Mumbai Aurangabad Court June 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.
Loni Vyankanath Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Ltd. and Anothe ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-30-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Rule. 3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal. 4. The petitioners seek to challenge the judgment and order dated 17.12.2013, delivered by the Labour Court in Complaint (ULP) Nos. 20, 19 and 18 of 2011, respectively in these petitions. Similarly, the petitioners seek to challenge the judgment dated 21.1.2015, delivered by the Industrial Court in Revision (ULP) No. 10, 11 and 12 of 2014, respectively. 5. The common factors, emerging from these three petitions, in the submissions of Shri Latange, learned Advocate are as follows:- (a) All the respondents herein were issued with identical notices, dated 20.3.2011, levelling serious charges of mis-conducts of the nature of riotous and dis-orderly behaviour. (b) Vide Resolution No.3, dated 20.3.2011, all the respondents have been terminated for having committing mis-conduct, by the same orders. (c) The respondents filed the above referred three Complaints und...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Raghunath Ramchandra Sable
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-29-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the Appellant “ State, challenging the Judgment and Order dated 28.12.1995 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Sessions Case No.09/1995, thereby acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 and 504 of I.P. Code. The prosecution case, in brief, is as under: 2. The deceased Archana was daughter of complainant namely Sahebrao Ramchandra Ghode. Prior to five months of her death, she was married with accused and went to reside at the house of the accused. The accused has three brothers; and they all are residing separately. The accused was continuously disclosing his intention that, Archana was not suitable for him, and hence, he wanted to marry second time. Therefore, Archana, on this count, was subjected to ill-treatment, harassment and beating from the accused. The incident occurred prior to one year on 10.11.1994. On the day of incident, the accused had asked Archana to go at her pare...
Sadashivrao and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-29-2015
1. The proceeding bearing Criminal Writ Petition No. 68/2015 is filed for relief of quashing of the proceeding of S.C.C. No. 102/2010 (Old No. RCC 218/2005), which is pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad to the extent of accused Nos. 2 to 11. The proceeding bearing Criminal Writ Petition No. 69/2015 is filed for similar relief in respect of accused Nos. 2 to 4 from S.C.C. No. 73/2011 (Old No. RCC 1625/2014) which is pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Aurangabad. Both the proceedings are complaints filed by Food Inspector, public servant, for the offenes under sections 7 (i) r/w. section 2 (ia) (a), 2 (ia) (m) punishable under sections 16 and 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short] and the Rules framed thereunder. Both the sides are heard. 2. Accused Nos. 12 and 7 of the aforesaid private complaints are private limited companies and they are in the business of milk and manufacturing of ice cream,...
Reliance Communication Ltd. and Another Vs. Abhijeet
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-29-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The Petitioner assails the impugned judgment of the Industrial Court, Jalna dated 26.03.2015 in Revision (ULP) No.151/2013. By the said judgment, the judgment of the Labour Court dated 29.06.2013 in Complaint (ULP) No.03/2011 has been quashed and set aside. 3. The Petitioner has set out the following prayer, which is relevant at this stage in the light of the order that I propose to pass: (C) By appropriate writ, order or direction the judgment and order dated 26.03.2015 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Bench at Jalna in Revision (ULP) No.151/2013 in Complaint (ULP) No.3/2011 be quashed and set aside and Complaint (ULP) No.3/2011 be dismissed with costs.? 4. The Petitioner submits that the Respondent was appointed as a Sub Area Manager. He worked from 10.07.2009 till 01.03.2011. His appointment order dated 10.07.2009 indicates the nature of his duties, ...
Vivekanand Rugnalaya, Latur through its Administrative Officer, Latur ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-25-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner/Management is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 13/11/2013 delivered by the Industrial Court, Latur by which Complaint (ULP) No.130/2011, filed by the respondent, has been allowed. 3. The petitioner has set out his prayers in this petition in clauses A to D below paragraph No.17. The relevant prayer clause 'B' reads as under: B. Rule may kindly made absolute and judgment and order dtd.13/11/2013 passed by the learned Member, Industrial court, Latur in Complaint (ULP) No.130/2011 may kindly be quashed and set aside.? 4. While allowing the complaint, the Industrial Court has issued the following directions in Clause Nos.1 to 6 as under: 1. Com/ULP/No.130/2011 is partly allowed. 2. It is hereby declared that the respondent has engaged in unfair labour practice within the scope of Item Nos.9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 and respondent is ...
Mangalbai Jaspalsinh Bayas Vs. The State of Maharashtra Through its Se ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-25-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Rule. 3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal. 4. The issue raised by the petitioner is as regards termination of her services as, Anganwadi Karyakarti, without compliance of the principles of natural justice and by way of punishment. 5. Shri Rodge, learned Advocate straight away points out at the show cause notice issued to the petitioner. Allegations have been set out in the said notice against the petitioner and she has been called upon to explain within 24 hours, as to why her services should not be terminated. 6. Shri Rodge then points out the order of termination dated 2.7.2013 which sets out a list of mis-conducts alleged to have been committed by the petitioner and for which she has been terminated with immediate effect. 7. The petitioner raised a grievance before the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Latur by preferring an appeal, contending therein that the petitioner has been terminat...
Barkunbai Dadarao Shinde Vs. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secr ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-25-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Rule. 3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal. 4. The issue raised by the petitioner is as regards termination of her services without compliance of the principles of natural justice and by way of punishment. 5. Shri Rodge, learned Advocate straight away points out at the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, dated 8.7.2013. Allegations have been set out in the said notice against the petitioner and she has been called upon to explain within 24 hours, as to why her services should not be terminated. 6. Shri Rodge then points out the order of termination dated 10.7.2013 which sets out a list of mis-conducts alleged to have been committed by the petitioner and for which she has been terminated with immediate effect. 7. The petitioner raised a grievance before the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Latur by preferring an appeal, contending therein that the petitioner has been terminated after ...
Lalankumar Singh and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-25-2015
1. The petition is filed by accused Nos.5 to 8 of R.C.C. No.233/2009 which is pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beed. The order of issue process made in this matter was challenged by the petitioners by filing Criminal Revision No.115 of 2013 in the Sessions Court and this revision is dismissed. Both the sides are heard. 2. In view of the nature of challenge to the order of issue process, not only the facts in brief of the case but the conduct of the petitioners and developments in the matter also need to be stated in brief. A Drugs Inspector, public servant, has filed the aforesaid complaint and order of issue process has been made for offences punishable under sections 18(a)(1) read with sections 16 and 34 punishable under section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to the Act?) against the manufacturer, accused Nos.4 to 10 and also authorised dealer appointed by the manufacturer, accused Nos.1 to 3. M/s Cachet Pharmaceuticals is a pri...
The Chief Executive Officer Vs. Maharu Kautik Patil (deceased, through ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-25-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. By this petitioner, the petitioner challenges the judgment and award dated 2.8.1993, delivered by the Labour Court, Jalgaon in Reference (IDA) No. 3 of 1985. 2. The petitioner has, primarily, prayed for the following relief in this petition:- (A) That the record and proceedings of the judgment and award dated 2.8.1993 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jalgaon in Reference (IDA) No. 3/85 be called for and after examining the legality, validity and propriety thereof, the judgment and order dated 2.8.1993 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jalgaon in Reference (IDA) No. 3/85 and annexed to the petition at Exh.A hereto be quashed and set aside and the claim statement made under reference to the Labour Court, Jalgaon by the respondent be dismissed with cost;? 3. The Labour Court, by the impugned award has ordered in Clause (i), (ii) and (iii) as under:- (i) The Ist party employer by name the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon, District Jalgao...
Shirish Pandharinath Joshi and Others Vs. The General Manager, Bosch C ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-24-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. I have heard Mr.Yawalkar, learned Advocate for the Petitioners, Mr.Patil, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 5 and the learned AGP on behalf of Respondent No.3. Respondent Nos.2 and 4, though served, have chosen not to cause an appearance either through the Advocate or any person. 3. The Petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 10.02.2011 delivered by the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No.45/2009 filed by the Petitioners herein. 4. The grievance of the Petitioners is two fold. Firstly that the age of retirement needs to be enhanced from 55 years to 58 years in the light of the settlement dated 14.07.2009 signed by Respondent No.1 with Respondent No.2 Union. The Petitioners were members of Respondent No.2 Union. Secondly, the arrears, in view of the settlement having been signed on 14.07.2009 and having been given effect to from 01.07.2008, are payable ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »