Court : Mumbai
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SMT. MHATRE, J.) Rule. Rule returnable forthwith, by consent. 1. The Petition has been filed by a retired employee of the Respondent no.1-University for payment of his pension in accordance with the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as "the Pension Rules"). 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present Petition are as follows : The petitioner joined the services as a Medical Officer on 15th February, 1979 with the University. Though the appointment of the petitioner was on a temporary basis, he was continued in service every year with a technical break up to the year 1992. In June, 1992, the petitioner was not continued in service. He was replaced by a temporary employee. He, therefore, preferred Writ Petition no. 1352 of 1992, challenging that order. Due to the interim relief granted by this Court, the petitioner continued in service on the same terms and conditions. The Writ Petition was finally heard on 14th September, 2004....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
ORAL JUDGMENT : 1) Rule, with the consent of the learned Counsel for 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 30/12/2010 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Amravati whereby the Application filed by the petitioner for grant of leave under Section 107 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 for joining the Liquidator as a party respondent to the proceedings filed by the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission came to be rejected. 3) A few facts necessary for adjudication of the above petition can be stated thus : The petitioner herein had deposited an amount of Rs.1,31,00,000/- with the respondent no.1 Bank in a fixed deposit for 31 days, which deposit was to carry interest at the rate of 9.5% per annum. Though the said amount was asked to be refunded by the petitioner, the respondent no.1 did...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Heard Mr. M. P. Khajanchi, learned counsel for Appellant and Mr. M. K. Pathan, learned APP for Respondent. 2. The petitioner has questioned validity and legality of the Judgment and Order dated 29/06/2009 passed by the learned Extra Joint Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, in Criminal Appeal No. 31/2003, and Judgment and Order dated 15/03/2003, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandrapur in Regular Criminal Case No. 85/2001. 3. Heard submissions on behalf of the petitioner and respondent-State. 4. It appears that the petitioner who was original accused no. 2 was facing charge for an offence punishable under Sections 409, 420, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, in respect of the alleged misappropriation of an amount of Rs. 42,729/-. According to the petitioner, the amount of Rs. 42,729/- stood repaid to Government Treasury by original accused no. 1 - Tulshidas Tanbaji Nandgawe (husband of the petitioner) vide Exh.20. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER A.R.JOSHI,J.) : 1. Heard rival arguments at length on this Appeal preferred by the Appellants/original accused Nos.1 & 2. Both the appellants were convicted in Sessions Case No.489 of 2002 vide order dated 30.12.2003 passed by the 3rd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Pune. By the impugned judgment and order in Sessions Case No.489 of 2002 both the present appellants / accused Nos.1 & 2 were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and were directed to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of payment of fine to suffer R.I. For six months each. In the said Sessions Case, total six accused were tried. However, accused Nos.3 to 6 were acquitted of all the charges. Admittedly, since date of arrest i.e. since 14.7.2002 both the appellants / accused Nos.1 & 2 were in jail and as such after the judgment and order of conviction they are still in jail till da...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. This Notice of Motion is taken out by the Defendant No.2 for discharge of the Court Receiver in respect of a part of the suit properties for which the Court Receiver was appointed with further directions to the Receiver to handover possession of the said properties to the Receiver appointed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). 2. The Plaintiff, Defendants 3,4,5 & 6 who are also banks and public sector companies and who have a pari passu charge in respect of the suit properties, have not opposed this Notice of Motion. 3. Defendant Nos.1 and 7 have opposed the Notice of Motion though under an interim order of this Court all the parties including Defendant No.1 and 7 agreed to jointly dispose off the properties for payment of the liabilities of Defendant No.1 to the Plaintiffs as also Defendants 2 to 6. 4. The Defendant No.7 is a sister concern of Defendant No.1 and is stated to have certain machinery on the properties for which the Court Receiver is appointed. 5. Mr. Andhyarujina ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. Present appellants original accused Nos. 1 to 3 preferred the present appeal challenging the judgment and order of conviction dated 28th October, 2003 passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur, District Sholapur. By the impugned judgment and order passed in Sessions case No. 97 of 2002 the appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 3 were convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307, 323, read with section 34 of I.P.C. In the serious offence of 302 of I.P.C. each appellant - accused was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for one month each. For the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. each appellant accused was sentenced to suffer R.I.for seven years each and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default further R.I. for two months each, for the offence under Section 323 of I.P.C. each appellant accused was sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to suffer S.I.for 15 days each....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Heard Mr. V. D. Muley, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. M. K. Pathan, learned APP for Respondent-State. 2. By means of this application, the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 21/08/2010 below exhibit 48 and order dated 24/08/2010 below exhibit 50 passed by the learned 3 rd Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhandara in Reg. Criminal Case No. 165 of 2006. 3. It appears that the applicant was facing trial upon accusation punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the trial Magistrate had, on 31/08/2007, framed charge against the applicant and one Abdul Habib alias Bababhai Sheikh, under Section 324 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. It appears that in the course of trial after some witnesses were examined; in the course of evidence of medical witness i.e. PW-2 - Dr. Nitin Devendra Turaskar, when he was questioned about preliminary injury report (exh. 37), he deposed abo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER D.K. DESHMUKH J.) :- 1] The appellants are a Public Sector Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1959 engaged in oil exploration, development and production of oil and natural gas. The appellants have their principal office at Tel Bhavan, Dehradun, Uttar Pradesh and Regional Office at BRBC, Bandra, Bombay 400 054. The contract between the parties is governed by the laws of India.2] By the arbitration petition No.107 of 1997, the appellants petitioners were seeking to set aside the award dated 27th March 1997 in the matter of disputes and differences between the appellants and respondents as the award consists manifest errors, erroneous assumptions on the face of the record. 3] These proceedings had been referred to an Umpire by the learned Arbitrators on a difference arising between them on some of the issues involved in the case. Both the learned Arbitrators agreed that the appellants wrongfully repudiated the contract between them and the respondents c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. Heard Counsel for the parties. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Corporation seeks declaration that the proposed strike of the respondent Unions, pursuant to the strike notices dated 6th July, 2011 and 12th July, 2011, in the respective matters is illegal and unjustified. 2. Briefly stated, the respondent Unions gave notice of strike on 6th July, 2011 and 12th July, 2011 respectively. As a consequence of strike notice, the matter was discussed before the Conciliation Officer and Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Mumbai on 28th July, 2011 and 29th July, 2011 in the pending Conciliation Proceedings. The petitioner Corporation anticipating that the Respondent Unions would take the strike notice forward had already filed Writ Petition in this Court on 22nd July, 2011. However, in view of the stand taken by the concerned Unions before the Conciliation Officer on 28th July, 2011 and 29th July, 2011, that they would not defer the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : J.P. Devadhar, J.) 1. Since the questions of law raised in all these appeals are common, all these appeals are heard together and disposed off by this common judgment. 2. For the sake of convenience, we set out the facts in Tax Appeal No.3693 of 2010, which relates to AY 2002-03. 3. Tax Appeal No.3693 of 2010 is admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- (a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition made on account of provision of solvency margin by the Assessing Officer even though the provision for solvency margin was made as per the directive of IRDA for a period of three years only and does not form the method of actuarial valuation made in accordance with the Insurance Act, 1938 ? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was right in deleting the addition made on account of provision on solvency margin by the Assessing Off...
Tag this Judgment!