Mumbai Court May 2016 Judgments
Augustinho C. Braganza and Another Vs. Sebastiao C. Braganza and Anoth ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: May-04-2016
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the Respondents waive service. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By this petition the Petitioners who are original plaintiffs are challenging the Order dated 30.06.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division at Panaji in Regular Civil Suit No. 3/2006/D. By the impugned order application Exhibit-78 filed by the Respondent/Defendant has been allowed and the suit of the Petitioner is dismissed. 3. The brief facts are that the Petitioners have instituted the aforesaid suit against the Respondents for partition and other reliefs in which the Petitioner No. 1 was examined as PW-1. It appears that the Respondents had moved an amendment in respect of certain document which was permitted to be produced on record. Thereafter, Respondent applied to the learned Trial Court to recall PW-1 for cross-examination which was allowed. Indisputably, the said Order has been confirmed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 492...
Tag this Judgment!Shivshankar Shivram Singh and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra Through ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-04-2016
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. This writ petition is one more in the series of matters where jurisdiction of this court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked not by rightful owners but builders and developers, to reclaim the vacant lands in excess of ceiling limits, which have already vested in the State. The surplus land holders and owners of these lands very well know that their fate is sealed for they are divested of their right, title and interest in these lands by due process of law. However, they are propped up by builders and developers with ulterior motives to file such petitions by relying on the repeal of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (Principal Act) in the State of Maharashtra with effect from 29th November, 2007. Though physical possession of these lands is with the State and not challenged by the owners and surplus vacant land holders at the relevant time, now they raise such challenge being financed by builders and developers. B...
Tag this Judgment!Domnic Almeida and Another Vs. State of Goa through its Chief Secretar ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: May-04-2016
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the respective respondents waive service. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 01/03/2016 passed by the second respondent- Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA), by which the second respondent in exercise of the powers under Section 5 of the Environmental Protection Act, 1986 (the Act, for short) read with rule 4 of the Environmental Protection Rules, 1986 (the Rules, for short) has directed demolition of 'Sea Valley Restaurant', which is a ground plus one structure along with shops, retaining wall on nullah, situated in property bearing Survey No.212/11 of village Anjuna, Bardez, Goa and to restore the land to its original condition. 3. The said structure was originally constructed by Peter Almeida, the father-in-law of the second petitioner somewhere in the year 1977. He started a Bar and Restaurant therein somewhere in the year 1986 after ...
Tag this Judgment!Home Care Retail Marts Private Limited Vs. Haresh N. Sanghavi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-04-2016
A.A. Sayed, J. 1. The above Appeal is filed under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Arbitration Act') challenging the orders dated 28 July 2015 and 23 October 2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in Arbitration Petition No.715 of 2014 filed under section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The impugned order dated 28 July 2015 reads as follows: Admit. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent waives service. 2. Affidavit-in-reply, if any, shall be filed within four weeks from today. Rejoinder, if any, shall be filed within two weeks from the date of service of affidavit-in-reply. Parties are at liberty to file compilation of documents within eight weeks from today. Hearing of the petition is expedited. 3. In view of the learned arbitrator having rendered a final award rejecting the claims made by the petitioner herein, the interim order passed by the learned arbitrator under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act duly modified by the Supr...
Tag this Judgment!Adhar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-04-2016
1. Heard Mr. R.S. Shinde, learned counsel holding for Mr. Bhadgaonkar U.A. for the applicant. He states that Criminal Application No.2206/2016 is filed for compounding the offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code invoking inherent powers of the Court. He submits that compromise purshis has been filed which has been signed by the appellant accused as well as injured-wife and original complainant Pandit Patil. The counsel states that compounding is permissible in view of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303. 2. The parties are family members and it is claimed that they have arrived at compromise (See Criminal Application No.2206/2016) and in order to enable the appellant-accused to transfer the property, bail application (Criminal Application No.2500/2016) is moved. 3. The appellant-accused has been convicted under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code ...
Tag this Judgment!Dashrath and Others Vs. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: May-04-2016
Oral Judgment: (B. R. Gavai, J) : 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 2. The petitioners, who are employees in Group D on the establishment of Respondent No.1, have approached this Court praying for quashing and setting aside that part of Rule 29(b) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Service Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred as to the Rules of 2000 ) which provides for upper age limit for promotion to the posts of Clerks, Section Writer/Typist and the proviso thereto which restricts the number of promotees to 10 % of the vacancies in any year of recruitment. 3. The facts are not much in dispute. Twenty petitioners herein have been appointed on various posts in Group D category on various dates. The petitioners contend that, if the provisions of Rule 29 of the Rules of 2000 are read as it is, the petitioners and the similarly circumstanced employees in Group D category would be left at the mercy of the Registrar of the High Court and the Hon'ble Chief Justice wi...
Tag this Judgment!Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation an ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-04-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Award dated 9.11.2001 passed by learned Commissioner, Workman's Compensation Act, Osmanabad, in W.C.A. No.1/2001, the original claimant has preferred first appeal no.802/2002 to the extent of quantum, whereas the original respondent MSRTC has also preferred first appeal no.913/2002. 2. Brief facts, giving rise to the present appeals, are as under :- a] The claimant was working as driver in MSRTC, Aurangabad Division, and was attached to Osmanabad bus depot at the relevant time. He continued his service till 7.10.1994. On 7.10.1994, he was assigned with the duty on Osmanabad-Ter bus. Accordingly, on that day, he had driven the S.T. bus and reached at village Ter at about 10.00 p.m. and took a halt during the night time at said village. The claimant suspected leakage of air from the front right side wheel of the bus and thought it fit to replace the said tyre with a spare tyre which was on the top of the bus. Accordingly, claimant sta...
Tag this Judgment!Chagan Sadashiv Jadhav and Others Vs. Manisha Ramnath Bhandare and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-04-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule, with the consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The above Writ Petitions take exception to the identical orders dated 02/11/2015 passed by the Additional Collector, Nashik by which orders the Motion of No Confidence passed against the Respondent No.1 in the above Petitions (W.P. No.12009 of 2015 and W.P. No.12010 of 2015) in the meeting dated 05/09/2015 of the Gram Panchayat, Kasbe Sukene, Taluka Niphad, District Nashik was set aside. 3. Since the above Petitions involve common questions of law and fact, they are heard together. The facts giving rise to the above Petitions can in brief be stated thus: The Respondent No.1 to each of the above Petitions were elected as the members of the Gram Panchayat Kasbe Sukene, Tal. Niphad, Dist. Nashik. The elections were for the term 2012-2017. After the said elections, the Respondent No.1 in Writ Petition No.12009 of 2015 Smt. Manisha Ramnath Bhandare was elected as a Sarpanc...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Nivaran Solutions and Others Vs. M/s. Aura Thia Spa Services Pvt. ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: May-04-2016
1. This appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short, Arbitration Act ) arises from an order dated 29.10.2014 passed on Section 9 Arbitration Act application by the Principal District Judge, Panji, Goa refusing to exercise his authority under Section 9 on the ground that the Court has no territorial jurisdiction in the matter. 2. The appellant No.1 is a partnership firm and appellant Nos.2 and 3 are its partners. The respondent No.1 is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and engaged in the business of offering various Spa and Saloon services. The respondent No.2 is the director of the respondent no. 1-company. The appellant No.1 being interested in marketing Spa and Saloon services in the State of Goa, executed two agreements with the respondent No.1, both dated 31st October, 2012. By these agreements, the respondent No.1 was appointed as Master Franchisee and was given exclusive right in the entire State of Goa to market the p...
Tag this Judgment!Sandeep K. Pujari Vs. State Through the Chief Secretary, Government of ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: May-04-2016
Nutan d. Sardessai, J. 1. Heard Shri Arun De Sa, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Shri S.R. Rivonkar, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Shri S.R. Rivonkar, learned Public Prosecutor waives service on behalf of the State. 3. The petitioner has sought to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court praying to quash and set aside the order dated 18/11/2015 passed by the respondent no.1 through the Chief Secretary and the impugned externment order dated 21/1/2015 passed by the respondent no.2 District Magistrate whereby he was sought to be externed for the maximum period i.e. for a period of two years under the provisions of the Sections 3 and 4 (a) of the Goa Maintenance of Public Order and Safety Act, 1988 ( the Act for short hereinafter) and since he was continuing to cause alarm, danger and harm to the person and the property in association with the gang of persons and...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »