Mumbai Court March 2016 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.
Ramesh Shanu Gaonkar Vs. Director Of Sports And Youth Affairs Governme ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-04-2016
K.L. Wadane, J. 1. Heard Mr. Pangam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. P. Dangui, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Mr. P. Dangui, the learned Additional Government Advocate waives notice on behalf of the respondents. 3. The present petition is filed by the petitioner seeking directions to the respondents to issue appointment order as a Physical Education Teacher. 4. The brief facts of the case may be stated as follows:- On 14.10.2011 the respondent no.2 advertised two posts of Physical Education Teachers, one is reserved for Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner is belonging to scheduled tribe. He applied for the said post in the reserved category. The petitioner was directed to appear for an interview on 21.07.2011 with necessary documents. The petitioner successfully faced an interview and is placed on the Waiting List. 5. On 2...
C. Padmawati Naidu and Others Vs. Friends Co-operative Housing Society ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-04-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 04.10.2011 in Civil Appeal No. 307/1999 passed by the learned District Judge-9, Nagpur, arising out of the judgment and decree dated 21.04.1999 in Special Civil Suit No. 564/1985 passed by 4th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, the present Second Appeal has been preferred by the original defendants. 2. The Appeal has been taken up for final hearing as almost all the appellants are senior citizens and the litigation commenced in the year 1985, on the motion made by the counsel for the parties. 3. The respondent no.1/plaintiff brought a suit for specific performance of contract and for possession, stating that an agreement was executed for the purchase of the suit property by the plaintiff on 30.1.1975 for a consideration of Rs. 25,000/per acre and on the date of agreement by way of earnest, an amount of Rs. 6,000/was paid. The sale deed was to be executed within a period of two years i.e. on or before 30.1.1977....
Prajita Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Yusuf Khan @ Dilip Kumar and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-2016
Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. The Appellants (original Petitioners) have challenged impugned order dated 14.01.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge, thereby the Petition under (for short, Act of 1996 ) is dismissed. 2. The Appellants, through Section 9 Petition, sought injunction against Respondent No.1, his servants and agents from dispossessing from the property bearing land admeasuring 2,056 sq.mtrs. plot no.16 of Pali Hill Estate in the Village of Danda (Bandra), Taluka-Andheri, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051, forming part of Survey No.236, No.3, N.A. No.329 corresponding CTS. No. C/1395, C/1396 and C/1397 (hereinafter referred to as the said Property). 3 Respondent No.1 is 92 years old, a senior citizen, had entered into Development Agreement dated 23.06.2006. The learned Judge referred those facts in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 in the impugned order, which read thus: 4. The development agreement dated 23.6.2006 was executed between Yusuf Khan alias Dilip Kumar Respondent no.1, M/s.Sharyans R...
Tukaram Gangaram Awhad Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 9th June, 2001 in L.C. Suit No.1343 of 1994 and counter claim No.2 of 2000. By the said impugned judgment and order, the learned trial Judge dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and allowed the counter claim of defendant Nos.3 and 4, i.e., respondent Nos.2 and 3 and it is decreed in terms of prayer clause a, b and c of the counter claim with costs. The appellant/original plaintiff who has filed the suit for declaration and injunction in respect of room No.24, 2nd floor, Barne compound, Sane Guruji Marg, Tardeo, Mumbai. It is a suit property. The parties are addressed by their original status for the sake of convenience. 2. It is the case of the appellant/original plaintiff that BMC is the owner of the suit room. Nathu Raghunath, uncle of the appellant and father of respondent Nos.2 and 3 was the tenant of the suit room prior to 1970. The plaintiff is the resident of village Nathu Shingote, Taluka, Sinnar, Dis...
Meena Vs. The State of Maharashtra Through Principal Secretary Educati ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-04-2016
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally, by the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. This Petition is filed with the following prayers: b) Respondent No.4 be directed to include the petitioner in surplus list of teachers dated 26.6.2014 (annexed at Exhibit-A) and kindly be directed to release the salary of petitioner. (bb) To quash and set aside order dtd. 31/12/2005 passed by the Respondent No.2 i.e. Director of Education, Research and Training Center, Pune, Dist. Pune by which postal D.Ed. of petitioner is cancelled and the Respondent authority be directed to pay the arrears of petitioner from 26/6/1995 till today. 3. The brief facts leading for filing this Writ Petition are that, the petitioner was appointed as untrained teacher on 26.6.1995, and her appointment has been continued by the management by issuing appointment orders from time to time, and she is in continuous service. The management prepared the surplus table in the year 2003-20...
Gangadhar Baburao Shere Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secr ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-04-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and heard with the consent of the parties. 3. This Petition takes exception to the impugned order dated 08.09.2015 issued by respondent no. 2 Education Officer, thereby refusing approval to the appointment of petitioner, and further seeking direction to the Education Officer to grant approval to the appointment of petitioner and release the salary grants. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner is possessing the educational qualification of B.Sc. B.Ed., therefore, he is trained candidate within the meaning of Rule 2 [k] of the MEPS Rules, for the appointment on the post of teacher. It is further the case of the petitioner that, due to retirement of teachers, two posts in the respondent no. 3 school became vacant. One Shri G.P.Kulkarni, Assistant Teacher, retired on 31.12.2010, who was teaching the science subject. Due to his retirement, there was no teacher in the school for teaching science, possessing...
Datta K. Kudchadkar Vs. State of Goa, through its Chief Secretary and ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-04-2016
K.L. Wadane, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the inquiry report dated 12.4.2010 by the inquiring authority; order dated 6.5.2010 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, respondent no.3 as well as the order dated 11.2.2011 passed by the Appellate Authority, respondent no.2. 2. Brief facts of the case may be stated as follows:- On 3.8.2006, the respondent no. 3 placed the petitioner under suspension with immediate effect. By order dated 30.7.2008 the order of the suspension was revoked with immediate effect. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 494/2009 claiming regular salary during the period of suspension. On 12.8.2009, the respondent no.3 issued memorandum to the petitioner disclosing the proposal to hold an inquiry against the petitioner and the substance of imputation was set out and following charges/Articles were framed:- i. Article I : That Shri Datta K. Kudchadkar, while functioning as Jailor during the period from 22.12.2005 to 1.8.2006 failed to INSPE...
Santosh Kashinath Kamble Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-2016
Oral Judgment: (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order of detention dated 7th August, 2015, issued by the Commissioner of Police, Pune City, under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slum Lords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 (for short "MPDA Act"). 2. The petition proceeds to state that the petitioner is the brother of the detenu. Detenu is one Dipak alias D. Baba Kashinath Kamble. The petitioner states that the detention order is vitiated on two counts. The first pertains to the legality and validity of the detention order. It is submitted that the detention order is founded on two C.Rs and two in camera statements. In regard to this, it is submitted by Mr. V.N. Tripathi, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner that these two in camera statements have not been verified. If there is no verification of the in camera...
Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri, Through its Registrar Sunil R ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-03-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner has challenged the judgment of the Industrial Court dated 31.1.2015 by which Complaint (ULP) No.81/2005 filed by the respondent herein has been partly allowed and he has been granted pension as per Rule 110 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. 3. The contention of Shri Shahane, learned Advocate for the petitioner Agricultural University, can be summarized as follows:- a) The respondent has joined the petitioner as a daily wage employee on temporary basis in 1973. b) He was engaged on daily wages depending upon the availability of the work and was paid wages from the daily wages funds received by the Government. c) He was never paid wages from the contingency fund. d) He was appointed on permanent establishment on 17.7.1993. e) On 30.11.2000, he attained the age of superannuation and retired from service. f) He has rendered only 7 years 4 months a...
Ujwala Vs. Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Cor ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-03-2016
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Chandurkar, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner, who is the widow of one Shri Rupchand Thakre, has approached this Court challenging the communications dated 08/04/2015 and 16/04/2015 by which the respondents intended to recover certain amounts to which deceased employee was entitled under the provident fund scheme as well as towards gratuity. This recovery is sought to be made on the ground that the pay fixation of said employee had been wrongly done. 3. The husband of the petitioner was employed as a Conductor with the respondent No.1-Corporation. He expired on 04/06/2014. The petitioner thereafter approached the respondents for receiving various service benefits including the amounts of gratuity and provident fund. On 08/04/2015 the respondent No.2 issued a communication stating therein that the pay fixation that was effected with regard to the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »