Mumbai Court July 2011 Judgments
Gorakh Hilal Patil and anr. Vs. Parit Samaj Seva Mandal and anr.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-21-2011
1. This revision application is directed against the judgment and order dated 21st September, 2007 passed by the Ad-hoc District Judge-1, Dhule in Regular Civil Appeal No.26/2006 dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 7th February, 2006 passed by the C.J.J.D., Shirpur in RCS No.263 of 1992. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows: The respondent No.1 Parit Seva Samaj Mandal, Shirpur through its President and panchas filed R.C.S. No.263 of 1992 against deceased Hilal Natthu Patil - tenant, father of the present petitioner No.1 and husband of petitioner No.2 in the Court of Jt. C.J.J.D., Shirpur for recovery of arrears of rent and possession of residential premises bearing CTS No.1420 (for short, referred to as "the suit property"), on the ground of default and bona fide and reasonable use under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short, referred to as the said Act). The trial Court on completion ...
Tag this Judgment!Tukaram Vithal Bhangare Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-2011
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State. 2. In the present criminal appeal the judgment and order dated 21st May 2004 passed by the IInd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik, has been impugned whereby the appellant came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and was directed to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default R.I. for six months. 3. The circumstances resultant in prosecution of the appellant for offence of murder are as follows:- Deceased Bibabai was the wife of the appellant and both of them along with their son P.W. 2 Laxman at the relevant time were residing in a farm house of Ajay at Village Satpur. The appellant and deceased were working as agricultural labour on the field. On 6th January 2003 P.W. 2 Laxman returned to his house at 6 p.m., requested the appellant (his father) to give him money to see t...
Tag this Judgment!Suryabhan S/O Ramjirao Kale Vs. Shri. Vishwambhar Maruti Pawar and ors ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-20-2011
1. This Contempt Petition alleges disobedience of order dated 24-08-2005 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 5625 of 2005. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Shanteshwar Vidyalaya Sastur, Tq. Lohara, District Osmanabad on 02-07-1973. In 1975 his services were confirmed. In 1984 he was promoted as Head Master and was working continuously as Headmaster till January 2005. The petitioner was due for retirement on 31-08-2005. Due to some dispute in Management, the petitioner was issued notice on 24-01-2005. Said notice was received by the petitioner on 27-01-2005. The petitioner has replied the said notice on 30-01-2005. It is further case of the petitioner that on 21-02-2005 respondent No. 1 without issuing any further notice and without conducting any inquiry has issued termination order. The petitioner filed Appeal No. 29 of 2005 before the School Tribunal contending that, the said termination is in contravention of Rule 37...
Tag this Judgment!Satchi Development Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Karishma Mahtani @ Vijayalaks ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-2011
1 A Summons for Judgment is taken out by the Plaintiffs through its nominal Director, which is basically the company of the son of Defendant No.2 and brother of Defendant No.1, in a suit for recovery of ` 3,70,20,410/- with future interest, against Defendant No.1, based upon the alleged agreement for Project Management, Construction, Development and Finance dated 21 April 2003 (The Agreement). 2 The Plaintiffs' one of the Director Indresh Advani (Indresh) and Defendant No.2, the mother of Defendant No.1 and Indresh were the beneficiaries of equal shares in the estate of deceased Shamsunder T. Advani (the father) of Defendant No.1 and Indresh, under the last Will and testament dated 13 May 2001. 3 The piece and parcel of land admeasuring about 862 sq. yards together with the bungalow and outhouse standing thereon known as "Shamkala" situated at 95-I, Oomer Park, Breach Candy, Mumbai (the property) for which development, Defendant No.1, who resides in Nigeria by her General Power of Atto...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Spentex Industries Ltd. Vs. Member, Industrial Court, Nagpur Templ ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-19-2011
1) Rule with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2) The above petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 08/11/2010 passed by the learned Industrial Court, Nagpur in Revision ULP No.173/2009, by which order the Revision Application filed by the petitioner came to be rejected and consequently the order dated 03/12/2009 passed by the learned 2nd Labour Court, Nagpur came to be confirmed. 3) Shorn of unnecessary details, a few facts can be stated thus. The respondent No.3 herein has filed Complaint ULP No.11/2009 alleging unfair labour practice against the petitioner under Item 1 (a), (b), (c), (d), (f) and (g) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as to the "said Act"). The complaint was filed at the intermediate stage when the Enquiry Officer, who had conducted the enquiry against the respondent No....
Tag this Judgment!Viveck Goenka Vs. Raju Son of Kantilal Rangari and ors.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-19-2011
1. Heard. Admit. Heard forthwith by consent of parties. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the applicant prays for to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 11.9.2009 in Criminal (ULPA) No. 37 of 2009 whereby Judge, 4th Labour Court, Nagpur was pleased to issue process under Section 48 (1) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. 2. It appears that Criminal (ULP) No. 609 of 1998 before the Labour Court against (1) Indian Express Newspapers (Bom) Limited, Jagat Apartment, Ravi Nagar Square, through its Branch Manager and (2) Indian Express Newspapers (Bom) Limited, Express Tower, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021, through its General Manager seeking relief of reinstatement with continuity in service and full back-wages. That Complaint (ULP) was partly allowed by the Judge, 4th Labour Court, Nagpur vide judgment and order dated 4th February 2...
Tag this Judgment!Nihilent Technologies Private Limited Vs. the Dy. Commissioner of Inco ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-2011
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. This petition is filed to challenge the notice dated 29th March 2010 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 seeking to reopen the assessment for assessment year 2003-2004. The petitioner - assessee has also challenged the order dated 16th December, 2010 whereby the objections raised by the assessee for reopening of the assessment have been rejected. 3. The assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of development of software. The shares of the assessee company were held in the initial three years, as follows. Share-holders of the petitioner- 31-03-2001 31-03-2002 31-03-2003 company Hatch Investments (Mauritius) Ltd., 99.85% 76.63% 76.25% Other share-holders 0.15% 23.37% 23.75% TOTAL 100% 100% 100% The share-holding of Hatch Investments (Mauritius) Limited ('Hatch Investments' for short) at 99.85% on as on 31st March 2001 was reduced to 76.63...
Tag this Judgment!V.P. Patil and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-2011
1. On 11/6/2011, Senior Journalist J. Dey, who was working with Mid Day newspaper was shot dead at 4.00 p.m. at Powai by unidentified gunmen. The basic prayer in the present writ petitions is that the investigation of the case pertaining to the murder of J. Dey be transferred to Central Bureau of Investigation (for short, "the CBI"). PIL Petition No.28 of 2011 is filed by Mr. V.P. Patil, who is an advocate practising in this court. He is appearing in person. PIL Petition No.29 of 2011 is filed by Mr. S. Balakrishnan, who is also a journalist. Writ Petition No. 1629 of 2011 is filed by one Mr. Ketan Tirodkar in public interest. In PIL Petition No.28 of 2011, intervention application was filed by the Press Club, Mumbai and Marathi Patrakar Parishad, Mumbai. The applicants have been permitted to intervene by us. 2. Mr. Patil, who is petitioner in PIL Petition No.28 of 2011 has submitted that the investigation needs to be transferred to CBI because though more than about a month has elapse...
Tag this Judgment!Sheshrao Trimbakro Patil and ors. Vs. Trimbakrao Shrirangrao Bhise and ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-18-2011
1. Both these writ petitions are challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned Collector, Latur dated 08/04/2011 holding that the petitioners stood disqualified as members of Zilla Parishad, Latur. 2. The facts leading to this litigation in short can be stated as under. 3. The petitioners are members of Indian National Congress, a national level political party and as its official candidates, were elected as councilors of Zilla Parishad, Latur in 2007. 4. The elections for the post of President and Vice President were due in 2009. A meeting was called on 02/12/2009 for the election. Fifty Seven councilors of Zilla Parishad attended this meeting. Out of them, 31 councilors including petitioners belonged to Indian National Congress, five councilors belong to Nationalist Congress party. (Indian National Conress and Nationalist Congress party jointly contested the election of Zilla Parishad.) 5. Time for filing of the nominations for the posts was given to the councilors between...
Tag this Judgment!NitIn S/O Namdeorao Pimpalde Vs. Agriculture Produce Market and anr.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-18-2011
1) Rule, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2) The above petition takes exception to the order dated 19/5/2011 passed by the Industrial Court, Amravati whereby the Application for stay pending Revision Application (ULP) No.40/2011 filed by the petitioner came to be rejected. 3) The Complaint (ULP) filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Labour Court by the judgment and order dated 15/4/2011 against which the petitioner has gone in Revision before the Industrial Court under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. 4) It is an admitted position that an interim order had been operating in favour of the petitioner right throughout the pendency of the Complaint and was also operating for a period of two months in the above Revision Application pending consideration of the Application for stay. The said Application for stay has been rejected, inter alia, ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »