Mumbai Court September 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.
Amish Ramniklal Mathuria Vs. Ramesh Ranchhoddas Parekh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-2014
P.C. 1. Heard Mr. Lulia, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms Malvankar, learned Counsel for respondent at length. 2. By this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the original defendant No.1(b) has challenged the judgment and order dated 13.03.2014 passed by the learned Judge presiding over Court Room No.38 of the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai, Bandra Branch, below exhibit-60 in R.A.E.and R. Suit No.307/812 of 1995. By that order, the learned trial Judge rejected the application filed by the petitioner-defendant No.1(b) for framing issue about maintainability of the Suit for non-joinder of the necessary party. 3. The petitioner filed that application contending inter alia that the respondent-plaintiff did not implead daughter Ms Pratiksha Parekh of the original defendant Ramniklal Shambhulal Mathuria, who was the tenant. The petitioner contended that the said Pratiksha was residing in the suit premises as a family member before the death and at the time of de...
State of Maharashtra, through Food Inspector, Food and Drugs Administr ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-04-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This is a State appeal against the judgment of the acquittal of the respondent recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amravati on 21.8.2001, in Regular Criminal Complaint Case No.83 of 1993. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the appeal are as under: The respondent was proprietor of M/s. Mahakali Tel Bhandar, Amravati dealing in sale of various vegetable oils. On 29.9.1992, at about 13.30 hours the Food Inspector visited the shop of the respondent along with one panch witness. The Food Inspector collected samples of groundnut oil and linseed oil from the oil kept in containers in the shop of the respondent. The samples were collected by following proper procedure. They were divided into three parts, one of which was sent to Public Analyst, Amravati and two were sent to Local Health Authority, Amravati. The Food Inspector followed prescribed procedure for sealing the samples and sending them to the Public Analyst as well as Local Health Authority. The report of the Public...
Juned Khuram Roufuddin Vs. The President, Jamiat Ul Muslimeen Social a ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-04-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. By an order dated 23.10.2002, this petition was admitted. Interim relief was refused to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Jr. Clerk by the respondent - management by the order dated 12.6.1995. The order indicates that he was granted permanency from the very first day. This is not disputed by the management. The services of the petitioner were approved for the academic years 1995-96 and 1996-97. It is admitted that after 1997, neither his proposal was forwarded nor did the petitioner have an approval from the Department. Contention is that once he has been appointed on permanent basis, approval on year to year basis was not required to be obtained. The petitioner, therefore, preferred a representation to the Education Department. The petitioner further contends that salary was also withheld. 3. Since the petitioner alleged oral termination with effect from 21.6.1999, he preferred Appeal No.210 of 1999 before the School Tribunal. Interim relief, in th...
Lokmanya Tilak Jankalyan Shikshan Sanstha's Lokmanya Tilak College of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-2014
Oral Judgment: (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) 1. Rule. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 2. The Petitioners, who are imparting the technical education based upon the requisite permissions from the concerned Authorities, including All India Council for Technical Education (for short, AICTE), since long, have filed present Writ Petition, on 3 July 2014, and prayed to quash and set aside order/decision dated 23 June 2014 passed by AICTE declaring the Petitioners' institution under no admission category for the academic year 2014-15. 3. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, by giving reasons and on the basis of decision of the Supreme Court in (Jayamatha Engineering College Vs. Union of India and Ors. (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 538 of 2014, on 4 July 2014, we have passed ad-interim reliefs in the following terms: 5. Therefore, taking over all view of the matter, at this stage, in the interest of students, as well as, the institute, we are in...
Kalpataru Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Majithia Nagar Co-operative Housing ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-2014
Revati Mohite Dere, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the Order dated 30th June, 2014 passed by the learned Judge, by which the appellant's Notice of Motion No. 996/2012 for interim reliefs in its suit for specific performance came to be dismissed. 2. The short controversy arising in the present Appeal is whether there is a `concluded contract' between the appellant and the respondent No.1-Cooperative Housing Society. 3. We are entirely in agreement with the learned Judge that there is no concluded contract. We would summarise our findings as follows: Admittedly, no agreement was executed between the appellant and respondent No.1. The tender conditions expressly provided that a concluded contract would come into existence only upon the execution of a formal agreement. There is nothing in the other terms that suggest otherwise. The other terms establish that the execution of a formal agreement was an essential term of the bargain between the appellant and respondent No.1-Soci...
Sea Green Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Union of India through ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-2014
Oral Judgment: (Mohit S. Shah, CJ) 1. Rule was issued in this matter on 2 April 2014. 2. The Petitioner co-operative housing society challenges the stop work notice dated 1 February 2012 issued by Respondent no.3 Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (`MCZMA'). The petition raises question about applicability of Coastal Regulation Zone (`CRZ') Notification dated 6 January 2011 read with Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991 (`DC Regulations, 1991'). 3. The facts leading to filing of this writ petition, briefly stated, are as under. (a) The Petitioner is the lessee of land admeasuring approximately 1,672 sq. mtrs. (equivalent to 2,000 sq.yards) in Worli, Mumbai. The Petitioner co-op. society with 18 members constructed a building in the year 1959-60. The land in question falls under Coastal Regulatory Zone-II within 500 meters from high tide line on landward side. (b) On 13 November 2000, the Petitioner submitted plans for redevelopment of the building to Resp...
HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs. Amresh Madhukar Sawant and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-03-2014
1. Heard Mr. Viegas, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. C. Fonseca, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30/7/2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Panaji (J.M.F.C., for short) in Other Act Criminal Case No. 358/2008/B. 3. The appellant was the complainant in the said criminal case whereas respondent no.1 was the accused therein. Parties shall be hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said case. 4. The complainant had filed the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the Act) against the accused alleging that three cheques bearing nos. 009996 dated 1/10/2007, 009997 dated 1/11/2007 and 009998 dated 1/12/2007, all drawn on the Centurion Bank of Punjab ltd., Mapusa Branch, Goa, for Rs. 15,266/- (` fifteen thousand two hundred and sixty six only) each, were issued by the accused towards discharge of part of his loan liability and when these cheques were pr...
Vijay Ramchandra Vaity Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-2014
P.C. 1. The applicant is one of the accused - the accused no.5 -in Sessions Case No.806 of 2010, pending before the Court of Sessions at Mumbai. The applicant made an application for discharge before the trial Court contending that there were no grounds for proceeding against him. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by an order dated 27th September, 2013, rejected the applicant's application for discharge. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has approached this Court by filing the present Revision Application. 2. Apart from the applicant, there were, originally, four other accused in the said case. One of the accused - Vijay Puradkar (accused no.4) has, however, been discharged by the Court under the provisions of Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. The case against the applicant and other accused is in respect of an offences punishable under Section 302 of the IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC and 120B of the IPC, as also the offence punishable under Sec...
Maharashtra Chamber of Housing Industry and Others Vs. State of Mahara ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-2014
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. The Honourable the Chief Justice has constituted this Full Bench in order to resolve a conflict between the conflicting views which have been expressed by two Division Benches of this Court. In our detailed order dated 24th April, 2014 we noticed that conflict and by consent of parties we formulated the questions which have to be answered by us. They read as under:- (1) Does Section 3(1)(b) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 read with Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 r/w Section 7 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904 save the orders of exemption including all terms and conditions thereof passed under Section 20(1) of the Principal Act, namely, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and all actions taken there-under? (2) Whether, Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 r/w Section 7 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904 apply to the repeal of the Principal Act by the Repealing Act, 1999? (3) Whether in view ...
Gurukul Shikshan Sanstha and Another Vs. Eknath and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-02-2014
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner/Management has prayed to quash and set aside Judgment and Order dt. 30.1.2014 passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati Division, Amravati, whereby the appeal filed by respondent no.1 herein/ Shri Eknath Rameshwar Raurale challenging termination of his service with effect from 18.2.2013 by an Order issued by the petitioners dt. 16.2.2013 was partly allowed. Termination of service with effect from 18.2.2013 was set aside as illegal. By the impugned order, respondent no.1 was directed to be reinstated to the post of junior College teacher within period of 40 days from the date of order, with 50% back wages payable within two months to respondent no.1 for the period with effect from 18.4.2013 till reinstatement of respondent no.1. Absence of respondent no.1 from 18.2.2013 till the date of his reinstatement was directed to be treated as ...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »