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.
Manohar Pandit MaraThe Vs. President, Sharda Vidya Prasarak Mandal and ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-01-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides at length. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that he was terminated on 20/01/2009, which was challenged by preferring an appeal before the School Tribunal bearing No.JAL/11/2009. The School Tribunal, by its judgment and order dated 20/09/2013, concluded that Rule 36 and 37 of the M.E.P.S. Rules, have not been followed in conducting the enquiry against the petitioner. The enquiry was, therefore, quashed and set aside. 3. In the operative part of the impugned order, the employer has been granted the liberty to either give up the de novo enquiry and grant all reliefs to the petitioner or to conduct a de novo enquiry. Option was also given to the employer to suspend the petitioner pending the de novo enquiry, if so opted for. However, the employer was directed to first reinstate the petitioner in employment and then to place him under ...
Manohar Pandit MaraThe Vs. President, Sharda Vidya Prasarak Mandal and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides at length. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that he was terminated on 20/01/2009, which was challenged by preferring an appeal before the School Tribunal bearing No.JAL/11/2009. The School Tribunal, by its judgment and order dated 20/09/2013, concluded that Rule 36 and 37 of the M.E.P.S. Rules, have not been followed in conducting the enquiry against the petitioner. The enquiry was, therefore, quashed and set aside. 3. In the operative part of the impugned order, the employer has been granted the liberty to either give up the de novo enquiry and grant all reliefs to the petitioner or to conduct a de novo enquiry. Option was also given to the employer to suspend the petitioner pending the de novo enquiry, if so opted for. However, the employer was directed to first reinstate the petitioner in employment and then to place him under ...
Pandurang Vs. Malhari
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-01-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This second appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 7.7.2006, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Darwha, in Regular Civil Appeal No.160 of 2004, whereby the appeal was dismissed, which arose from judgment and order dated 28.11.2003, passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Digras, in Regular Civil Suit No.112 of 2001, whereby the suit was dismissed. 2. The present second appeal was admitted by this Court, on 6.2.2008, on the following substantial questions of law, thus: "1. Whether the Courts were justified in dismissing the suit for possession, as filed by the plaintiff, when it was not in dispute that the plaintiff had earlier filed a suit for specific performance of contract against the defendant and the decree passed in the said suit was executed and a sale-deed was registered through Court in favour of the plaintiff? 2. Whether the Courts were further justified in holding that the plaintiff had not proved his title, witho...
Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Shalini Gupta
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-2014
R.C. Chavan, President: [1] This appeal is directed against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune directing appellant/Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.10 lakhs with interest @ 9% p.a. from 08/03/2010 to the complainant. Facts which are material for deciding this appeal are as under:- Appellant issued a policy of insurance to the complainants husband, which was valid for a period from 04/05/2009 till 03/05/2010. On 21/11/2009, the complainants husband i.e. insured met with his death in a railway accident. The complainant informed the Insurance Company and complied with the requisition dated 25/11/2009 issued by the appellant/Insurance Company and sent a Claim form on 11/02/2010. By letter dated 08/03/2010, appellant Company repudiated the claim stating that the insured was crossing the railway track near Chembur Railway station and was hit by a train leading to his death, and that trespassing on the railway track is not legal and it also contribute...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›