Mumbai Court November 2015 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.
Happy Home Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-2015
Oral Judgment: (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. By this Writ Petition, initially filed as also subsequently amended, the petitioner-Co-operative Housing Society is seeking a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof declaring clause 3.12(7) of the Co-operative Housing Societies Manual dated 15th October, 2011, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-J to the Writ Petition as ultra vires the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The petitioner is also challenging in terms of prayer clause (a), the order dated 21st April, 2009, being Annexure-G and 25th September, 2010, being Annexure-O and the approval of the building plans. The further challenge is to the order Annexure K-1 dated 4th February, 2013. 3. The petitioner is essentially aggrieved by the acts of respondent No.4. The dates and events leading to these acts are few and simple. The petitioner-soci...
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vibhavari R. Fadte and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Nov-19-2015
1. Present appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed by the Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mapusa-Goa in Claim Petition No.16/2007 dated 30/09/2008 by which the Claim Petition is partly allowed and the respondents no.2 and 3 are held to be jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation as mentioned in the operative order. Being aggrieved with the same, the respondent no.3/Insurance Company preferred this appeal mainly on the ground that the respondents had committed breach of the terms and conditions of the policy amongst the other grounds. The brief facts of the case may be stated as follows: The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the manner in which their names appear in the cause title of the said Claim Petition. 2. The claimants/the legal heirs of the deceased Ravindra filed petition under provisions of Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Accident occurred on 11/09/2006 at about 21.55 hours in front of Anand Vihar Building, ...
State of Goa, the Deputy Collector (Rev) and Land Acquisition Officer ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Nov-19-2015
1. The appellants in both the cases have acquired a land surveyed under Survey Nos. 150 and 151 to the extent of 1,640 square meters each, situated at village Taleigao, Tiswadi Taluka for the purpose of construction of police outpost at Taleigao. The respondents in both the above appeals have preferred a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, bearing Land Acquisition Case Nos. 130/1996 and 131/1996 respectively. Both the references were referred to the Civil Court under the provisions of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 2. The claimant/respondent in First Appeal No. 269/2002 filed a Land Acquisition Case No. 130/1996 and thereby contended that land was acquired for the purpose of construction of police outpost by a notification dated 21.12.1991 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and a notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 11.02.1992 and the award was pronounced by the Land Acquisition Officer on 21.04.1994...
Suresh Anant Kamat Vs. The State of Goa, Represented by Chief Secretar ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Nov-18-2015
C.V. Bhadang, J. 1. This petition was initially filed by the petitioner in person as a Writ Petition. By an order dated 22/07/2013, the petition was directed to be converted into a P.I.L. The petition, inter alia, seeks implementation of the Goa Ground Water Regulation Act, 2002 (the Act, for short) and the Rules thereunder. It is contended that the State Government is not seriously taking steps and measures for proper implementation of the said Act, causing huge financial loss to the exchequer and the corresponding unjust enrichment to the persons, brazenly flouting the provisions of the said Act. 2. The petitioner happens to be a Science graduate and former public sector employee, claiming considerable technical, commercial and administrative experience. The petitioner had earlier filed W.P.No.363/2012. This Court, by an order dated 09/08/2012, had directed the petitioner to make a representation to the Chief Secretary, who was directed to take decision in accordance with law, within...
M/s B. Ganga Transport and Sai Trade Link Joint Venture Vs. M/s Wester ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Nov-18-2015
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Rule, made returnable forthwith and heard finally with consent of parties. 2. The petitioner Firm questions the communication dated 7.9.2015 issued to it by respondent no. 2 pointing out that it has not submitted the certificate of availability of credit from its banker towards the evidence of adequacy of working capital as per notice inviting tenders (NIT). 3. This Court issued notice in the matter on 21st September 2015 and at that time, passed the following order : Heard Shri A. a. Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner. It appears that in the earlier tender process dated 16.03.2015 and thereafter dated 18.05.2015, the petitioner has been permitted to participate on the basis of documents i.e. Certificate of Chartered Accountant showing his financial capacity. The Banker's certificate which is being insisted upon now, was then not asked for. Notice, returnable on 29.09.2015. 3. Though the respondents may proceed further with consideration...
Master Sagar Prakash Chhabria Vs. The Board of Control for Cricket in ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-2015
Oral Judgment: (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. 2. Since affidavits have been placed on record and we have heard extensive arguments of both sides, by their consent, we made the Rule returnable forthwith. 3. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks firstly a Writ of certiorari or a Writ in the nature thereof or other appropriate Writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the TW-3 test report dated 1st October, 2015, copy of which is at Annexure 'A' to the Writ Petition and after examining the entire record, papers and proceedings so also scrutinising the said report as to its legality and validity, the same be quashed and set aside. This Court should declare that the Petitioner is qualified to play Under - 16. Tournament known as Vijay Merchant Trophy, 2015-16. The further relief prayed is to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature thereof or any other appropriate Writ, order or...
Dr. K.M. Sadre and Others Vs. State of Goa, through its Chief Secretar ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Nov-18-2015
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Mr. J. Supekar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. M. Amonkar, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the UGC, Mrs. Agni, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 and Mr. S. Dhargalkar, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 1, 3 and 4 in WP No. 481 of 2013, Mr. P. Faldessai, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for respondent no.1 in WP No. 104 of 2014 and Mr. A. Prabhudessai, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for respondent no.1 in WP No. 105 of 2014. All the above Writ Petitions were taken up together as all the impugned orders dated 14.03.2011 are refusing to grant Career Advancement Scheme to the petitioners by the UGC “ respondent no.5 in Writ Petition No. 481 of 2013 and the respondent no.3 in the remaining Writ Petitions. 2. Mr. Supekar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners retired on 31.01.199...
Indus Towers Limited Vs. Ashatai
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-18-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard both the sides for final disposal of the revision application. 2. Present proceedings are filed to challenge the order dated 10.12.2013 made on Exhibit 9 in Special Civil Suit No.349/2012 by learned VIth Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad. The application at Exhibit 9 was filed by present petitioner “ defendant under the provision of Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and he had prayed for return of the plaint. The said application is rejected by the learned trial Court. 3. The suit is filed in respect of the amount, which is due to plaintiff from defendant in respect of supply of diesel. It is the case of the plaintiff that as per the purchase order dated 23.7.2008, the plaintiff had supplied diesel during contract period to the defendant, but only some amount is paid by the defendant and the suit amount is still outstanding against the defendant. It is contended that even after m...
Ashadevi and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Nov-18-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard finally with the consent of Counsel for the parties. Perused the documents filed along with the chargesheet in Sessions Trial No.70/1999. 2. The present applicants, who are arrayed as accused Nos.4 and 5, are facing trial with regard to an offence alleged to have been committed on 9-12-1998 punishable under Sections 302, 201, 109 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the Penal Code). As per the contents of the first information report lodged by accused No.1 “ Shivprakash Sawal, his wife “ Shantadevi was found in a burnt condition in the store room of the third floor of their residential house. Said residential house was occupied by members of the joint family which included the brothers Jaiprakash “ accused No.2, Omprakash accused No.3 and their wives who are the present applicants as well as one juvenile “ Rachana. It is further stated that said incident occurred between 5.30 p.m. and 6 p.m. on 9-12-1998. The dead bod...
Lucille D'souza and Another Vs. Union of India, through the Ministry o ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Nov-17-2015
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Shri Vernekar, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in both the petitions, Ms. S. Mordekar, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent no.2 (GCZMA, for short) in W.P.No.817/2011 and Shri S. Dhargalkar, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent no.1 (GCZMA, for short) in W.P.No.155/2010. 2. Both the above writ petitions were taken up together by consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties, as the disputed structures are in respect of the properties belonging to the petitioners and the parties to the petitions are the same. 3. Shri Vernekar, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, in support of the above Writ Petitions, has taken us through the impugned order dated 15/11/2011 passed by the GCZMA and pointed out from the chart therein that the property bearing Survey No.243/15 shows the structures A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I and J as shown in the DSLR Plan, which is marked 'X'...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »