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.
Sanjay and Another Vs. Rahata Vividh Karyakari Society Ltd. Through It ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-07-2014
1) The appeal is filed against the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Suit No.118/1996 and Regular Civil Appeal No.128/2001. The Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kopargaon, District Ahmednagar, dismissed the suit filed by the present appellants for redemption of mortgage and this decision is confirmed by the first Appellate Court. Both the sides are heard. 2) The suit was filed in respect of three properties like House property Gram Panchayat House No.974, Gram Panchayat House No.275 and Gram Panchayat House No. 976. These properties were subsequently given municipal numbers when the Village Panchayat was converted into Nagar Palika and corresponding numbers are given in the plaint. 3) It is the case of the plaintiffs that father of the plaintiff No.1 namely Punamchand was owner of these properties and under a deed of mortgage dated 23-4-1970 he gave the property to defendant No.1, one cooperative society. It is contended that amount of Rs.25,000/- was taken by Punamchand from defendant...
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...
Deepak Natwarlal Parekh Vs. Tejas Natwarlal Parekh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-07-2014
1. This notice of motion is taken out by the defendant for dismissing the suit for want of pecuniary jurisdiction as also for returning the plaint to proper Court under Order 7 Rule 10 of the CPC. 2. It is argued on behalf of the defendant that the Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction and the pecuniary jurisdiction claimed by the plaintiff is erroneous. The suit premises is part of flat No.2 on the first floor of unit no.5 in Premium Unit Co-operative Housing Society Ltd at Four Bungalows, Link Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400 053. 3. The parties are stated to have joint use of flat Nos. 1 and 2 constituting the entire unit No.5 in the above society premises. The valuation by the plaintiff is for an area of 650 sq. ft of area of the said flat. The defendant has shown the ready-reckoner value of 2013 when the suit was filed which would show the valuation of the suit flat to be Rs.32.88 lakhs. The defendant claims that consequently this Courts pecuniary jurisdiction is barred and the suit...
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...
Gerald Shirley and Others Vs. Dipesh Mehta and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-07-2014
1. The plaintiffs, who are trust members have been suspended from their membership, which suspension they have challenged in the first suit. The plaintiffs, who are ordinary trustees of plaintiff No.1 trust in the second suit pursuant to they being trust members have, under an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) constituted by them under the provisions of the constitution of plaintiff No.1 trust in the second suit removed the defendants as members of the Managing Committee of the suit trust and suspended them as members of the trust and appointed the plaintiffs in the second suit as members of the managing committee which the plaintiffs in the second suit seek to enforce by an injunction against the defendants from trespassing on the property of the trust as managing committee members, holding themselves as members of the managing committee/trustees of the trust and preventing the plaintiffs from carrying out their duties and from acting as the managing committee of the first plaintiff...
Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hanamava Yamanappa Jedi ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: May-07-2014
1. By consent, heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. Mr. Afonso, learned Counsel, argued on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Kurtikar, learned Counsel, argued on behalf of respondents no. 1, 2 and 3. 3. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 07/09/2013 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Mapusa (Tribunal, for short) in Claim Petition No. 13 of 2012. 4. The appellant was the respondent no. 3-Insurance Company in the said claim petition; respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 were the claimants; and respondents no. 4 and 5 were the respondents no. 1 and 2. The parties shall hereinafter be referred as per their status in the said Claim Petition. 5. The claimants had filed the said petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M.V. Act, for short) claiming compensation of Rs. 36,00,000/-, on account of death of son of claimant no.1 and the brother of claimants no. 2 and 3 who died in the motor vehicular accident, whi...
SachIn Vs. Sau. Sushma
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: May-06-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned Counsel Shri Sudhir Moharir for the petitioner and learned Counsel Shri R.R. Vyas for the respondent. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The petitioner has moved this Court by invoking powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Magistrate in Misc. Criminal Application No.890/2012 (Sushma vs. Sachin). The order, which is questioned before this Court, reads as under:- œPerused the application and stay. Heard learned Advocate for both sides. Applicant relied on 2013 All M.R.(Cri.) 2572. Learned Advocate for N.A. has opposed that Magistrate has no powers. N.A. has not paid any amount towards interim maintenance. Learned Advocate has also confessed that N.A. has not paid any amount towards interim maintenance order which is passed on Exhibit 13....
Simao Cardozo and Others Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Other ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: May-06-2014
1. Heard Mr. Coutinho, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Ms. Mandrekar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1. 2. This appeal was admitted by order dated 25/06/2010 and hearing was expedited. 3. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 09/07/2009 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Motor Accident, Claims Tribunal, Margao ('Tribunal' for short) in Claim Petition No. 36/2007. The appellants were the claimants, whereas respondent no. 1-Insurance Company was also respondent no. 1 in the said Claim Petition. Parties shall, hereinafter, be referred to as per their status in the said Claim Petition. 4. The claimants had filed the said petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('M. V. Act', for short) for compensation of Rs. 12,00,000/- on account of death of Savio Nicholas Cardozo, son of claimants no. 1 and 2 and brother of claimant no. 3. Case of the claimants was as follows: On 06/10/2006, at 10.40 hours, ...
Rasheed Khan Vs. Mohd. Ayyub and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-06-2014
1) The appeal is filed against the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Appeal No.49 of 2011 which was pending in the Court of the District Judge-1, Nanded. Regular Civil Suit No.499 of 1994 was filed by respondent for possession against the present appellant and the suit was decided in favour of the present respondent. The First Appellate Court has confirmed this decision. The decree of possession is given and the present appellant is directed to pay damages for use of the premises. Both the sides are heard. 2) The plaintiff is owner of house Municipal No. 3-2-160 situated at Station Road Nanded. It is the case of the plaintiff that suit premises, the space admeasuring 23 x 14 ft which includes Chabutara of this property was given to defendant for its use as licensee. It is contended that the document was made in that regard and after expiry of the period of licence new documents of leave and licence were prepared. Plaintiff was getting Rs.1101/- per month for the use and the first ag...
Abdul Salam Abdul Khalique Vs. Shah Babu Education Society and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: May-06-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the matter finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. In Appeal No. 116/1996 filed under Section 9 of the M.E.P.S. Act, the School Tribunal has set aside the order of termination passed on 28.07.1996 on the basis of the enquiry conducted and has directed the management to conduct a fresh enquiry against the petitioner, from the stage of constitution of Enquiry Committee as per Rule 36(2) of the M.E.P.S. Rules. The School Tribunal has further directed the management to pay subsistence allowance to the petitioner, from the date of the judgment of the School Tribunal, till the completion of the enquiry. The question of reinstatement of the petitioner in service and payment of his backwages is left to be decided, upon the out come of the enquiry, by the management. The employee has preferred this writ petition, to the extent it permits the management to conduct fresh enquiry from the stage of the constitu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »