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.
M/S. Muktar Minerals Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. South Goa Planning and ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-17-2014
1. Heard Mr. C. Pereira, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. M. Pereira, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1 and Mr. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable and heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the show cause notice bearing no. SGPDA/P/5112/2145/12-13, dated 25/01/2013 issued by respondent no. 1 to the petitioners as to why the Development Permission granted to the petitioners vide order No. SGPDA/P/5112/1411/10-11 dated 29/10/2010 should not be revoked and the order dated 26/06/2013 passed by respondent no. 1 thereby revoking the said Development Permission. 4. Case of the petitioners, in short, is as follows: Petitioner no. 1 is a company registered under the Companies Act and petitioner no. 2 is its Shareholder and Director. The petitioner no. 1 is the owner of the property bearing Chalta No. 71 of P.T. Sheet No. 238 of City Sur...
The Young Revolution Panther, Through Its Secretary, Sachidanand Fulek ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule made returnable forthwith. Head the matter finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. This petition challenges the judgment and order dated 30.06.2012 passed by the School Tribunal, allowing Appeal STN No. 73/2000, filed by the Respondent No.2 “ Employee Ku. Sheela Dhanuji Meshram, under Section 9 of the M.E.P.S. Act, challenging her termination from service with effect from 01.07.2000. The School Tribunal has recorded the finding that the Management has failed to establish that the post was reserved for scheduled tribe candidate and therefore, the Education Officer refused to grant approval, which has resulted in termination of the service of respondent no.2. The facts of the case in detail are as under; 3. The initial appointment of the respondent no.2 was on temporary basis as an Assistant Teacher for one academic session from 01.07.1998 to 30.04.1999. This was approved by the Education Officer by his order dated 30.04.1999....
Akshyakumar Harinarayan Chaurasiya Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through I ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-2014
Oral Judgment: (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned counsel for Respondent-State waives service. Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 2. The present Petition is filed by the Petitioner, as his caste i.e. œTamboli? certificate is invalidated by the impugned order. 3. After going through the impugned order, we are inclined to dispose of the present Writ Petition with a direction to Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee to consider every aspect in detail and pass fresh order specifically for the reason that Petitioner's sister got the caste certificate œTamboli? by order dated 18.04.2013 passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, but the Petitioner's caste certificate is invalidated though he is claiming the certificate of same nature. 4. Government Circular dated 29 January 1983 which deals with the caste of œTamboli? has been totally overlooked. The Government Circular dated 29.01.1983 reflects as under: œThe list of Other Backward Classes i...
Star India Private Ltd. Vs. A.K. and I Advertising Pvt. Ltd. and Other ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-2014
1. The plaintiff has sued for declaration that two gift deeds dated 10th December, 2007 and 26th October, 2009 executed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.5 and one gift deed dated 4th November, 2009 executed by defendant No.4 in favour of defendant No.3 and the business transfer agreement between defendant Nos.2 and 4 are bad in law and not binding upon plaintiff. The plaintiff has also sued for recovery of Rs.1,13,73,836.40 upon invoice dated 30th June, 2008 consisting of the amount under the invoice together with interest agreed at the rate of 1.5 % p.a. on the amount of the invoice. 2. The plaintiff and defendant No.1 entered into an agreement stated to be dated 20th June, 2008 Exh.A to the plaint. The agreement specified options upon the terms and conditions mentioned therein. The plaintiff was to telecast certain advertisements at certain times for defendant No.1. The total outlay for the same is shown to be Rs.81,96,720/- under the terms and conditions stipulated as an ...
Rashid Salvador Sousa Vs. the State of Goa, Through Chief Secretary an ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-17-2014
MohitS. Shah, CJ. 1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution filed in April 2013, the Petitioner has challenged : (a) the orders dated 30 November 1988, 8 September 1993, 20 May 1996 and 11 September 1996, and other orders passed by Mamlatdar of Mormugao Taluka in South Goa District in the years from 1992 to 1996, declaring Respondent no.3 Victor Luis Monteiro as tenant of the properties in question in Goa described in para 2 of the writ petition ('the properties'). All these orders were passed by the Mamlatdar under the provisions of Chapter-IIA of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 (Goa, Daman and Diu Act 7 of 1964) ('Tenancy Act' for the sake of brevity) read with the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy (Special Rights and Privileges of Tenants) Rules, 1967 ('Special Rules' for the sake of brevity) declaring Respondent no.3 as tenant of the properties; (b) œthe consequential impugned orders? permitting Respondent no.3 to sell some...
Madhusudan Radheshyam Jopat Vs. Laxmanrao Vithobaji Samarit
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-17-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties. 2. This Second Appeal is filed challenging validity and legality of the Judgment and Order dt.6.3.2013 passed by the learned District Judge-9, Nagpur in Regular Civil Appeal No.486 of 2009, by which the first Appellate Judge held that the plaintiff has not paid the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the defendant as a hand loan and hence, set aside the decree passed by the trial Court. The appeal arose from the Judgment and Order dt.19.8.2009 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.1 of 2002 by Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Kamptee, who had decreed the money suit finding that the plaintiff had issued a hand loan in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the defendant for a period of two years by executing promissory note dt.26.11.1999 and the defendant failed to repay the loan amount as promised by him. The amount was to be repaid by 25.12.2001, but remained unpaid. Thus, the decree was passed directing...
The Young Revolution Panther, Through Its Secretary, Sachidanand Fulek ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-17-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule made returnable forthwith. Head the matter finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. This petition challenges the judgment and order dated 30.06.2012 passed by the School Tribunal, allowing Appeal STN No. 73/2000, filed by the Respondent No.2 “ Employee Ku. Sheela Dhanuji Meshram, under Section 9 of the M.E.P.S. Act, challenging her termination from service with effect from 01.07.2000. The School Tribunal has recorded the finding that the Management has failed to establish that the post was reserved for scheduled tribe candidate and therefore, the Education Officer refused to grant approval, which has resulted in termination of the service of respondent no.2. The facts of the case in detail are as under; 3. The initial appointment of the respondent no.2 was on temporary basis as an Assistant Teacher for one academic session from 01.07.1998 to 30.04.1999. This was approved by the Education Officer by his order dated 30.04.1999....
Gopal Madhukar Bombatkar Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-17-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. The appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) (old) of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. 2. The appellant was accused of sexual abuse of a nine years old girl namely Ku. Komal Mesre, the daughter of the complainant Smt. Shobha Mesre. The complainant Shobha Mesre, aged about 35 years, was staying at Ward No.5, near Rahul Tower, Nandura within the jurisdiction of Nandura Police Station. Her husband and children were also staying with her. She has a son by name Nilesh, aged about 18 years and two daughters namely Pallavi, aged about 13 years and Ms. Komal, aged about 9 years (victim). The appellant was their neighbour. The incident in question had occurred on 04-12-2009 at about 8.30 p.m. The complainant was at home. Her elder daughter Pallavi had gone to shop and victim Ku. Komal was pl...
Balasaheb Ambadas Dhockchawale Vs. Indian Seamless Metal Tubes Ltd.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-17-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective sides at length. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and the matter is taken up for final hearing with the consent of the parties. 2. The respondent is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, and is a factory under the Factories Act, 1948. The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 is applicable to the respondent-company. 3. The petitioner had joined the services of the respondent in the year 1987. It is contended that his past service record till the year 2000, was totally unblemished and blot less. He was confirmed in employment on 12-03-1992. 4. He had met with an accident arising out of and in the course of employment in the first shift on 23-09-1987, while working on a nozzle machine. The respondent-Company was then known by name Balaji Tubes. His left hand got trapped in a machine and he suffered fractures at five to six places. He was admitted at Akshay Hospital by the respondent, operated upon...
Georim Oil Corporation and Others Vs. M.V. Flag Mersinidi and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-2014
1. This is an application taken out by defendant no. 3 who is the owner of the first defendant vessel-m.v. Flag Mersinidi (the said vessel) to set aside/vacate the order of arrest of the said vessel which was passed on 18.09.2012 and consequently for return of the bank guarantee furnished as security towards the plaintiff's claim. 2. The plaintiff's claim is for money due under a contract for the supply of bunkers to the said vessel at Tianjin, China. It is the case of the plaintiff that they had supplied a quantity of 448.800 mt of marine fuel-(MF)-380 to the said vessel. The plaintiff's claim is for US$ 3,08,774/- being the costs of the bunker supplied plus US$ 20,000/- being costs towards present proceeding in India. The plaintiff obtained the order of arrest relying upon Article 3 of the International Convention on Arrest of Ships, 1999 (1999 Convention) which provides as under:- Article 3 : Exercise of right of arrest: (1) œArrest is permissible of any ship in respect of whi...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »