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.
Satish Sagun Korgaonkar and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra and O ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-2014
AnujaPrabhu Dessai, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of parties. 2. The petitioners herein have challenged the externment orders passed by the Deputy Police Commissioners under the provisions of Section 56(1) (a) (b) of the Bombay Police Act and confirmation thereof by the statutory authorities. 3. The externment order passed in Criminal Writ Petition No.1813 of 2013 was preceded with notice dated 26.3.2012 issued under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, and called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be externed from the limits of Gr. Bombay, New Mumbai and Thane District. The petitioner appeared before the concerned authority and filed his reply and also examined witnesses to refute the allegations leveled against him. Upon considering the material on record, the Externing Authority passed the impugned order externing the petitioner from the area of Gr. Mumbai, Thane and Raigad for a period of two years. 4. The petitioner filed Exter...
Sharda Vs. Kavi Kalidas Shikshan Sanstha, Through Its President and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-21-2014
1. This petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 18.4.2001 passed by the School Tribunal, Nagpur, dismissing Appeal No.STN/243 of 1993 filed under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (œMEPS Act?) challenging the termination of the petitioner from service by an order dated 3.4.1993 with effect from 4.5.1993. 2. The facts of the case are as under : In response to the advertisement dated 17.7.1992 issued by the respondent-Management of the School, the petitioner applied for the post of an Assistant Teacher to teach the Middle School Classes. The petitioner was possessing the requisite qualifications of S.S.C., D.Ed. in terms of the said advertisement and was, upon her selection, appointed as an Assistant Teacher on temporary basis for a period of one session with effect from 19.11.1992. This appointment was approved by the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, by his order dated 3.6.1...
Anwar Elahi Fazal Elahi Khan Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-2014
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Gadkari J.) 1. This is an Appeal under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act 1999. The Appellant is an accused in MCOC Special Case No.18 of 2012. The Appellant by the present Appeal has challenged the charge framed against him below Exhibit 11 under Section 397 read with 34, 400 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25 read with 3 of the Arms Act 1959 and under Section 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (œMCOC Act?). 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present Appeal can be stated in nutshell as under: i) A crime bearing No.151 of 2009 under Sections 397, read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act was registered on 24 April 2009 at Dahisar Police Station by Suresh, the complainant against initially two unknown persons. That the complainant was carrying gold bangles in a green cotton bag when two unidentified accused persons fired three rou...
Gurudayalsing S/O Mehersing Bindra Since Deceased, Through Legal Repre ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-21-2014
1) The appeals are filed against judgment and decree of Regular Civil Appeal No.39/2000 and 42/2000 which were pending in the Court of the IVth Ad-hoc District Judge, Aurangabad. Special Civil Suit No.50 of 1971 was filed by Basantsing, appellant from second proceeding for relief of partition and separate possession of movable and immovable properties. The suit was partly decreed in his favour by the trial Court. Both, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 (appellant from the first proceeding) challenged the judgment and decree of the trial Court by filing aforesaid two civil appeals in District Court. The District Court has confirmed the decision of the trial Court. Defendant No.2 is the sister of the appellants from both the proceeding. Heard learned counsel of all the sides. 2) In these appeals original plaintiff and defendant No.1, the brothers have filed compromise document and they have prayed for disposal of both the appeals and also the original suit as withdrawn. This Court has pas...
K. Shyamsundar I.R.S. Vs. Union of India Through Secretary (Revenue), ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-2014
Oral Judgment: (M.S. Sonak, J.) 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties. 2. This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.4.2012 in O.A. No.36 of 2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) rejecting the Petitioner's claim that the rules of reservation be applied for appointments to the post of Member (Technical) in Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). 3. By notification/advertisement dated 17.8.2009, applications came to be invited for appointment to the post of Member (Technical), CESTAT. There was nothing in the notification/advertisement to indicate that any post of Member (Technical) was reserved for the members of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes. However, the notification/advertisement in prescribed format of application and clause '5' thereof, read as follows: Application for the post of Member (Tech.) in CESTAT (1) .. (2) .. (3) .. (4) .. (5) Whether belongs to SC/ST : (6) .........
Communidade of Balli Through Its Attorney Shri Shankar Fal Dessai and ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-21-2014
1. The suit property came to be acquired by the Konkan Railway for putting up the railway track running through the length of Goa. A part of the track is claimed to be in the possession of several parties. The acquiring authority deposited the entire compensation which had to be apportioned between the parties. The acquisition is accepted. Claiming compensation by various parties is denied by others. Consequently Land Acquisition Case (LAC) was filed by the relevant SLAO. All the parties filed their written statements claiming possession and/or ownership. Their claims have been considered in the LAC. It is from the order of the learned Third District Judge, Margaon in the LAR Case that these first appeals have been filed. 2. There were seven parties who claimed compensation. Their claim of compensation has been considered upon raising issues with regard to their possession and/or ownership. Since all of these parties have separately challenged the order of the learned Judge in the LAC ...
Uttam Jagannath Lungare Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-21-2014
1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties. 2. By an order dated 25th April 2001, this Court had admitted this petition and had granted interim relief in terms of prayer clause (D) which reads thus; “ "(D). Pending hearing and final disposal of this Writ Petition, the resolution dated 4.4.1999 passed by respondent No. 5, the judgment and order dated 28.6.1995,12.10.1999 and 22.1.2001 passed by respondent No. 4, 3 and 2, in case No. 2/99, in appeal No. 154 99 and in the revision No. RVA/2779/CR-400/15-C respectively, please be stayed." 3. So, the petitioner herein was protected by the orders of this Court for the last about 13 years. 4. The petitioner claims to be a founder member of the respondent No. 5 Society. His membership was cancelled by the said Society under section 35 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 {"Act of 1960".) Respondent No. 1 is the State of Maharashtra. Respondent No. 2 is a Secretary for Co-operation and Textile Department of the St...
M/S. Magar Girme and Gaikwad Associates and Others Vs. Palm Groves Coo ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-2014
Dhanraj Khamatkar, Member: [1] All these three revision petitions challenge an order dated 20/11/2007 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune in an execution petition bearing No.E-22 of 2007, arising out of original Consumer Complaint No.35 of 2005 decided on 16/03/2007. Revision Petition No.156 of 2007 has been filed by original Opponent No.I “ M/s. Magar Girme and Gaikwad Associates (hereinafter referred to as the Builder/Developer for the sake of brevity), Revision Petition No.157 of 2007 is filed by Mrs. Neeta Pardhe and Brig. V. K. Pardhe, whereas Revision Petition No.158 of 2005 is filed by Mr. Gulabrao Muktaji Watare and Mr. Surendra Singh Wasu. Since all these revision petitions involve identical facts and common question of law, all these revision petitions are clubbed together and are disposed of by this common order. [2] Facts leading to these revision petitions can be summarized as under:- Respondent No.1/original Complainant “ Palm Groves...
Uttamrao Tulshiramji Madghe (Dead) Through L.Rs.: and Others Vs. Shraw ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-19-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dt.6.9.2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Achalpur in Regular Civil Appeal No.4 of 2002 preferred by the original defendant in the suit. The appeal was allowed. The appeal arose from the judgment and order dt.10.12.2001 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.103 of 1998 by the Joint Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Achalpur. The suit for declaration and injunction was decreed by the trial Court with costs. The trial Court had declared the suit way shown by alphabets 'ABCD' in the plaint map as easementary way of plaintiff to approach his field and ordered that the defendant had no right to obstruct the easementary way and directed the defendant to remove all the obstructions created by him in the suit way and restrained the defendant from causing obstruction in the user of the suit way by the plaintiff. It was also ordered that t...
Ashadeep Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. M/S. Paresh Associates ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-2014
1. The building of the suit property upon which the building of the plaintiff society has been constructed by defendant No.3 initially belonged to defendant No.1. Under a development agreement the plot of land of defendant No.1 came to be developed and the plaintiff's building came to be constructed. A small part of the development/construction remained. The parties had agreed to develop it later. Defendant No.1, the initial owner was to convey the entire property to the plaintiff society as per the statutory mandate. That has not been done and a litigation in that behalf is pending before the property authority. 2. Defendant No.1 has instead sought to convey the property to defendant No.2. The defendant No.2 seeks to construct upon the old remaining structures which were not demolished or constructed upon utilising the FSI of the entire plot of land including of that of the plaintiff society building upon the conveyance in its favour. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are essentially the same fi...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »