Mumbai Court May 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.
Khairunnissa Rasool Golandaj Vs. State of Maharashtra (Through the Sec ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-07-2014
G.S. Kulkarni, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner who is a widow of Late Rasool Gulam Mohammed Golandaj who was an employee of the Employees State Insurance Scheme of the Government of Maharashtra (for short the 'deceased employee') challenges the judgment and order dated 1.4.2005 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application no.306 of 2003. By the impugned judgment, the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (for short 'Administrative Tribunal') has directed the respondents to determine the proportion of the pay and allowances to be paid to the deceased employee for a period from 27.10.1965 to 21.12.1967 (of about 2 years and 2 months) in accordance with Rule 72(5) of Maharashtra Civil Services (Joining Time, Foreign Service and Payment during suspension, Dismissal and Removal) Rules, 1981. In pursuance of an ad-interim order passed by this Court the second responded has taken a decision as per directions of the A...
Mahesh Prabhakar Kamat Vs. the Kadamba Transport Corporation Limited a ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: May-07-2014
Z.A. Haq, J. 1. The petitioner challenges his compulsory retirement on the ground that it is punitive in nature and not in public interest and therefore, the decision of compulsory retirement could not have been taken without conducting an inquiry as contemplated by the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The petitioner has further raised the ground that the Resolution no. 71 of 2007 passed by the Board of Directors on the basis of which the petitioner is retired compulsorily does not record satisfaction of the Board of Directors to the effect that the petitioner has ceased to possess the level of competency and efficiency and therefore, the decision of retiring the petitioner compulsorily is unsustainable in law. 2. The case of the petitioner is: The petitioner was appointed as Accountant in the Respondent no.1/Corporation on 13/12/1982. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Financial Controller in 1985 promoted as Deputy Financial Controller i...
Modern India Ltd. Vs. Belvedere Court Condominium and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-07-2014
1. The plaintiff has challenged the resolution passed by defendant No.1 in the Special General Meeting held on 23.09.2012 and 23.03.2013 and sought an injunction against the defendants from acting upon those resolutions. The plaintiff also seeks restraint upon levy of charges, fees, contributions and non occupancy charges sought from the plaintiff. The Notice of Motion is for the relief of injunction against similar acts. The defendants have essentially opposed the grant of injunction from acting upon the resolution which came to be passed in the meeting held on 23.03.2013. The plaintiff's legal right in respect of the reliefs claimed would have to be considered. 2. The plaintiff developed the suit property and put up construction of a building consisting of Ground + 39 upper floors comprising 78 apartment. The plaintiff has sold 71 apartments under individual deeds of apartments and retained 7 apartments which the plaintiff desires to sell. The plaintiff formed a condominium under Mah...
Sheikhah Fadiah Saad Al-abdullah Al-sabah Vs. Sanjay Mishrimal Punamiy ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-07-2014
Oral Order: 1. The plaintiff has given notice of this application to be moved before this Court for ad interim relief today. The notice has been served on 2nd May, 2014. 2. Soon after the notice was received by defendant No.1, an application/complaint came to be made by defendant No.1 against this Court to the Hon'ble President of India, Hon'ble Chief Justice of India, Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court and Director, CBI, ACB, Mumbai. The complaint shows the address of defendant No.1 to be Flat No.21, 5th Floor, Al-Sabah Court, Building No.73, N. S. Marg, Marine Drive, Mumbai “ 400 020. The complaint is dated 5th May, 2014 and is sent to the Hon'ble President of India and Hon'ble Chief Justice of India by speed post on 5th may, 2014 itself. It has been personally submitted to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court as also the Director of CBI on 5th May, 2014 itself. 3. The advocates for defendant No.1 sought discharge. 4. When this application was sought to be made by Mr. Dwark...
The Zuari Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Goa Through the Chief Secretary ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: May-07-2014
Z.A. Haq, J. 1. In this case, undisputedly two employees' unions had been recognized by the petitioner-Industry since 1973 till the present dispute arose. The two unions are : (i) Zuari Agro Chemicals Employees' Union, (hereinafter referred to as œthe Employees' Union?), representing the majority of the workers; and (ii) Zuari Agro Chemicals Workers' Union (hereinafter referred to as œthe Workers' Union?), (which was deregistered at the time of filing of this writ petition.). 2. The Petitioner-Industry had been negotiating and entering into settlements from time to time with both the above mentioned Unions since 1973 till the present dispute had started. 3. On 25th April, 1994, the petitioner-Industry entered into a settlement in conciliation as provided under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with the Employees' Union. On 22nd June, 1994, the petitioner-Industry entered into a settlement with the Workers' Union. The settlement dated 22nd June, 1994 was cha...
The Canossa Society, Canossa Convent and Another Vs. the Commissioner, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-07-2014
G.S. Kulkarni, J. 1. Admit. By consent of the parties petition is taken up for final hearing. 1. By this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges an order dated 17.6.2011 passed by the respondent no.1-The Commissioner, Apang Kalyan Ayuktalaya, Maharashtra State, Pune. By the impugned order the petitioner has been directed to absorb respondent no.4 on the post of Caretaker, who is an employee rendered surplus on account of the closure of a handicapped school at Gadipura, Taluka and District Nanded. The factual matrix lies in a narrow compass: 2. The petitioner no.1 is a trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 and is conducting petitioner no.2 school, catering exclusively to impart education to mentally challenged students. The respondent no.1-the Commissioner for Social Welfare, Government of Maharashtra is an authority which exercises control on such schools. 3. The petitioner no.1 trust was established on 1.2.1955 b...
insiyah Aliasgar Shakir and Others Vs. the Village Panchayat of Cana-b ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: May-07-2014
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Shri B. Zaiwalla, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Shri M. P. Almeida, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 and Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondent No.2. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 3. The above petition, inter alia, seeks to quash and set aside the order dated 22nd December, 2012, passed by respondent No.1 as well as the notice dated 25th May, 2012 issued by respondent No.2. The other relief sought by the petitioners is to direct the respondent Panchayat to renew the licence dated 14th March, 2008 in view of the application filed by the petitioners dated 8th February, 2011. 4. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioners obtained a licence for putting up a construction in the property surveyed under No.378/1 of Benaulim Village, in a portion of land admeasuring 2,677 sq. metres. It appears that another portion of the property admeas...
PerIn Hoshang Davierwalla and Another Vs. Kobad Dorabji Davierwalla an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-07-2014
1. The appeal is from an order passed by the learned District Judge, Satara, on an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act). By the impugned order, the learned trial Judge rejected the Appellants' application for appointment of Court Receiver of the business and assets of the partnership firm of the Appellants and Respondents. 2. The Appellants and Respondents were partners in a partnership firm. The firm carried on business of running of a boarding and lodging house known as IL Palazzo Hotel. The partnership was initially formed by three brothers “ Hoshang, Bomi and Dorabji “ in the year 1958. Appellant No.1 is the widow of Hoshang, whilst Appellant No. 2 is the widow of Bomi. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are sons of Dorabji. By a Deed of Partnership dated 6 March 1992, the partnership firm œlL Palazzo Hotel? was reconstituted. The Appellants had 33.1/3% share each in the net profits and / or losses of the firm, whilst Respondent N...
Tejas Natwarlal Parekh Vs. Deepak Natwarlal Parekh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-07-2014
1. The defendant is the elder brother of the plaintiff. The plaintiff and the defendant have purchased one flat each in a unit which is like a rowhouse being Unit No.5 of Premium Unit Co-operative Housing Society Ltd at Four Bungalows, Link Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400 053. The plaintiff is the owner of flat No.2 on the first floor of Unit No.5. The defendant is the owner of flat No.1 on the ground floor of Unit No.5. 2. Despite the separate and independent purchase, the parties have been residing and using the entire unit No.5 as a row-house together with their family members since 1990 when it was purchased. The parties have had disputes since the last few years. The parties are not able to reside together and use the entire unit No.5 jointly as before. Consequently this suit is filed restraining the defendant from using a part of flat No.2 on the first floor of unit No.5 by removing the belongings, materials and articles of the defendant and his family members therein from there...
Dr. Bharati Sen Vs. SNDT women's University Through the Registrar and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-07-2014
G.S. Kulkarni, J. 1. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned Counsel for parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenges the order dated 11.12.2008 passed by the Director of Education, Maharashtra State, Pune to the extent it confers on the Petitioner date of promotion as Professor as 3.9.2005 and not 17.8.2004 as per the career advancement scheme purportedly applicable. The petitioner has further prayed for writ of mandamus against the respondents for fixing the petitioner's pay scale as a Professor from 17.8.2004 and for releasing arrears from the said date with 18% interest. By a prayer added on amendment to the writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 17.8.2011 passed by the Joint Director, Higher Education Department, Mumbai Division, by which it has been held that the petitioner was not eligible for two advance increments availed by the petitioner after getti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »