on 24.6.2004, Taluqa Inspector of Land Records, Akot was approached for encroachment of the suit land. Measurement was done and according to TILR, southern side land-holder (defendant) made encroachment over the land of plaintiffs to the extent of 00.46 HR. Plaintiffs, therefore, served the defendants with legal notice dated 22.9.2004 calling upon them to remove encroachment. Inspite of receipt of notice defendants d...
Christopher Lobo Vs. Dr. Domnic Dâandeuro;andtrade; Silva
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-2014
R.C. Chavan, President: [1] This appeal is directed against an order dated 23/12/1996 passed by the Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum dismissing the Consumer Complaint No.1436 of 1993 upon giving a liberty to the Appellant/original Complainant to approach the Civil Court as the complaint involved complex questions. [2] Facts, which are material for deciding this appeal, are as under:- Mr. Christopher Lobo “ the Appellant/original Complainant (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant for the sake of brevity) suffered a motor-cycle accident on 24/11/1991 and had initially taken some treatment with another doctor. Thereafter, he was treated by Respondent/original Opponent “ Dr. Dominic F. D Silva (hereinafter referred to as the Opponent for the sake of brevity). Opponent found that the Complainant suffered compound fracture of right tibia and two more fractures above the first fracture. The fracture was stabilized by using external fixator on 26/11/...
Sakharam Dagadu Salunkhe and Another M/S. Audumbar Construction Co. Th ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-2014
Dhanraj Khamatkar, Member: This appeal is directed against the order dated 07/06/2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban in consumer complaint no.CC/08/751 directing the opponent nos.1, 2 and 3 to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- from 06/03/2005 along with interest @ 9% p.a. till realization within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of order. Facts which are material for deciding this appeal are as under:- The complainants had booked a flat no.202 in D wing, Building no.2, 2nd floor, Shrikrishna Complex, Western Express Highway, Borivali (E) for consideration of Rs.13,02,000/- and misc. expenses Rs.43,340/-. As per the agreement, possession of the said flat was to be handed over on or before 30/11/2006. The complainants paid an amount of Rs.75,000/- on 06/03/2005. Thereafter, complainants approached to ICICI Bank for Housing loan and the bank had sanctioned loan of Rs.13,00,000/- to the complainants. It is the contention of the complainants...
Bapu Narsing A. Chougule Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-2014
Oral Order: (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) 1. For an offence under Sections 354, 504, 506 (2) of Indian Penal Code on an online complaint filed by one temporary employee (sweeper) after due enquiry apart from release order in favour of the Petitioner dated 14.12.2012 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Bandra, on his bail application. Now, the statement is made by the learned counsel appearing for the State that the police have filed 'C' Summary Report and the same is pending for acceptance. Even otherwise after the departmental enquiry, the Committee has recommended and made observations against the Petitioner only to the following extent: œThe Recommendations: .. Mr. Chougule HoD, should make immediate arrangements for a separate changing room for male staff members, away from the common staff room. The complaints of Ms “ Dhoke and Ms. Sumra do not surely fall within the purview of sexual harassment but seen to emerge from the group dynamics that are entren...
Chater S. JaIn Vs. B. Abdul Kadar and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-01-2014
1. Heard Mr. Rodrigues, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Ramani, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 31/08/2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panaji, Goa (JMFC) in Criminal Case No. OA/86/07/D/C. The appellant was the complainant whereas respondent no.1 was the accused in the said case. Parties shall, hereinafter, be referred to as per their status in the said criminal case. 3. The complainant had filed the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ('N.I. Act') against the accused. The case of the complainant was as follows : The complainant and others had floated a company by name œFocus Construction and Contracting Company Pvt. Ltd.? ('the Company'), at Porvorim, Bardez, Goa. The accused bought the Company and the shares of the complainant for total consideration of Rs. 3,50,000/-. Towards initial part payment of consider...
Tata Motors Ltd. Vs. Sundeep Polymers (P) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-2014
G.S. Patel, J. 1.The petitioning-creditor, Tata Motors Ltd (previously Tata Finance Ltd; œTata Motors?) claims that an amount of Rs.16,14,515/- remains unpaid despite service of a statutory notice by the respondent company, Sundeep Polymers (P) Ltd. (œSundeep Polymers?) under an agreement dated 20th July 1988, by which Sundeep Polymers took a Mercedes Benz motor car on hirepurchase. 2.These are the facts. The parties entered into a hire purchase agreement on 20th July 1988. A copy is at Exhibit œB? to the petition. Sundeep Polymers took a Mercedes Benz motor car, registration number MH-01-V-5848, on hire purchase. Tata Motors was the owner. Sundeep Polymers was the hirer. It was required to pay monthly instalments to Tata Motors. The first of these was to be for Rs.1,32,020/- and the rest were to be of Rs.66,010/-. The aggregate amount payable was Rs.31,68,480/- over three years. Tata Motors claims that Sundeep Polymers was in breach of its contractual obligations. It...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »