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.
Nasibkha and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-05-2014
V.M. Deshpande, J. 1. These three appeals arise out of the judgment and order of conviction and consequent sentence, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Jalna, dated 6.3.2012, in Sessions Case No. 56 of 2011. Since these three appeals arise out of one Sessions Case No. 56 of 2011, we propose to dispose of these three appeals by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their original status before the learned trial court. 2. Criminal Appeal No. 225 of 2012 is filed by accused no.1 Nasibkha and accused no.2 Asifkha, since they are aggrieved by finding of guilt recorded against them by the learned trial court that they are responsible for committing an offence punishable under Section 304 Part II r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the direction to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. Criminal Appeal No. 241 of 2012 is filed ...
Nagpur Shikshan Mandal, Through Its Secretary and Another Vs. Varsha V ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: May-05-2014
1. Rule. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. The challenge in this petition is to the judgment and order dated 21-10-2013 passed by the School Tribunal, Nagpur, allowing Appeal No.STN/05/2013 filed by the respondent No.1 under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (œMEPS Act?) challenging her termination from service by an order dated 31-10-2012. The School Tribunal has set aside the order of termination, and the petitioners are directed to reinstate the respondent No.1 in service as Part Time Teacher with continuity. The relief of full back wages has been denied. 3. The controversy before the School Tribunal was whether the respondent No.1, who was appointed as a Part Time Teacher on 22-9-2003, to teach the Junior College classes, acquired the status of a permanent employee, and, therefore, she was entitled to a protection in service, as contemplated under Rule 26 of the M...
Maharashtra State Board of Wakf, Through Its District Wakf Officer Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-03-2014
1) Admit. 2) Notice after admission made returnable forthwith by consent. Both sides are heard for final disposal. 3) The proceeding is filed under section 83 (9) of the Wakf Act, 1995 to challenge the order made by the Wakf Tribunal Aurangabad on Exhibit 5 of Wakf Suit No. 15/2013. The Tribunal has refused the relief of temporary injunction claimed by the applicant-plaintiff. 4) The plaintiff, Wakf Board, has filed suit for relief of possession, permanent injunction etc. against the respondent. It is in respect of property bearing Survey No. 103 admeasuring 28 acres 9 gunthas and situated at Osmanabad. It is the case of the Wakf Board that the suit property is public wakf property, it is dedicated permanently to render services to Jama Masjid of Osmanabad. It is contended that, the property is registered as wakf property under the provisions of Wakf Act, 1954 and notification in that regard was published in official gazette dated 27-3-1980. 5) It is the case of the plaintiff that the ...
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Another Vs. Syed Sahe ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-03-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri D.S. Bagul on behalf of the petitioners. I have heard Shri R.B. Muley and also Shri Ashok Patil, learned Advocates and also Shri R.B. Mule, Advocate on behalf of the respondent in this matter. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and heard finally with the consent of the parties. 3. The respondent-workman is an employee of the petitioner Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (here in after referred to as œMSRTC?). He was appointed as driver. He was charge sheeted on 06-09-2002 primarily for misbehaving with a lady passenger during the night journey. After receiving his reply, the petitioner proceeded to conduct a domestic enquiry against him, as per their Discipline and Appeal Procedure Rules (here in after referred to as œ D and A Rules?). 4. After the conclusion of the enquiry, the charges levelled upon the petitioner were held to be proved. He was subjected to the punishment of permanent stoppage of three (3) increments. He preferr...
Medhana Digamber Harmalkar Vs. Mamata Mahadev Gadekar and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: May-02-2014
1. The Appeal arises out of the Judgment and Decree passed by the District Judge-II at Panaji, in Civil Suit no. 305/2004, on 26.12.07, by which the suit filed by the Respondent is partly decreed directing the original defendant no. 2-Sarpanch,Village Panchayat of Guirim to initiate an action against the illegal construction carried out by the Appellant, according to law. The learned Trial Judge has further directed the original defendant no. 3-Senior Town Planner to revoke the approved revised plan of the Appellant and the licence/permission granted in favour of the Appellant is declared as null and void. 2. The case of the Respondent no. 1-Plaintiff is that she is the neighbor of the Appellant-original defendant no. 1, that the Appellant-defendant no. 1 has illegally constructed a house because of which the Respondent no. 1-original Plaintiff is directly affected. According to the Plaintiff, show cause notice dated 27.03.2001 was issued to the defendant no. 1 after a report was prepa...
Sahebrao and Others Vs. Sarjerao
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-02-2014
1. Admit. Notice after admission is made returnable forthwith. By consent of both the sides, heard for final disposal. 2. The appeal is filed against judgment and decree of R.C.A. No. 108/2008, which was pending in the Court of Principal District Judge, Beed. The appeal was filed against judgment and decree of R.C.S. No. 222/2003, which was pending in the Court of Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Beed. The suit was filed for relief of perpetual injunction by present respondent and also for declaration. By making amendment, the relief of removal of encroachment was also claimed. The Trial Court held that the present appellants had made encroachment over land Gat No. 156 and 159 and encroachment is to the extent of 2 R. portion over each of these lands and it is made by the present appellants. Decree is given for the removal of this encroachment. The First Appellant Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the present appellants. Both the sides are heard. 3. It is the case of responden...
Madhavi G. Amonkar Vs. Cristeu Dias and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: May-02-2014
1. The appeal arises out of the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for the Taluka of Salcete at Margao in Claim Petition on 12.06.2008, by which this claim petition filed by the appellant is rejected with costs, mainly on the ground that the appellant has failed to prove the involvement of the respondent no. 1 and his vehicle in the accident. 2. The case of the claimant, aged about 40 years at the time of the accident, is that while walking on the katcha road facing Betalbatim, the respondent no. 1 gave a dash while riding his motorcycle rashly and negligently because of which she sustained injuries. 3. The case of the respondent no. 1 is that the accident has not occurred because of the dash given by him as alleged by the appellant. According to the respondent no. 1, some other vehicle had given a dash because of which she fell unconscious on the road and he had taken the appellant to the hospital. According to the respondent no. 1, when he went to the hospital, he had...
M/S. Dom Francisco Flat Owners Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. Vs. M/S. Al ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: May-02-2014
1. The only point which arises in this appeal for consideration is:- Whether the plaint can be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, on the ground that the plaintiff has no cause of action. 2. Heard Shri A. D. Bhobe, learned Advocate for the appellants, Shri. Shivan Dessai, learned Advocate for the respondents No.1,2,4 and 5, and Shri. S. Vahidulla, learned Government Advocate for the respondents No.6 to 8 and examined the record with the assistance of the learned Advocates. 3. The appellant had filed the suit praying for a decree for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction against the respondents No.1 to 5. The respondents No.1 to 4 had filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for rejection of the plaint on the following grounds : (i) There is no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff in the absence of any privity of contract spelt or brought out in the plaint. (ii) That the original defendants No.6 ...
Norman Edward D'souza Vs. Dr. Luiza Maria Ruth Blinda Fernandes and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: May-02-2014
1. Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the President, Administrative Tribunal, Goa on 10/02/2014, the petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he had filed an application before the Deputy Collector on 02/02/1998 for carrying out resurvey under the provisions of Goa, Daman and Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968 in respect of the land bearing old cadastral survey no. 13 which was in his possession. The reason being that, at the time of cadastral survey, demarcation of the land was not done properly and there was no proper calculation of the area and the old cadastral survey no. 13 was incorrectly split out into three new survey nos. 65/3, 62/2(part) and 67/01(part). 3. This application was filed by the petitioner against seven parties, who are respondent nos. 2 to 8, to the present petition. The interested party who is now respondent no.1, was joined as respondent no.8 to the said application after her application to join as necessary...
Prem Bhagwandas Harjani Vs. Naraindas Vensimal Harjani and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-02-2014
1. This Notice of Motion has been taken out for the appointment of Court Receiver and the usual injunctions as also for directing the defendants to deposit the amounts collected and received by them in respect of the suit property with interest @ 18% p.a. thereon in a suit for declaration challenging the sale and transfer of the suit property by defendant No.1 to defendant Nos.2 and 3 as invalid and for the consequential relief of injunction in respect of its alienation, further sale and creation of third party rights. 2. The suit property is the subject matter of a Testamentary Petition being the estate of one Vensimal Kalachand Harjani under whose will defendant No.1 purported to sell the suit property. The petition for probate is stated to have been filed by defendant No.1, 42 years after his death. The plaintiff sought the relief of injunction against further alienation in the testamentary suit. The relief came to be refused under the order dated 05.01.2011 of this Court in its T a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »