Mumbai Court September 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.
Shakuntala Bansidhar Gadekar Vs. Union of India, Through Secretary, Mi ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-16-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and heard finally with the consent of the parties. 3. This Petition takes an exception to the order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench at Mumbai dated 2nd May, 2014, to the extent of not granting the prayer to direct the respondent to pay the full family pension to the petitioners and to declare para 11.3 of letter dated 12th November, 2008, as illegal and void. According to the petitioners, both the prayers have not been considered by the Armed Forces Tribunal [hereinafter referred for the sake of brevity as ˜Tribunal™]. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that, the respondent No.6 was the wife of deceased Vijay Gadekar, who was in Army, and was son of the present petitioners. The respondent No.6, after death of Vijay, has remarried to another person namely Manoj Dahake. After the death of Vijay, the dispute between the petitioners and the respondent No.6, arose about the entitlement of th...
Chanda Khand Sahakari Shetkari Kharedi Vikri Sanstha Vs. Dattatraya Ra ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-16-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. The Respondent No.1 “ Dattatraya Ramchandra Gaund was an employee of the petitioner, appointed in the year 1970. On 05.07.19986, he was dismissed from service on the ground of grave misconduct of misappropriation of an amount of Rs.53,702.50. This order of dismissal was challenged before the Labour Court and the said complaint was dismissed in default. The order of dismissal has thus attained the finality. The respondent was also prosecuted in Regular Criminal Case No. 595A/1993 for the offence under Section 408 of Indian Penal Code for misappropriation of the amount. He was acquitted on 30.05.1998. The respondent No.1 moved an application for payment of gratuity on 04.01.2007 before the Controlling Authority. It was registered as Misc. ULP No. 48 of 2005. The Controlling Authority passed an order on 22.01.2009 directing payment of gratuity of Rs. 60,585/- along with 8% interest per annum. Hence, the employer is before this Court in this writ petition. 2. Shri K...
Ramnath Narayan Pai and Another Vs. Eknath Narayan Pai and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-16-2015
K.L. Wadane, J. 1. The present appeal is preferred by the original defendant nos. 1 and 2 against the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Vasco, in Special Civil Suit No. 20/2005/A dated 26.07.2010 by which the learned Judge has decreed the suit. Hence, the appeal. 2. The description of the suit property is mentioned in para 15-B and business mentioned in para 15-C of the plaint are the suit property and herein after referred to as the suit property?. 3. The parties are referred to their original status. 4. The claim of the plaintiffs as can be seen from the pleadings is that one Narayan Pai having four sons and seven daughters out of which one son namely Srinath died. The plaintiff nos. 1, 3 and defendant no.1 are the sons of Narayan and plaintiff no.2 is wife of plaintiff no. 1 and plaintiff no.4 is the wife of plaintiff no.3. The defendant no.2 is the wife of defendant no.1. Defendant nos. 3 to 9 are daughters of deceased Narayan Pai. 5. The defendant nos....
M/s. Boshan Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Communidade of Bordem ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-16-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Admit. The learned Counsel for the respondent waives service. Heard finally, by consent. 2. Both these Civil Revision Applications challenge the order dated 18/06/2015 passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge at Mapusa in Civil Suit No.6/2015. By the impugned order, the applications filed by the defendant nos.1 and 2 under Order VII, Rule 11(d) of C.P.C., have been dismissed. As the Civil Revision Applications arise out of the same order and involve common and connected questions of law and fact, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The first respondent Comunidade of Bordem is the original plaintiff while Shri Shantadurga Sangordekarin Devasthan (Devasthan, for short) and M/s. Boshan Developers Pvt. Ltd, the petitioners in these Revision Applications are respectively the defendant nos.1 and 2 before the Trial Court. Bicholim Municipal Council and the Town and Country Planning Department are respectively the defendant nos.3 and 4 while State ...
Keith Gracias Vs. State of Goa and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-16-2015
K.L. Wadane, J. 1. Heard Mr. P.P. Singh, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, Mr. D.Lawande, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent nos.1 and 2 and Mr. S. Redkar, Advocate appearing for the respondent no.3. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent, heard forth. The learned Advocates appearing for the parties waive notice on behalf of the respondent. 3. This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused to quash and set aside the First Information Report No.31/2013 registered against him for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The brief facts of the case may be summarized as under:- The complainant-respondent no.3 herein lodged a complaint to the Police Station, Panaji on 26th December, 2012 stating that she purchased Idea Mobile handset from M/s. Arte Digital World having its shop at Panaji. 5. The said mobile handset stopped working and had network problem initially though there was no problem with sim-card but...
Vitthal and Others Vs. Shrikisan and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-16-2015
1. This Second Appeal was admitted on 27.7.2007 on the following substantial questions of law: (a) Whether the plaintiff was entitled to institute the instant suit when the earlier suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed as withdrawn and the plaintiff had not sought liberty to file a fresh suit and the same was not granted to the plaintiff? (b) Whether it can be said, in the facts and circumstances of the case, that the subject matter in this suit and the earlier suit was one and the same and hence the present suit was barred under the provisions of Order 23, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure? 2. Heard submissions at the bar. It appears that, by the impugned Judgment and Order passed in Regular Civil Suit No.489 of 1987, the suit was partly decreed and the defendants were directed to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the suit land bearing Survey No.166/3 to the plaintiff after the trial Court declared that the disputed way is easement of necessity and the plaintiff is e...
S.R. Phal, Retd. Reader, Goa University and Others Vs. H.E. The Govern ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-16-2015
K.L. Wadane, J. 1. These Writ Petitions are filed by the petitioners namely Mr. S. R. Phal and Mr. V. J. Kamat challenging the order dated 13.07.2005 passed by the Chancellor of Goa University by which 50% of the pension of the petitioners is withheld. 2. The brief facts of the case may be stated as follows : The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 255 of 2006 namely Mr. S. R. Phal was a Chairman of the Board of Examination at the relevant time (herein after referred to in short as Charged Officer CO1? and the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 482 of 2006 namely Mr. V. J. Kamat was working as an Assistant Registrar and heading Section I of the Examination Division of Goa University (herein after referred to in short as Charged Officer CO3?. Another Officer Mr. U. S. Parab CO2? has not challenged the order. Therefore, we are concerned only with the allegations made against the CO1 and CO3 by the disciplinary authority. 3. The case of the disciplinary authority, i.e. Executive Council of the U...
Indian Seamless Enterprises Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-2015
1. By this Petition filed under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (the 1956 Act?) the Petitioner seeks sanction of this Court to a scheme of arrangement between the Petitioner and its Shareholders (the Scheme?). By the Scheme, the Petitioner seeks to make a gift of the shares held by the Petitioner in a Company known as Taneja Aerospace and Aviation Limited (TAAL?) to its Shareholders in the ratio of one fully paid up equity share of TAAL for one fully paid up equity share of the Petitioner and one fully paid up equity share of TAAL for every two partly paid up equity shares of the Petitioner. Pursuant to the gift of the aforesaid equity shares of TAAL to its Shareholders, the Petitioner proposes to reduce the balance lying in its Securities Premium Account (SPA?) by the book value of the Petitioner™s investment in the shares of TAAL as appearing in the books of accounts of the Petitioner on the record date. The reduction of the SPA is sought in terms of the provisio...
Rajesh V. Choudhary Vs. Kshitij Rajiv Torka and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-2015
1. An award dated 7.1.2010 passed by Mr.Justice S.M.Jhunjhunwala (retired) is sought to be set aside under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (the said Act). Though it is not stated specifically in the petition under which part of section 34 of the said Act the petitioner is praying for setting aside the award, the counsel for the petitioner, across the bar, submitted that the award has to be set aside under Sections 34(2) (a) (ii), 34(2) (a) (iii), 34 (2) (b) (i) and 34(2) (b) (ii) of the said Act. 2. As a prelude, it is necessary to mention that the petitioner had filed a Suit bearing No.1163 of 1999 against the respondents to this petition and one Dr.S.K.Poddar, in the Original Side of this Court. In the said suit the petitioner had prayed for the following reliefs:- (a) for a decree of specific performance of the agreement of sale entered into between the plaintiff and the 2nd Defendant as per Exhibit 'B' hereto by requiring the 2nd Defendant ; (i) to execute a...
Motilal Vs. The Zilla Parishad, Through its Chief Executive Officer an ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-15-2015
Oral Judgment: (S.S. Shinde, J.) 1. Heard. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith by consent of learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that on 31st May, 2013, he stood retired from services on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner has been already paid pension and pensionary benefits save and except Gratuity of Rs.3,65,310/and commutation amount of Rs.4,44,802. After waiting for more than six months' period, the petitioner has submitted a representation requesting to release gratuity and commutation amount by referring to the provisions of Rule 27 of The Maharashtra Civil Servoces (Pension) Rules, 1982 (for short, the Rules of 1982), however, there was no response from Respondent No.1. 3. On 29.1.2014, Respondent No.1 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against him notwithstanding express bar imposed by Rule 27 of MCS (Pension) Rules, 1982. The petitioner immediately...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »