Mumbai Court June 2011 Judgments
Mr. V.P. Patil Vs. Mr. Justice N.D. Deshpande and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-2011
1. On 11 October 1991, respondent 1 was appointed as Additional Judge of the City Civil & Sessions Court, Mumbai. On 16 April 2008, he was elevated as a Judge of this court. His appointment as Additional Judge was continued from 17 April 2010 to 16 April 2011. On 7 April 2011, the Principal Secretary & R.L.A. wrote a letter to the Registrar General of this court intimating to him that the Higher and Technical Education Department of the State Government wanted him to make a request to the Chief Justice to recommend the name of a person for appointment as Presiding Officer of the Bombay University and College Tribunal, Mumbai ("the College Tribunal") under Section 58 of the Maharashtra University Act, 1994 as the post was vacant. On 8 April 2011, respondent 1 conveyed his willingness for being appointed to the post. On 8 April 2011, on the recommendation of the Chief Justice, respondent 1 was appointed to the said post. 2. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution o...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjay S/O Arjun Dhule Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-30-2011
1) Rule with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2) This petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 29th January, 2011, by which order the Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, Amravati- respondent No.2 has refused to entertain the appeal on the ground that he has not been so empowered by any order passed by the State Government. 3) During the course of hearing of the above petition, Shri Sonak, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3, submits that in terms of the Full Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2002 (3) Mh.L.J. 659 in the matter of Suryakant Sheshrao Panchal vs. Vasantrao Naik Vimukta Jati Bhatakya Jamati Aadarsh Prasarak Mandal and others, wherein it has been held that Ashram Schools are not the Private Schools falling within the ambit of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act and therefore, the remedy of A...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. M/S. Sun Media Services
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-2011
1 By this petition, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Arbitration Act) a challenge is made to the Award dated 31 May 2007, passed by the Arbitral Tribunal in favour of the Respondent (the Contractor) against the Petitioner (Western Railway, Mumbai). BASIC FACTS:- 2 To the tender, as invited by the Petitioner on behalf of the President of India, for sole advertising rights of Borivali Station for one year, the Respondent's bid was accepted on 15 December 2003. The terms and conditions reflected in form No.3 of the tender document. 3 The basic conditions of the tender notice were as under:-"1. The licensee shall admit/ show the plan/text/design of all the advertisements to be displayed at BORIVALI Railway Station, to the Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager and obtain his prior approval for all such displays. (Condition 2 of Special Conditions, page 9 of Tender document). 2. This contract is entered into on the express understanding that if for a...
Tag this Judgment!Manikrao S/O Narayanrao Bhoge and ors. Vs. Shri Maheshkumar S/O Bansil ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-30-2011
1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 12.9.1994 in Regular Civil Appeal No.398/1987 by which the first appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree dated 28.7.1987 passed by the 4th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Amravati in Regular Civil Suit No.439/1982, the present appeal was filed by the appellants. FACTS : 2. Appellants the original plaintiffs brought suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No.439/1982 for declaration for right or way and for perpetual and mandatory injunction in relation to the way shown by letters A1 to A7 for approaching to their respective fields. They filed a map along with plaint. There is a main road going from Amravati to Walgaon. There is also a Government link road shown by letters A1, A2, B1, B2 and B3 which runs from Changapur Phata to village Changapur. This link road joins Amravati- Walgaon road A1 and passes through field Survey Nos.35 and 34. All the appellants/plaintiffs reach to their respective fields by the said link road from A1...
Tag this Judgment!Pratap Nagarik Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd. Vs. the Collector and ors.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-29-2011
1. Rule, with the consent of the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The above petitions involve a common question and therefore are heard together and disposed of. 3. The facts in each of the above petitions are identical, however, for convenience sake the facts in Writ Petition No.2681 of 2011 would be narrated. 4. The petitioner in the said petition is aggrieved by the order dated 26/5/2011 passed by the Collector, Gondia by which order the application filed by the petitioner for inclusion of its name in the provisional voters' list for elections to the respondent no.3 - Society came to be rejected. The said rejection is on the ground that in terms of Rule 4 of the Maharashtra Specified Co-operative Societies Election to Committee Rules, 1971, the petitioner does not qualify for its name being included in the provisional voters' list as it has not completed three years qualifying period prior to the cut off date. The rejection in case of the other petitioners is also o...
Tag this Judgment!Mahavirchand S/O Suganchand Deoda and anr. Vs. Ashaykumar S/O Bhavarsi ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-29-2011
1 Appellants herein are raising exception to the order passed by Arbitral Tribunal on 11.05.2011. 2 Appellants and respondents are the partners of a partnership firm named and styled as `M/s Paras' and dealing in the business of sale of clothes manufactured by Raymond Mills on retail basis. There arose certain differences between the partners, which led to filing of an application by respondent no.1 herein, being Arbitration Application No.03 of 2008, seeking appointment of Arbitrator to resolve disputes and differences between the parties. Considering the arbitration agreement incorporated in the Deed of Partnership, this Court directed appointment of panel of arbitrators. The panel consists of two Chartered Accountants - each one suggested by either of the parties and a Presiding Arbitrator is appointed by this Court from amongst the names of retired High Court Judges suggested by both the parties. Shri Justice N.P.Chapalgaonkar, retired Judge of this Court, is appointed as Presiding...
Tag this Judgment!Pandharinath Condbaji Sahare Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-29-2011
1. Heard both sides. Perused the record. Criminal 2. By the present petition, reliefs which the petitioners are seeking are quoted below: (i)" direct the respondent Municipal Council to initiate an enquiry for the reasons of leakage of water due to which the citizens of Hinganghat were affected, and; (ii) direct the Municipal Council to initiate prosecution against the erring officers of Municipal Council for their negligence/failure to supply pure drinking water to the citizens of Hinganghat, and; (iii)direct the State as well as by Municipal Council, Hinganghat and the erring officer of the respondent Municipal Council to pay appropriate compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- to the petitioners for the loss of their son, and; (iv) direct the respondent State or the Municipal Council to give employment to one of the son of the petitioners so as to save the family from starving." [Quoted from pages no.18 & 19 of petition paper book] BACKGROUND 3. The petitioners' claim is based...
Tag this Judgment!Manikrao S/O. Krishnathrao Salunke Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-29-2011
1. This appeal is filed against judgment and order of Special Case No. 8/1995 which is decided by Special Judge, Osmanabad. The appellant is convicted and sentenced for offences punishable under sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [ "PC Act" for short]. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that original complainant Prabhakar Kardhore was working in army at the relevant time and he had some matter pending with Tahsil Officer Omerga, District Osmanabad. The complainant belongs to village Kate-chincholi, District Osmanabad where there was earthquake on 30.9.1993. It is the case of the complainant that he was having a separate house in the village and it collapsed in the earthquake. It is the case of the complainant that partition had taken place amongst complainant and his two brothers in the year 1984 and due to partition he was having 1 H. 34 R. agricultural land in his village. 3. For rehabilitation of persons affected due to afo...
Tag this Judgment!Khandu Babuji Londhe Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-2011
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 3.4.2003 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No.209 of 2000 whereby the appellant came to be convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for life and was also directed to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default R.I. for six months. The appellant is also convicted for the offence punishable under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer R.I. for three months. Both these substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently. Original Accused no.2 Suresh Waman Padwal and accused no.3 Kailas Kisan Date were acquitted of all the charges. The State Government has not preferred an appeal against the acquittal of original accused nos.2 & 3. 3. ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S.Rastriya Chemicals and Fertilisers Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-2011
1. This appeal is directed against an order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal on an application for waiver of the condition of pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Though six questions of law have been raised, Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant has confined the appeal to the following two, namely : (i) Whether, prima facie when a Public Sector Undertaking is of substantial worth and solvency and able to secure the Revenue by a general bond (in consonance with the binding Central Excise Manual requirements as well as judgments of this Hon'ble Court) can the Tribunal sit in judgment and order a pre-deposit of almost 50%; and (ii) Whether in facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Respondent No.2, the Tribunal, is justified in not considering the prima facie case made out by the Appellant on the basis of a chart as well as the annexure to the Show Cause Notice wherein the Department has admitted that Naphtha procured unde...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »