Mumbai Court September 2010 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.
Subodh Prasad Urf Anil Chotu Jagdish Mahato, Vs. Jagbir Singh Darbara ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-2010
1. We propose to dispose of both these Petitions by common Judgment, as the issues raised are overlapping.2. The principal question that arises for our consideration is: whether the condition specified in Government Circular dated 16th December 2008, requiring the prisoners from other States to furnish local surety within the State of Maharashtra, for availing furlough leave, infringes the right of such prisoner?3. Both these Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been filed through jail. Insofar as Writ Petition No.2343 of 2009 is concerned, the Petitioner therein has been convicted vide Judgment of the Sessions Court at Sewri, Mumbai dated 29th December 2005 for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and is undergoing sentence of life imprisonment at Kolhapur Central Prison. It is his case that when the offence took place, he was about 18 years old. The said Petitioner hails from District Hazaribaug in State of Jharkhand. He came to Mumba...
Smt. Geeta W/O Mohan Khandwekar, Aged About 38 Years, Vs. the Principa ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-07-2010
1. Heard Shri Parchure with Shri Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Joshi, learned AGP for respondent No. 4. Nobody had appeared for respondents No. 1 to 3 i.e. management.2. In this petition filed under Articles of 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, the challenge is to the judgment dated 28.10.1998 delivered by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur, in Appeal No. STN/66 of 1995 upholding the order of termination dated 29.03.1995 issued by the management terminating services of present petitioner from 30.04.1995.3. The short contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is there was an advertisement in 198990 and as the petitioner fulfilled qualifications prescribed therein, she applied and was duly selected. She was accordingly appointed initially for Session 198990 and continued till 199495. The learned counsel states that in service book, the appointment has been shown as appointment on probation. However, as approval was given from year to year basis...
M/S.Ralhan Developers, and ors. Vs. Vijay Tendulkar of Bombay, and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-2010
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 23092003, by which the learned Single Judge passed an order of sentencing the appellant into civil imprisonment for a period of one month, for willful disobedience of the injunction order passed by this Court. The learned Single Judge has passed the aforesaid order below notice of motion No.331 of 1996. The learned Single Judge has observed in the order that both the Advocates agreed before the Judge that the facts and law involved in the notice of motion, are similar to the facts and law in Notice of motion No.330 of 1996, except that the appellant who was defending the suit in the present matter, is the son of Rajkumar Relhan, Proprietor of Defendant Company in Notice of Motion No.330 of 1996. The learned Single Judge 3 APP 15 of 2004 accordingly on the basis of the order passed in the notice of motion No. 330 of 1996, passed the impugned order in the notice of motion No.331 of 1996 and...
Atul S/O Baburao Mandale Aged About 20 Years. Vs. the State of Maharas ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-06-2010
1. The appellant is challenging the judgment and order dated 10.10.2009 in Sessions Case No.102/2007 decided by the learned Sessions Judge, Chandrapur who was pleased to convict the appellant /accused for offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code ( in short "IPC") and sentenced him to suffer RI for a period of seven years and fine of Rs.3000/ in default, to undergo further RI for six months. In addition, the appellant was also found guilty for offence punishable under section 323 IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for one year ; and also for offence punishable under section 506 Part II and sentenced to suffer RI for five years and fine in the sum of Rs. 1000/ in default, RI for six months, with direction that sentences to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case in brief is that : prosecutrix Mangala, aged about 17 years, was residing with her parents and younger sister Laxmi at Kantapeth Mul Dist.Chandrpaur. Since the appellant also hails from the same village, he was ...
The New India Assurance Company Limited and ors. Vs. M/S. Alan Scott I ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-2010
1. Arbitration Petition No.101 of 2007 challenges an award made by the arbitral tribunal consisting of three arbitrators dated 13th June, 2006. By an order and judgment dated 5th June, 2008, the learned single Judge found that the arbitral tribunal had not dealt with three contentions viz. the non arbitrability of the dispute; that the Respondent had accepted a sum of Rs.1,10,46,134/- in full and final settlement of the award and whether the Respondent is entitled to claim any interest in the absence of a contract and if so, at what rate. The learned Judge, accordingly, deferred the hearing of the other grounds of challenge till the decision of the arbitral tribunal on these questions. In other words, instead of setting aside the award, the learned Judge considered it appropriate to remit the award to the arbitral tribunal for a decision on these three issues. 3 ARBP101.07.sxw The arbitral tribunal, therefore, made and published what is termed as an auxillary award dated 5th May, 2009....
Satinath S/O Maniknath Raut and ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-02-2010
1. The appellant is challenging the judgment and order dated 14th February, 2007 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhandara in Sessions Trial No. 45/2006 whereby the appellant/accused was convicted for offence punishable under sections 376, 448, 506 of the Indian Penal Code ( in short "IPC"). For offence punishable under section 376 IPC, the appellant/accused was sentenced to suffer R. I. for seven years and fine in the sum of Rs.1,000/ in default, to undergo further RI for one year ; for offence punishable u/s 448, R I for one year and fine of Rs. 100/ in default to undergo RI for one month; whereas for offence u/s 506 IPC, he was sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs.100/ in default, to further undergo R.I. for one month, with a direction that substantive sentences to run concurrently; with further direction that out of the amount of fine, a sum of Rs. 1,000/ shall be payable as compensation to the prosecutrix.2. Facts of the case filtering ou...
Messer Holdings Limited,and ors.Vs. Shyam Madanmohan Ruia,and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-2010
Considering the multiple proceedings resorted to by the parties to the two suits, for the sake of convenience, we would refer to them as per the description of the parties given in the suits.2. This common Judgment will dispose off all the above proceedings between the parties, before us, except Notice of Motion Nos. 2511/2008 and 2512/2008. The above four Appeals have been filed against the common Judgment and order passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court dated 26th March, 2003 and clarified on 2nd May, 2003 while disposing of all the Notice of Motions in the two suits. The Appeals, however, take exception to the order passed in Notice of Motion Nos. 3230/2000, 392/2001, 534/2002 and 1231 of 2002.3. Appeal No. 840/2003 is filed by the defendant no.3 against the order in Notice of Motion No. 3230/2000 in Suit no. 2499/99. The Appeal No. 841/2003 is also filed by the defendant no. 3, but against the order in Notice of Motion No. 392/2001 in Suit No. 509/2001. Appeal No. 855/200...
Spanco Limited.Vs. A2z Maintenance and Engineering Services Limited an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-2010
Heard Mr.Kapadia, the learned Senior Advocate for the review petitioner, and Mr.Dwarkadas, the learned Senior Advocate for the respondent no.1, and Mr.Shetty, the learned counsel for the respondent no.2.2. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (original respondent no.1 in Writ Petition no.3859 of 2010) in the month of January, 2010, issued Request for Proposal (RFP) for appointment of franchisee for distribution areas i.e. Aurangabad and Nagpur. A2Z Maintenance & Engineering Services Limited (petitioner in Writ Petition No.3859 of 2010) submitted its bids for both the areas. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (respondent no.2 herein) rejected the bids submitted by the original petitioner on the ground that the Power of Attorney submitted by the original petitioner (respondent no.1 herein) along with the bid was not notarised Power of Attorney as per the requirement of clause 5.1.1 read with clause 5.1.1.10. It was the case of the petitioner ...
Madhav S/O Sitaramji Ramteke, and ors. Vs. Central Cables Limited, and ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-01-2010
1. Matter is partheard. Today respective counsel have concluded their arguments.2. During arguments, my attention has been invited to the orders of this court dated 20/11/2008, by which this court has directed Government to file affidavit about the type of Industry carried out by respondent no.1. That affidavit has been placed on record on 29/7/2010. Its perusal shows that deponent Shri R.B.Jadhav, Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nagpur, has stated therein that it is engineering Industry. The enquiry report submitted by a Committee of three Government Labour Officers after visiting the establishment shows that, according to them, the issue needs judicial adjudication. They have also placed on record a chart pointing out the machines employed, purpose thereof and nature of activity.3. Shri Kakani, has pointed out that during pendency of present writ petition the establishment of respondent no.1 has been inspected on 13/2/2006 and therein the nature of employment/Industry has been spec...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›