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.
Gangadhar Chinnaswamy Naik Vs. Jairam Ramchandra Patil and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-24-2014
1. The appeal arises out of the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 66 of 2005 on 22/01/2008. The appeal is by the original claimant who is dissatisfied by the quantum of the compensation granted by the Tribunal. 2. The relevant facts are: The accident took place on 1st March, 2005. The claimant, along with his friend, was going on a scooty and the truck which was driven by the respondent no.1 hit the scooty from its rear side and dragged the scooty along with the claimant and the pillion rider to a distance of two metres, causing injuries as mentioned in the Claim Petition. The claimant has stated that at that time his age was 21 years and he was working as a Supervisor with M/s. Three Stars Contractors, K. K. Products, Ponda, Goa and was receiving Rs.4,500/- per month as salary plus he was getting other allowances. The claimant had made claim of Rs.7,00,000/- towards the compensation in the Claim Petition but after the evidence was recorded and th...
Cajetan Cordeiro and Another Vs. Rajendra Kumar Motwani and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-24-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned Counsel Mr. Pangam appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned Counsel Mr. Kantak appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 1, 3 and 4. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel Mr. Kantak waives service of notice on behalf of respondents no. 1, 3 and 4 on merits. The petition is already dismissed as against respondents no. 2 and 5. Heard finally by consent. 2. After hearing both the sides, the question that arises for my consideration is: œwhether the impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge is arbitrary and unreasonable?? 3. In the suit filed by the petitioners against the respondents, by an application dated 18.09.2010, the petitioners sought leave of the Court under Order VIII Rule 9 of C.P.C. to file pleadings subsequent to filing of written statement. The application was opposed by the respondents stating that it was not maintainable . Upon hearing both the sides, the learned Civil Judge rejected the application by...
Oswald Colaco Vs. Corporation of the City of Panaji, Through Its Commi ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-24-2014
1. This petition is directed against the order dated 17/12/2013, passed by the Commissioner of the Corporation of the City of Panaji and judgment and order dated 26/03/2014, passed by the Minister for Urban Development (Appellate Authority), Government of Goa in Municipal Appeal No.MIN(UD)/57/2013. The facts relevant for deciding the controversy involved in the petition are stated in brief as under: Petitioner claims tenancy right in respect of a portion of the property bearing chalta no.94 to 99 of P.T. Sheet No.46 of City Survey, Panaji. This property is allotted to four brothers in proportion of one fourth each and, therefore, the four brothers including respondent no.2 are in joint status in respect of the said property, in absence of demarcation of the same. One of the brothers, Sebastiao Azavedo, had neither sought for any construction licence nor granted any power of attorney to the prospective purchaser Shri Natwarlal Gohil to perform any functions in respect of the sale of the...
M/S Sirsat Lodge, Represented by Its Partner, Shri Suhas Jayram Sirsat ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-24-2014
1. This Writ Petition is preferred against the order dated 12.11.2013 in CLE/(REC-17)/2011 by Commissioner, Labour and Employment, Panaji (œthe Commissioner? for short) holding that respondent cannot be retired at the age of 60 years and is entitled to receive wages, including back wages as claimed by him. 2. The respondent was in the employment of the petitioner as helper. His services were terminated by the petitioner on 1.6.1989. The respondent raised an industrial dispute calling termination of his service as illegal. The dispute was referred to Industrial Tribunal. An award of reinstatement with 60% back wages was passed by the Industrial Tribunal on 1.10.1999. It was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition no. 246/2000. During the pendency of the said Writ Petition, the respondent filed an application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( œthe ID, Act? for short). It was allowed by the High Court by an order passed on 20.9.2001. 3. Thereafter...
Nathaji Mandir Sanstha, (Shri Krishnalalaji Mandir Trust) and Others V ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-24-2014
Oral Judgment : 1. The petitioner is a Public Trust, registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 on 15-3-1972. It had defended the proceedings under Section 46 read with Section 54 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 for fixation of price in respect of the tenanted lands on the ground that the income from the said property was being utilized for the purposes of the Trust, and hence the applicability of Sections 46 and 54 was exempted by virtue of the provision of Section 129(b) of the said Act. Although the claim was accepted by the Tahsildar, the Sub-Divisional Officer has set aside the order of the Tahsildar, which has been maintained by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. Hence, both these orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer as well as by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal are the subject-matter of challenge in this petition. 2. It is not disputed by the learned counsels appearing for the parties that the Auth...
Patrick Savio Marcelino Almeida Vs. Devanand Vasudev Shirodkar and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-23-2014
1. Heard Mr. Menezes, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Pereira, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1. 2. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 13/06/2013 passed by the Administrative Tribunal, Panaji, Goa (Tribunal, for short) in Panchayat Election Petition No. 28 of 2012. 3. The respondent no.1 has filed the said Panchayat Election Petition under Section 16 of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (Panchayat Raj Act, for short), challenging the election of the petitioner from ward No. 10 of Village Panchayat Anjuna and Caisua on the ground that the petitioner, on the date of the election, was not a citizen of India and was thus disqualified from his membership and disqualified to be a voter or to contest the election. The respondent no.1 has pleaded that the birth of the petitioner was registered with the office of Village Panchayat at Chicalim, Goa on 27/09/1971 and his marriage was registered on 08/05/200...
Wilson D'Costa and Others Vs. the State of Goa, Through Chief Secretar ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-23-2014
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Mrs. A. Agni, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. V. Rodrigues, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, was issued by the respondents for acquisition of the land under various survey numbers including survey nos. 154/1, 154/2, 156/1 in the year 1990 and objections were raised under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein after referred to as "the said Act") on 23.07.1990, which were subsequently dropped by the respondents. Thereafter, on 27.01.2000 attempts were made by the Sub-Divisional Engineer, Department of Telecom Services to instal a telephone cables by digging in the property œMOLLA? surveyed under the said survey numbers which was objected by the predecessor in title of the petitioners ...
Jose Camilo Aires Da Conceicao Paro E Sa Alias Aires De Sa Vs. Mary Ro ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-23-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent no.1. Nobody present on behalf of respondent no. 2 though duly served. 2. Heard finally by consent. Rule returnable forthwith. 3. Mr. Diniz, learned counsel waives notice on behalf of respondent no.1 on merits. 4. The only question that arises in this Writ petition is:- Whether the order dated 14.3.2013, impugned herein is so arbitrary and unreasonable as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of Writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. By the order dated 14.3.2013, learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa has allowed production of Photostat copies of the documents by way of secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order does not reflect any application of mind and also does not show that the learned Civil Judge has satisfied himself whether the application filed for gran...
Nagnath Subhash Netake Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-23-2014
Per Court: 1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties. 2. This matter was heard on 11.4.2014. The matter was adjourned in order to trace out the date on which the notice of no confidence motion was received by the Tahsildar. The submissions recorded by this Court in its order dated 11.4.2014 are as follows:- "1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties. 2. Submission is that the petitioner was elected as a Sarpanch of village Dhutta in Osmanabad District. Six out of seven members of the village panchayat moved a no-confidence motion, dated 9.4.2013, before the concerned Tahsildar. Notice of the special meeting for considering the motion of no confidence was issued on 10.4.2013. The special meeting was convened on 18.4.2013. Out of six members present, inclusive of the petitioner, five have voted against him. The motion has, therefore, been passed. 3. The petitioner has challenged the said resolution by filing a proceeding before the learned Additional Collector, Os...
Narendra Pandurang and Another Vs. Shrikant Shambu Volvoikar and Anoth ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-23-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard finally by consent. Rule returnable forthwith. 2. Mr. J. Cardozo, learned counsel waives notice on behalf of the contesting respondent no.1 on merits. 3. Both these petitions are connected with each other and challenge trial Courts orders dated 2.8.2013 rejecting the applications filed under Order 14 Rule 3 of CPC for production of documents on identical grounds and, therefore, are being disposed of by this common judgment. 4. After hearing both sides, the only point that arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is:- Whether the orders dated 2.8.2013, rejecting production of additional documents are so perverse and arbitrary as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of Writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India? 5. On going through the impugned orders, it is seen that the only reason stated therein is that one of the documents that was sought to be produced in evidence, a plan drawn in the year 1982, did not find any mentio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »