Mumbai Court June 2014 Judgments
Kalpataru Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Majithia Nagar Co-op. Hsg. Scty. Lt ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-2014
P.C.: 1. The Notice of Motion is taken out by the Plaintiff for appointment of Court Receiver and injunction restraining any assignment, transfer or grant of development rights by Defendant No.1 in respect of the suit property. 2. Defendant No.1, who is a Co-operative Society of flat owners, is the owner of the property bearing C.T.S. No.444/A at Kandivali (West), Mumbai 400 067 together with six old buildings having 15 wings containing in aggregate 284 residential flats, 12 shops and one commercial unit. Defendant No.1 also owns two adjoining plots together with Defendant No.2, being plots bearing CTS Nos.444/B and 444/C admeasuring respectively 2859.50 sq.mts. 1060.80 sq.mts. Defendant No.1 decided to redevelop the suit property and formulated a comprehensive scheme for utilization and sale of the Floor Space Index and Transferable Development Rights for redevelopment of the suit property. Defendant No.1 invited tenders from builders and developers for undertaking the redevelopment w...
Tag this Judgment!Melinati Ramesh The Manager, Stressed Accounts Vs. Sushil Muhnot Chair ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-2014
A.K. Menon, J. 1. The petition is taken up for admission. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. By the present petition, the petitioner questions the legality and validity of the impugned letter dated 28th March, 2013 whereby the Respondent-bank, viz. the Small Industries Development Bank of India informed the petitioner of his ineligibility for the promotional post of the Assistant General Manager, Grade C. 4. At all material times the Petitioner was working as a Manager with MSME Development Centre having joined the bank on 20.11.1990 as the Assistant Manager in Lucknow. From November 1996 to May 2002 he was the Assistant Manager, Grade A posted at Lucknow. From May 2002 to October 2006 he continued as the Assistant Manager, Grade A at Hyderabad. Thereafter, from October 2006 to June 2009 as a Manager, Grade B and rendered the services at Vishakhapatnam. Finally, from June 2009 he was transferred to Mumbai as the Manager, Grade B where he continues to be so employed. 5. It is c...
Tag this Judgment!Shailesh Kothawale Vs. State of Goa, through its Chief Secretary and O ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-30-2014
1. Heard Mr. Supekar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Dangui, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents no. 1 and 2 and Mr. Amonkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents no. 3, 4 and 5. 2. By this petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs: (a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the Respondents No. 1 and 2 to revoke/withdraw cancel the selection/appointment of the Respondents No. 3 to 5 to the posts of Excise Inspector; (b) This Hon'ble Court also be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the selection/appointment of the Respondents No. 3 to 5 for the posts of Excise Inspector. 3. Respondent no. 2 issued an advertisement dated 22/02/2007 inviting applications for the posts of Excise Inspector, whereby, inter alia, the educational qualification pres...
Tag this Judgment!Deepali Anand Shinde Vs. Anand Sudam Shinde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-2014
A.S. Chandurkar, J. 1. This appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been filed by the wife - original Respondent challenging the decree of divorce granted under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Pune in Petition No.716 of 2004. 2. The parties in the present proceedings were married on 12th April, 1998 as per Hindu vedic rites. On account of marital discord between the parties the husband - present Respondent had initially filed petition No.16 of 2003 for divorce on the ground of cruelty. Said proceedings were contested by the Appellant by filing reply as well as by moving an application for grant of interim maintenance under Section 24 of the said Act. However, subsequently on 13th February, 2004 the said proceedings were withdrawn by the present Respondent with liberty to file separate proceedings. Thereafter, Petition No.716 of 2004 was filed by the husband seeking a de...
Tag this Judgment!Shyam Janardan Chaoudary Vs. Asha Ramdas Katkar and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-30-2014
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. The writ petitioner is aggrieved by rejection of the application for appointment of Court Commissioner by the trial Court by passing order below Exh.31. It appears that the plaintiff in the trial Court had sued the defendants on the ground that the defendants are liable to vacate the portion encroached upon by them in respect of the house property occupied by the plaintiff. It is further case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff had described the suit property by its boundaries along with measurements and also referred to registered sale deed dt.11.7.2000 in respect of the house property purchased by him. Boundaries of the house property were also mentioned and the map drawn to the scale was also produced by the plaintiff in the pending suit. It is under these circumstances that the plaintiff wanted the defendant to vacate his allegedly encroached portion marked as v c d M adme...
Tag this Judgment!Shetkari Sahakari Ginning and Pressing Society Limited, Vs. Municipal ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-27-2014
Oral Judgment 1. Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of parties. 2. Petitioner (original plaintiff) filed Regular Civil Suit No. 155 of 2011 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati for declaration and permanent injunction. Petitioner prayed relief of declaration that advertisement dated 22.8.2010 published by the Corporation that it has taken over possession of suit plots (without actually taking over possession) is arbitrary and illegal. In the alternative, a declaratory relief is sought that if there is presumptive possession with respondent Corporation, the same may be declared illegal and it be restored to the petitioner. Permanent injunction is sought restraining respondent (defendant) Corporation from dealing with suit plots in colourable exercise of power vested in it by law. 3. RespondentCorporation filed application (exhibit 17) under Order 7, rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for direction to the petitioner pay deficit court fee and in the alternative, for rejecti...
Tag this Judgment!Gaurav Gupta Vs. Radhika Gupta
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-27-2014
1. Heard Mr. Rao, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mrs. Agni, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the interim orders dated 04/10/2012 and 05/10/2012, passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Civil Judge Senior Division, Mapusa (Trial Court), in Matrimonial Petition No.20/2009. 3. The petitioner and the respondent are Hindus by religion. They got married to each other on 17/04/1998 according to Hindu Customary Right, in Agra, Uttar Pradesh and the marriage was thereafter registered before the Sub- Registrar at Mapusa on 29/06/1998 under Registration No.664/98. They have two minor daughters from the wedlock, namely Khushi born on 14/02/2001 and Saachi born on 27/03/2004. The petitioner, on or about 24/03/2009, has filed a suit for dissolution of marriage against the petitioner, being Matrimonial Case No.20/2009, under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (the Act, for short), which is pending. Initially...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Ram Mills Limited Vs. Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-2014
1. The Petitioner challenges the order passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai allowing the complaint filed by the Respondent directing the Petitioner to enter the names of the concerned workmen on the muster roll and provide them benefit of permanency. 2. The Petition concerns 27 members of the Respondent-Union, who were working as clerks in the mill run by the Petitioner. These clerks were on the permanent establishment of the Petitioner. On 31 December 1993, these clerks took voluntary retirement and received compensation, gratuity and other legal dues in full. On 1 January 1994, the 27 clerks were re-employed and continued in service. Barring these 27 clerks, most of the other workmen took voluntary retirement and they were paid their wages. A Complaint (ULP) No.693 of 1996 was filed in the Industrial Court, Mumbai on behalf of these 27 clerks. They alleged that they were regularly working from 1 January 1994. From 6 June 1995, their salaries were revised and the Petitioner started ...
Tag this Judgment!Lokesh son of Ramraoji Navghare Vs. Janardhan son of Haribhau Bhisikar ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-27-2014
Oral Judgment 1. Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of parties. 2. Petitioners (original plaintiffs) filed Special Suit No. 325 of 2013 for declaration, cancellation of sale deed and restoration of possession and permanent injunction before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur. 3. Respondents/defendants filed application (exhibit 14) for rejection of plaint under Order VII rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that even though plaintiffs have, interalia, sought for relief of restoration of possession the suit property value of which is Rs. 34 lacs, still he has paid court fee only on Rs. 7 lacs. Petitioners/plaintiffs opposed the said application. 4. Learned trial Judge instead of deciding the question as to whether petitioners/plaintiffs have valued the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction of court and for payment of court fees, directed plaintiffs to delete prayer clauses I and IV contained in the plaint. This order is under challenge in this writ petition. 5. Heard...
Tag this Judgment!M. Visvesvaraya Industrial Research and Development Centre Vs. Dilip M ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-2014
1. The question that falls for consideration is: whether the Respondent who was working as a General Manager (Research) could be considered as a workman under the provisions of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and an employee under Section 3(5) of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act. The Industrial Court, Mumbai, in the complaint filed by the Respondent, on a preliminary issue, held that the Respondent is a workman. This finding has been challenged in the present petition by the petitioner. 2. The Respondent is a nonprofit company under Section 25 of the Companies Act. It is primarily a Scientific Research Organization, and publishes research journals. The object of the petitioner is to undertake and promote scientific research in the field of development of Indian trade and industry. The petitioner has set up World Trade Centre at Mumbai, for which Government of Maharashtra gave a plot of land on concessional terms. The petitioner is managed by a Council of Management. Four...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »