Mumbai Aurangabad Court October 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.
Chandrakala and Others Vs. Marathwada Medical Research and Rural Devel ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-30-2015
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. On 25.08.2015, this Court has passed the following order: 1. The learned Advocates submit on instructions from their respective clients present in the Court that they have no objection if this Court hears these matters. 2. These matters have been heard for almost two hours. 3. Stand over to 07.09.2015 at 02:30 pm as PARTHEARD, at the request of the learned Advocates.? 3. The Petitioners in the first petition challenge the judgment and order dated 11.12.2013 passed by the Industrial Court at Aurangabad by which Complaint (ULP) No.47/2008 filed by the Petitioners was dismissed. 4. The Petitioners in the second petition are aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 11.12.2013 passed by the Industrial Court, Aurangabad by which Complaint (ULP) No.97/2008 filed by these Petitioners has been dismissed. 5. The Petitioners in the third petition are aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 11.12.2013 pa...
Abhijit Kishor Patil and Others Vs. The Union of India, through Secret ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-30-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, heard finally at the admission stage. 2. By way of filing writ petitions No.452/2015, 5794/2015, 3811/2015 and 3813/2015 the petitioners have challenged the communication / instructions dated 7.7.2015 issued by respondent No.1 to respondent No.2. The petitioners have further sought directions to the respondents to include the names of the petitioners in the eligible or qualified list of special teachers maintained by respondents 2 to 5, to award all service benefits, benefits of permanency to the petitioners and regularization of services. Petitioners further prayed for directions to pay their monthly salary. The petitioners have also prayed for directions to the respondents to absorb them in any other school receiving grants-in-aid. 3. The facts in brief, as narrated in Writ Petition No.452 of 2015, are as under: The petitioners herein were appointed as special teachers in the respondent No.6 to 9 schools, they ...
Dr. Ramdas Laxmanrao Khesar and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra, T ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-29-2015
V.K. Jadhav, J. 1. The petitioners are retired Livestock Development Officers, (hereinafter, for the sake of brevity, referred to as the LDO?) holding in service diploma and all of them have registered themselves in Part I Register maintained by Veterinary Council of Maharashtra. All the petitioners stood retired from the post of LDO during the period from 1997 to 2006. They were appointed as Assistant LDO. They were promoted subsequently to the post of LDO. Since the formation of the cadre of LDO in the year 1991, both the graduates and diploma holder LDOs were being treated alike and were given same pay scale. In the year 1986, and also in the year 1996, the diploma holders were given same treatment in 4th and 5th pay Commissions, respectively. However, the Government of Maharashtra, by promulgating a notification issued in its Finance department, dated 20.3.1999, granted higher pay scale to the graduate counter parts in the cadre of LDO. Although the cadre of LDO was given pay scale...
Nirmalkumar Vs. The Union of India Through its Secretary, Ministry of ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-29-2015
S.V. Gangapurwala, J. 1. The petitioner seeks to challenge Regulation 9(18) of the Veterinary Academic Regulations, 2002 framed by the Maharashtra Animal and Fishery Sciences University, Nagpur as ultra virus to the Veterinary Council of India (Minimum Standards of Veterinary Education Degree Course- B.V.Sc. and A.H.) Regulations, 1993, so also the communication dated 21.09.2013 informing the petitioner that he will not be allowed to complete B.V. Sc. and A.H. degree course by granting additional time. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was admitted to B.V. Sc. and A.H. degree course in June, 2003. The petitioner has completed 8th semester, however is not allowed to appear for the 5th year 9th semester vide communication dated 21.09.2013 on the ground that the petitioner has failed to complete the course within 10 years. Learned counsel submits that when the petitioner had taken admission in June, 2003, the impugned Regulations of 2002 were not in force. T...
Ashok and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-29-2015
S. V. Gangapurwala, J. 1. The writ petitions are based on similar set of facts and involve common question of law, as such are decided together. 2. Rule, Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties, taken up for final hearing. 3. The petitioners in these writ petitions are Project Affected Persons. The lands of the petitioners are acquired for establishment of respondent/Vasantrao Naik Marathwada Agriculture University, Parbhani. 4. On 15.07.2009, the State Government issued directions to all the Agriculture Universities to fill in not less than 50% of the posts of Group C and Group D from the project affected persons, so that at least 50% of the project affected persons can be given employment. Thereafter, the advertisement was published on or about 28.08.2009 by the respondent university for filling up the posts of Class III and Class IV categories from project affected persons category giving 50% reservation for project affected persons of the said university. The s...
Ram and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Hig ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-29-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, heard finally. 2. This Petition is filed with the following prayers: (B) By issuing appropriate writ, order or directions, the impugned communication dated 10/5/2010 and 30/09/2010 (At Exhibit" L" colly.) be quashed and set aside, consequently the. respondent NO.3 be directed to grant permanent approval to the petitioners and for that purpose necessary directions be issued.? 3. It is the case of the petitioners that, initially pursuant to the selection by selection committee of the respondent No.4 and 5, and thereafter pursuant to the selection made by duly constituted selection committee of the respondent NO.3 university, although the petitioners are appointed and working in respondent NO.5 college, and they are possessing the requisite qualification, the respondent No.3 university has refused to grant approval to the services of the petitioners. It is the case of the ...
Vijay Vs. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Higher and T ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-29-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, heard finally. 2. This Petition is filed with the following prayers: C) By issuing appropriate writ, order or directions, the impugned communication dated 02.03.2012 issued by respondent no.3 University be quashed and set aside. Consequently, the appointment of petitioner be approved from his initial date of appointment and he be paid arrears of salary as well as regular salary admissible for the post of Director of Physical Education and for that purpose, necessary directions may be issued.? 3. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner possesses the qualification of M.A., M.P.Ed. in first class. The petitioner has also qualified the fitness test conducted by U.G.C. The petitioner has participated in national level volleyball competition, wherein he was conferred with Silver medal. Similarly, he had participated in Ashwamegh Inter University Volleyball tourn...
Rajaram Mahadu Dahatonde Since deceased through his legal representati ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-29-2015
1. The appeal is filed against the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Appeal No.477/1985 which was pending in the Court of the learned Additional District Judge Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar. First Appeal was filed by the original plaintiff against the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Suit No.360/1980 which was pending in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Newasa, District Ahmednagar. The appeal is allowed by the First Appellate Court and the judgment and decree of dismissal of partition suit is set aside and the relief of partition is given in favour of the plaintiff. Both the sides are heard. 2. The appeal is admitted by this Court (other Hon'ble Judge) on following substantial question of law:- "Whether the exemption from bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.2 - Mukinda cannot be claimed by the respondent No.1 - Babu without obtaining leave under Rule 4(iv) of Order 22 of C.P.C. in view of "Zahirul Islam vs Mohd. Usman and others...
Manohar Vs. Kunal (Baba) and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-26-2015
1. Heard both sides. 2. The present Election Petition is filed to seek a declaration that the election of the present respondent no.1 to the Office of Member of Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from 6 Dhule Rural Legislative Assembly Constituency in the State of Maharashtra declared on 19/10/2014 is void and further to declare that the petitioner, who was also one of the candidate, be declared as duly elected to the said Office. 3. Respondent nos.2 to 9 were also nominated as candidates to the said election and, therefore, they are joined as parties. None of them however has filed any written statement. Infact, respondent no.1 “ Shri Kunal (Baba) S/o Rohidas Patil had raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present election petition and later-on on 6/8/2015, Mr. P.M. Shah, learned senior counsel i/b. Mr. Shrikant Patil, Advocate for respondent no.1 made a statement at the bar that all the factual aspects as pleaded in the petition and the annexures thereto ar...
The Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporatio ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-26-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. This petition was admitted by order dated 27/04/2006. 2. On 17/04/2009, this Court passed the following order: 1. Heard. 2. The recovery notices issued by the petitioner were held to be improper vide the impugned order dated 30,9,2005, rendered by the Industrial Court, Latur. 3. The learned Advocate for the petitioner states that the employees are now likely to be superannuated and the recovery will become impossible. Therefore, she seeks interim relief. 4. Mr.Yenge, learned advocate appearing for the Respondent is said to have been now in the panel of advocates of the petitioner and, therefore, Mr.M.P.Gude, learned advocate has filed vakilpatra for the Respondent. The name of Mr.Yenge, be deleted and he be deemed as discharged instead of Mr.M.P.Gude's appearance be shown. 5. The petitioner is at liberty to withhold the disputed amount from the final payments to be made to the members of the Respondent No.1 at the time of payment of the retiral benefits but not from t...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »