Mumbai Court February 2009 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.
Shvaji Shikshan Sanstha and anr. Vs. Ram Dnyanoba Latpate and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)BomCR36
Borde R.M., J.1. The petitioner-management has raised challenge to the order dated 29.2.1996, passed by Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Aurangabad in Appeal No. 147 if 1993.2. Respondent No. 1-employee was inducted in service by the petitioner-Management by issuing appointment order on 27.7.1992. Respondent-employee was appointed as Lecturer in Junior College to teach subjects Economics and Marathi. It is stated in paragraph No. 2 of the appointment order that the appointment is purely temporary for a period of one year against a seat reserved for Scheduled Tribe category candidate. It is also noted in the order that on the expiry of said period, his services shall stand terminated without any notice. A letter came to be issued on 31.3.1993 informing respondent No. 1 employee that his appointment comes to an end on 30.4.1993.3. It further transpires that the Institution issued an advertisement for making appointment to the posts of Lecturers in the year 1993. It was mentioned in th...
Devendra Yashwant Kamble and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)BomCR402
Vazifdar S.J., J.1. By an Order dated 13.10.2008 A.M. Khanwilkar, J. noted that a question of law, which I will refer to shortly, arises in the present case. The learned Judge noted that if the question is answered in favour of the petitioner it could necessarily follow that the impugned action would not have been taken against the petitioner.The learned Judge further observed that as a short question is involved, instead of admitting the petition it would be appropriate that it is kept for final disposal at the admission stage. Accordingly, and with the consent of the parties, the writ petitions are disposed of finally at the admission stage.2. Further, the question involved in both the writ petitions is common. Both the writ petitions are therefore disposed by this common order.3. There are six petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2225 of 2008 and four petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2239 of 2008. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the Administrators and Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Divisio...
Shruti Shriram Jangam Vs. Shriram Balkrushn Jangam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-2009
Reported in: 2009(6)BomCR433
Borde R.M., J.1. Heard Shri Ajay Shinde, learned Counsel holding for Shri B.L. Sagar Killarikar, Advocate for the petitioner. Respondent, though served, is absent.2. Rule, made returnable forthwith and heard finally.3. Petitioner, in this petition, has requested the Court to direct transfer of proceedings presented by respondent - husband in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ratnagiri, being H.M.P. No. 127 of 2007, to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division at Jalna.4. Petitioner and respondent are wife and husband inter se. Their marriage was solemnised as per Hindu rites on 19.12.2004 at Jalna. Parties cohabited for some time but thereafter there was some disharmony between them and as such, petitioner-wife was required to leave the matrimonial home. It is contended by the petitioner that she is presently residing at Jalna with her brother and parents. Respondent presented a petition in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ratnagiri under Section 13(1) of the Hindu M...
Sou. Rajashree Shrinivas Joshi, Vs. Omega Information Systems, Registe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)MhLj596
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The petitioners/judgment debtors in Writ Petition No. 3429/2005 have challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 4.2.2005 passed by the learned IInd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur below Exhibits 22 and 23 in Special Darkhast No. 53/2004 filed by the respondents/decree holders. It is by this impugned judgement and order, that the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur is competent and has jurisdiction to proceed with the execution of the Award passed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the Arbitration Act') and thereby rejected the objection raised by the judgment debtors as their application under Order 21, Rule 47 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) was also pending for consideration.2. In Writ Petition No. 3158/2003 the above petitioners/judgement debtors have challenged the impugned order dated 4.3.2003 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangli below Exhibits 97 and 101 in Special Darkhast No...
Sunilkumar S/O Gayaprasad Mishra Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through Pol ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-2009
Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR1074; 2009CriLJ2599
R.C. Chavan, J.1. These two appeals are directed against conviction of the appellants by the learned 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur, for offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B read with Sections 34 and 109 of the Penal Code.2. Facts, which led to prosecution and conviction of the appellants, are as under:In 1999, a scandal of bogus degrees, mark-sheets and unwarranted increase of marks at various examinations conducted by the Nagpur University surfaced. Conduct of examinations, evaluation of answer papers and declaration of results are governed by the provisions of Ordinance No. 9 issued by the Nagpur University. This did not provide for revaluation, which facility was made available by Ordinance No. 159. After revaluation was permitted by the Ordinance, the practice followed, as elicited from the evidence on record, is as follows :3. A student had to apply for revaluation within twenty days from the issuance of mark-sheet. After a candidate applie...
intertek Testing Services India Pvt. Ltd. a Company Incorporated Under ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR834; 2009(111)BomLR1292; 2009BusLR323(Bom); [2009]93SCL157(Bom)
S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. The Applicant has sought an order directing the Registrar of Companies, Maharashtra to approve the proposed name of the company which is a part of the scheme of amalgamation sanctioned by an order of this Court dated 28.9.2008.2. The above company petition was filed seeking sanction of a scheme of amalgamation between Caleb Brett India Private Limited (Transferor Company) with the Applicant Company (Transferee Company). After complying with the requisite procedure and requirements of law, the petition was taken up for hearing. After passing necessary directions, the Regional Director was served with a copy of the papers and proceedings.3. The Regional Director filed an affidavit dated 25.7.2008. In paragraph 3, he has stated that he sent copies of the petitions to the concerned Registrar of Companies with a request to send his report on the affairs of the company. He further states that he had examined the report from various points. A copy of the report of the Regi...
Satyanarayan Surajmal Sharma Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR828
Dongaonkar S.R., J.Heard Shri Markandeyawar, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri Jaiswal, A.G.P. for respondent No. 1 to 3.1. Rule. Made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.2. The petitioner challenges the order of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur dated 9.9.2008 on Exhibit 65 in Civil Suit No. 279/2001 between the parties.3. The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration and injunction. In this suit when the matter was closed for final arguments, after closing evidence of both sides, plaintiff moved an application for seeking amendment to the plaint to incorporate a plea of perfection of title by way of adverse possession. Said application was rejected by the impugned order.4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relying on the judgment reported in A.I.R. 1996 Kar 55 (The Karnataka Wakf Board v. State of Karnataka and Ors.), particularly in paragraph 22 which reads:22. The plaintiff has taken up an alternative plea that it has perfected its title to the s...
Dr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, (Former Surgeo Lt. Commander of the Indian Na ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR827; 2009(111)BomLR1132
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. The Petitioner, who claims to be a Medical Practitioner, having served on a short service commission for a period of five years with the Armed Forced Medical Corps in the Indian Navy as a Surgeon Lt. Commander and now residing with his family at the Kakrapur Atomic Power Station where his wife is serving in a hospital, has filed the present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 9 to follow the procedure for major penalty and initiate a departmental enquiry against Respondent No. 3 among others, in conformity with the decision taken on 29th August, 2006 (Exhibit - F hereto) by Respondent Nos. 1 and Respondent No. 5 and on the basis of the report of Respondent No. 7 the Chief Vigilance Officer of Respondent No. 5 the Nuclear Power Corporation Pvt. Ltd...
Anami Narayan Roy, Indian Inhabitant and ors. Vs. Suprakash Chakravart ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR221; 2009(111)BomLR869
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. Rule in both the Writ Petitions. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, Rule called out and heard finally at the admission stage itself.Facts2. The State of Maharashtra vide its order dated 29th February 2008 appointed Shri A N Roy, Petitioner in Writ Petition (Lodging) No. 2528 of 2008 and Respondent No. 2 in Writ Petition (Lodging) No. 2552 of 2008, as the Director General and Inspector General of Police, Maharashtra State. This order of the State was challenged by Shri Suprakash Chakravarthy, Director General of Police, Commandant, General Home Guards & Director, Civil Defence, Maharashtra State, Mumbai by filing Original Application No. 389 of 2008 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench, Mumbai stating that he is an Officer from 1972 Batch of the Indian Police Service (IPS) and till date he has served in distinguished capacity in various ranks of the police force and other Departments including CID, Railways, Commissione...
National Commodity and Derivatives Exchange Limited, a Company Incorpo ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR803; 2009(111)BomLR1238; 2009BusLR351(Bom)
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. Petitioner No. 1 is a Limited Company, registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and a recognised association under the provisions of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952 and claims to carry on business as a Commodities' exchange by providing a trading platform for dealing in forward contracts in commodities by its members. Besides Petitioner No. 1, there are two more entities which are functioning in Commodities' exchanges at the national level. Respondent No. 2 is a statutory body constituted under Section 3 of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and exercises limited powers within the provisions of the Act. The Union of India in exercise of its power under Section 26 has delegated powers conferred upon it to Respondent No. 2 under the provisions of the Act including Sections 6(2)(a), 6(3), 8(2)(a), 8(2)(b), 10, 11, 12 and 14.2. Respondent No. 2 has the power to recognise an association a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »