Mumbai Court February 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.
Saraswati Shamrao Dhere Vs. Khutub Babu Malani and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-2015
1. This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 9 August 1990 made by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT) setting aside the orders made by the Tahsildar declaring as invalid the sale of the suit property by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in favour of respondent No.1. 2. This petition concerns the following property situate at Shiroli, Kolhapur:Gat No.H.A.Assessment1311-17150043/11-5218-0643/20-0200-19 3. The petitioner was the tenant in respect of the half portion of the aforesaid property and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were the tenants in respect of the other half. By resort to the provisions contained in Section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (said Act), the petitioner and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 purchased respective one half portion of the aforesaid property. This petition concerns the one half portion purchased by respondent nos. 2 and 3 and therefore it shall be referred to as 'the said property'. 4. By an instrument of transfer dated 13 Dece...
Vishwanath Dnyanoba Kirade Vs. Nav Akanksha Mahila Mandal and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-05-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties at length. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 3. The issue that has been raised for the consideration of this Court is as regards whether a temporary employee or a deemed confirmed employee could be terminated by issuance of a stigmatic order without an opportunity of hearing and/or enquiry. 4. A host of contentions have been set out by the learned Advocates for the respective sides. Issue before me is as to whether the impugned order of termination is stigmatic and if so, whether it is sustainable without giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. It is in this backdrop that I would be adverting to those submissions of the respective sides, which I find are germane to the cause of action. 5. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk on 24.7.2006 by the first respondent - Educational Institution in the second respondent School. It is not in...
Rohit Raghuvir Paingankar and Another Vs. Radha Nandalal Karlo and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-05-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final disposal. Shri J.P. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel for the respondents waives service. 2. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order passed by the District Judge, South Goa, Margao allowing the Miscellaneous Civil Appeal filed by the respondents challenging the order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao dated 5 December 2011. 3. The respondents are legal heirs of one late Raghuir and late Shakuntala Paingankar. The original applicant Shakuntala was appointed as cabeca de casal on the death of Raghuvir. The petitioner no.1 had made an application for intervention as a interested party, which was allowed and a order was passed by the Civil Court to remove the said Shakuntala and appoint petitioner no.1. An Appeal From Order was filed and by order dated 24 July 2009, the matter was remanded back for disposal. In the meanwhile, Shakuntala expired on 11 October 2007. The proceedings were adjourn...
Shaikh Saleemuddin and Others Vs. Baba Quereshi and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-05-2015
1. Respondent No.2 Chief Executive Officer of Maharashtra State Board of Waqfs passed orders (Annexure F) dated 26th February 2013, acting upon scheme dated 13th August 2012 submitted by Applicants. He accepted scheme for administration and management of "Dargah Hazrath Shahnoor Hamvi Reh. and Dargah Hazrat Shamshoddin Saheb Reh. Masjid, Khankha, Samakhana and Kabrastan, Osmanpura, Aurangabad" (hereafter referred as "Dargah") inter-alia providing for electing Managing Committee every five years. The order settling such scheme was challenged by Respondent No.1 Baba Quereshi (hereafter referred as "Respondent") before the Maharashtra Waqf Tribunal in Waqf Appeal No.5 of 2013. The Respondent prayed to reject the scheme and continue the managing committee which was earlier created under Section 18 of the Waqf Act, 1985 (hereafter referred as "Act") under his chairmanship. The Presiding Officer of Waqf Tribunal on 28th March 2014, partly allowed the Appeal. The impugned order of the Respond...
Nirmala Pravinchandra Soni Vs. Union Of India, Through General Manager ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-2015
1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant. None for the respondent, though duly served. 2. This Court by order dated 28.06.2010 issued notice before admission to the respondent indicating that the Court may endeavor to decide the appeal finally at the stage of admission itself. 3. This appeal is preferred by the Appellant original claimant challenging the Judgment and Award dated 21.01.2009 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai in Case No. OA 109 of 2006 holding that the appellant failed to prove her case and hence, the application under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act was dismissed. 4. The appellant is the mother of the deceased who died on 02.01.2006. It is the case of the appellant that her son Kiran Pravinchandra Soni aged 38 years died on 02.01.2006 in the railway accident. The body of the deceased Kiran was found on railway track at railway K.M. 41/6 between Bhayander and Mira Road stations. From the dead body, the police authority recovered t...
D.B Realty Limited and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, through its Ur ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-2015
CavJudgment: (M.S. Sanklecha, J.) 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assails the validity of the Notification dated 8 November 2013 issued by the State of Maharashtra (State) in exercise of its powers under Section 37(1AA) of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act). 2. The impugned notification contains two schedules, one applicable to the City of Mumbai and other applicable to Municipalities within the State of Maharashtra. The impugned notification issued under the MRTP Act incorporates the Schedules thereto in the Development Control Regulation, 1991 (DCR 1991) as regulations for inclusive housing. The aforesaid amendment to DCR 1991 is applicable to the lands admeasuring 4000 sq.mts. or more to be utilized for residential purposes. In these group of petitions, we are concerned with both the Schedules to the Notification one-issued for the City of Mumbai and the other for the rest of the State. The schedules are identically worded and...
Gangadhar Harishchandra Nimje Vs. Chakradhar Swami Shikshan Sanstha an ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-05-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. The challenge in this petition is to the judgment and order dated 25.02.2004 passed by the School Tribunal at Chandrapur, dismissing the Appeal No. 39 of 2003 filed by the petitioner challenging his termination from service by an order dated 30.06.2003. The Tribunal has recorded the finding that the petitioner has failed to establish that he was appointed on 12.07.1997 in a permanent vacancy on probation for a period of two years and thereafter he acquired confirmation in service prior to cut off date on 15.06.1995. It is held that the petitioner is not entitled to protection in service upon invalidation of his caste claim by the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee on 30.04.2002 for Halba Scheduled Tribe Category. 2. The facts of the case are stated as under; By an order dated 12.07.1992, the petitioner was appointed as Attendant in Class-IV post in the School run by the respondent Society. This appointment was approved by the Education Officer on 28....
Kashibai Waman Patil (since deceased through her heirs and Legal repre ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-2015
P.C. 1. The plaintiffs have filed this suit for a declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners and are in possession of the suit property and also for declaration that the agreement for sale executed on 23rd January 1983 by one Devubai Thakur in favour of one Taukirahmed Mohammed Hanif Khan, i.e., defendant no.1 is null and void and not binding upon the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also seek a declaration that the agreement dated 22nd January 1988 executed by defendant no.1 in favour of one Govind K. Bardricha, i.e., defendant no.5 is null and void and not binding upon the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are also challenging an order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division on 17th July 2004. The subject matter of the suit is a property admeasuring 6168.08 sq. yards or thereabout situated at Dahisar, Borivali Taluka, Mumbai Suburban District (for brevity as 'the suit property'). 2. All the plaintiffs had executed a development agreement and an irrevocable general power of atto...
Shriram Vs. The State of Maharashtra Through the Collector, Latur and ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-05-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. This Court had heard Shri V.D. Salunke, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Shri K.M. Suryawanshi, Learned A.G.P. on 15-01-2015. The following order was passed while issuing notices to the parties. 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 7.1.2015 passed by the Election Officer Shri S.S.Mali, by which the Objection Application dated 5.1.2015, preferred by the petitioner in regard to the provisional voters' list, has been partly allowed. 3. The petitioner is a resident of village Tandulwadi, Taluka and District Latur and is the Member of the registered respondent No.4 Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Limited, Tandulwadi. He is a borrower Member and is a valid voter going by the voters' list finally published on 8.1.2015. 4. The petitioner, at the very outset, submits that the ensuing elections are being conducted under the newly framed "The Maharashtra Cooperative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014" ("the Rules of 2014"). The pet...
Madhuri Pukharaj Baldota Vs. Omkarlal Daulatram Banwat and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-2015
1. One Achaldas Hirachand Baldota (Achaldas) died in Mumbai on 9th January 1997. According to the Petitioner, Madhuri Pukharaj Baldota (Madhuri), Achaldas left a validly executed Will dated 26th July 1988. Madhuri is the sole executrix named in the Will, and she seeks to probate it. 2. Achaldasand his wife, Rajubai Baldota (Rajubai) had three children: a son, Pukharaj Achaldas Baldota (Pukharaj), Madhuris husband, and two daughters, Kanta Bansilal Lodha (Kanta) and Vasanti Omkarlal Banwat (Vasanti). Pukharaj was married first to one Kuntabai, with whom he had two children, Neeta Sumtilal Lodha (Neeta) and Sunanda Kamal Jain (Sunanda). Both are now married. After Kuntabais death, Pukharaj married Madhuri in 1984. Rajubai and Pukharaj both died before Achaldas: Pukharaj died on 10th December 1980 and Rajubai died on 10th February 1990. In other words, Pukharaj died before Achaldas and before he made his Will, while Rajubai died before Achaldas but after he made his Will. 3. Under the Wil...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »