Mumbai Court August 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.
S. Mangala Vs. Airports Authority of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-2014
A.K. Menon, J. 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. 2. By the present petition, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to implement forthwith the paragraphs (b) and (c) of the Office Memorandum dated 11th September, 2008 (DoPT OM) issued by the Department of Personnel and Training of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India (DoPT) with retrospective effect from 1st September, 2008 and also the subsequent DoPT OM's issued regarding clarifications / amendments and also for direction to quash and set aside the office memorandum dated 15th July, 2014 and the subsequent intra office memo dated 15th March, 2011 whereby the petitioner is directed to submit her reply / explanation as to why she proceeded on leave without prior sanction. 3. The facts leading to the present petition are as follows: The petitioner is employed as the Deputy General Manager (Aviation Safety), Western Region of respondent No.1, the Airports Authority of...
Abdul Gani Ismail Turk Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-25-2014
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Deshpande, J.) 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. By present writ petition, the petitioner is questioning correctness of order passed by D.I.G. (Prisons) dated 06.01.2013, together with the order dated 13.03.2014 by appellate authority, by which his application for furlough leave was rejected. According to the order dated 06.01.2013, in view of the adverse police report, received on 27.12.2013 together with the fact that the petitioner was convicted under the Mumbai Serial Bomb Blast case of 1993, he is not entitled to claim the same. Needless to mention, the said order was carried in appeal and the appellate authority vide order dated 13.03.2014 was pleased to reject the said appeal by citing the reason that Sub Rule (13) of Rule 4 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 disentitles the present petitioner to claim the relief of furlough. 3. Rule 4 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and P...
Ramanbhai Mathurbhai Patel Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-2014
P.C. 1. Admitted. 2. Heard finally. 3. The petitioner is facing trial for the offence punishable u/s. 138 of N.I.Act vide Summary Criminal Case No. 3684 of 2013 in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 59th Court at Kurla. The complaint was originally filed in 61th Court at Kurla and now it has been transferred to 59th Court at Kurla by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate issuing process against the petitioner to answer the charge for the offence punishable u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. He wants that the complaint be returned to the respondent No. 2 (original complainant) for being presented before the Court having territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the case. 4. The two cheques in question were admittedly issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent No.2. The first cheque of Rs.9,90,000/- was drawn on State Bank of India, Gandhinagar Branch, Ahmedabad, Gujarat. The other ch...
Mohammed Tanweer Ahmad Vs. Dominic Francis Pereira and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-2014
Oral Order: (S.J. Vazifdar, J.) 1. This is an appeal against the order of a learned Single Judge dated 20th March, 2013 rejecting the appellant's application to be impleaded as a plaintiff in the above suit on the ground that the suit was a personal action by the original plaintiff which had come to an end upon his death and that accordingly, the suit had abated. 2. One Augustin Pereira died on 29th December, 1942 leaving behind two sons Dominic and Joseph. Dominic had one son Thierry, who died on 2nd September, 1992. Joseph had three sons; Reynold, Horace and Dugal, who are respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5. Augustin Pereira died, leaving behind a will dated 27th March, 1939. According to respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5, under Augustin Pereira's will, Dominic and Joseph had a life interest in the estate of Augustin Pereira. Further, according to them, under the will, upon the death of Dominic and Joseph, their respective branches were entitled to a moiety in the estate. Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5...
Patel Suleman Gaibi Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-2014
1. Rule With consent, Rule is being disposed of finally. 2. By an advertisement dated 24 September 2011, the Irrigation Department, State of Maharashtra (respondents) invited applications for the posts of peons. Certain posts were reserved for persons with disabilities, including those afflicted with 'low vision'. Clause 4.4 of the advertisement stated that the percentage of disability has to be minimum 40% in order that an applicant be considered against the reserved post. Obviously, the circumstance that said advertisements came to be issued, establishes that the post of peon was identified as post suitable to be offered to applicants with disabilities. Such identification relates to the provisions of Section 32 of 'The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act 1995' hereafter referred to as 'said Act'. 3. The petitioner, armed with certificate issued by prescribed authorities, certifying that the percentage of his visual disabil...
Ratnadeep Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-25-2014
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. The applicant/appellant is prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P. Code and convicted by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nilanga in Sessions Case No.16 of 2011 vide judgment and order dated 9th July, 2013. The applicant/appellant filed Criminal Appeal No.290 of 2013. By order dated 21st August, 2013, the said appeal is admitted. 2. It is the case of the applicant that the applicant had filed Criminal Application No.4750 of 2013 under Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short Act of 2000). This Court, after hearing both the parties, passed order dated 15th January, 2014 directing the Juvenile Justice Board, Latur, to initiate inquiry in respect of the age of the applicant within the four corners of the relevant Act and the Rules and conclude the same, as expeditiously as possible, as stated in Rule 12 of the said Rules. Pursuant to the order dated 15th January, 2014, the applicant submitted the ...
Vardhaman Stanakvasi Jain Shravak SanghDadar By the Trustees and Other ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-2014
Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. The Petitioner Applicant has taken out this Chamber Summons to amend, based upon the facts and documents which are the part of pleading of pending Writ Petition, as well as, the Applicant's pending Bombay City Civil Court Suit No.1405/2010 including to add following contesting prayers a(i) and a(iii), supported by the averments.: a(ii) By a suitable writ or direction, directing the Bombay Municipal Corporation to handover possession of the disputed land to the Petitioner forthwith. a(iii) It be declared that the disputed land is not validly designated for school under Bombay Town Planning Scheme of IV of Mahim. 2. All the Respondents have opposed the chamber summons/amendment on all counts and specially prayer clauses a(ii) and a(iii) and related averments. The common basic submissions are made by the Respondents that the present amendment is contrary and inconsistent to the existing prayers of the Writ Petition, apart from delay and laches; the whole purpose is ...
Nilesh Shantilal Tank and Another Vs. Jairaj Devidas and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. By this application filed under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the applicants seek appointment of arbitrator. 2. Mr. Madon, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents raises a preliminary objection about maintainability of this application on the ground that the Memorandum of understanding dated 6th November, 2008 which contains an arbitration agreement, has not been stamped in accordance with the provisions of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that the memorandum of understanding is required to be impounded in this proceedings and shall be sent for adjudication. 3. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding the preliminary objections raised by the respondents are summarized as under: (a) It is the case of the applicants that the applicants and the respondents entered into a memorandum of understanding dated 6th Nov. 2008. Under the said document the respondents granted develop...
Minochar @ Minoo Aspandyar Irani Vs. Deenyar Sheriar Jehani and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-2014
1. By this petition filed under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 the petitioner seeks appointment of Court Receiver of the business and assets of the firm of M/s. Leopold Cafe and Stores, 'Cafe New York', 'Cafe Universal', 'Coffee House', ' Leostouch' and 'Leo's Boulangerie' including their bank accounts, licences, trade marks etc. and seeks other interim measures. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under :- 2. Sometimes in the year 1975 the petitioner was admitted as a partner in the firm known as M/s. Leopold Cafe and Stores (hereinafter referred to as the suit firm). Respondent nos. 1 to 5 were subsequently introduced to the said firm by the petitioner as partners. The respondent no.6 then a minor was also admitted as a partner by the petitioner. Respondent no.6 became major on 30th September 1997 and continued as a partner of the suit firm. Duration of the suit firm is at Will under the partnership deed. Clause 7 of th...
Tekchand Khanchandani Vs. Tribhuvandas Dhoria
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-2014
1. The employer-Tekchand questions the Labour Court award dated 8 June 2006 ('impugned award') which holds that termination of the workman-Tribhuvandas' service with effect from 7 October 1993 is illegal and directs his reinstatement with full back-wages and continuity of service. 2. Tribhuvandas claims that he was employed as a Tailor with M/s. Vikas Garments, M/s. Vikas Fashions and M/s. Prakash Garments, proprietary concerns of Tekchand, which were engaged in manufacturer of readymade garments. On 7 October 1993, when Tribhuvandas reported for work, he was physically prevented from even entering into the work premises and told by Tekchand that his employment 'stands terminated'. By this date, Tribhuvandas had completed over three years employment with Tekchand. Around the same time, Tekchand, in a similar fashion 'orally terminated' services of almost 19 workers, 11 of whom are respondents in the connected writ petitions. Tekchand, on his part, has completely denied ever having empl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »