Court : Mumbai
1. This is one more glaring case of gross violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and that also at the hands of the Police machinery which is supposed to be protector of common man. The victims are the second and third Petitioners who are senior citizens. 2. We may note here that by an order dated 31st October, 2012, we directed that the Writ Petition shall be heard and disposed of finally. This Court noted in the said order that what survives for consideration is the prayer Clauses (b) and (d) which concern illegal detention of the second and third Petitioners. The first Petitioner and the third Respondents are husband and wife. The Second and third Petitioners are parents of the first Petitioner. On 29th November, 2011, at the instance of the third Respondent, the first Information Report was registered with Navghar Police Station, Mumbai, complaining about the offences under Sections 498A, 406, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian penal Code against the Petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Writ Petition is filed praying therein to issue direction to the Respondent No.1, i.e. Shri. Maruti Govind Jadhav, to pay compensation to the Petitioner for gross violation of provisions of law. It is further prayed that, action may be taken against those Respondents-Officers for gross violation of subsection (4) of Section 46 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as the Code), and further to direct the Respondent No.1 to desist from harassing the Petitioner as well as her family members. 2. Background facts leading to filing of the present Writ Petition, in a nutshell, are as under : It is the case of the Petitioner that on 13th June, 2007, in the evening, the Petitioner was on her way to a Family Doctor along with her sister Mrs. Rajeshri B. Khandhar, when the Respondent No.1 reached at the house of the Petitioner and abruptly stopped his bike in front of the car of the Petitioner. The Respondent No.1 introduced himself as Sub-Inspe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. By this Arbitration Petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner challenges the Award passed by the sole Arbitrator dated 14th May 2009. By the impugned Award the Arbitrator has directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.89,62,656/- towards the claim of the Respondent and an amount of Rs.85,000/- towards half of the arbitration costs. 2. The petitioner - Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, having its office at Kolkata and the registered office at New Delhi. The petitioner is in the business of production of iron and steel, and for transportation of cargo it takes vessels on charter. The Respondent Mercator Lines Limited (Mercator) is a company incorporated under the Companies Act having its registered office in Mumbai. Respondent owns several vessels and it is in the business of letting the vessels on charter for freight at sea. 3. The dispute between the parties is regarding ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud J.) Rule, by consent returnable forthwith. With the consent of Counsel and at their request the Petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. Leave to amend in terms of the draft handed in and taken on record. Amendment to be carried out within two weeks from today. 3. The Petitioner passed the BDS course in 2006 and is a student of the post-graduate MDS course in the discipline of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics at Y.M.T. Dental College, Navi Mumbai. She appeared in the annual examination conducted by the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, on 1 June 2012. In the results declared on 4 August 2012, the Petitioner was declared to have failed the examination. The Petitioner applied for revaluation on 7 August 2012 of which the results are pending. 4. In these proceedings, the Petitioner has sought to challenge the legality and validity of the Rules framed by the first Respondent in regard to the standard of passing on the gr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
A.S. Oka, J. While adjourning the Petition on 19th January 2012, this Court made it clear that the Petition will be taken up for final disposal at the admission stage. 2. The Fourth Respondent filed a complaint on 7th May 2011 with Bhudargad Taluka Police Station against the Petitioners alleging that the Petitioners have been assaulting and abusing her with a view to harass her and her family members. On the basis of the complaint, a non-cognizable offence under Section 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the Petitioners by the said Police Station. On 9th May 2012, the Second Respondent who was ASI attached to the said Police Station arrested the Petitioners at 12.35. Though the offences registered against them were non-cognizable and bailable, it was shown that the Petitioners were arrested by way of preventive action under Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Code"). It is alleged that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
The original defendant has taken an exception to the Judgment and Decree dated 25th February 2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pune in a suit filed by the respondent. The suit was filed for specific performance of the alleged agreement for sale executed by and between the appellant and the respondent. The Trial Court decreed the suit by directing the appellant to execute and sign necessary form under section 37(I) of the Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") and also produce income tax certificate under section 230(A) of the said Act. The learned Trial Judge directed the appellant to execute a sale deed in respect of her 3/4th share in respect of the suit property in favour of the respondent. The learned Trial Judge directed that a Court Commissioner be appointed to ascertain the market value of the suit property from the office of the Sub Registrar as per the Government ready reckoner on the relevant date. 2. The suit property is land b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
S.J. Vazifdar, J. Both the Writ Petitions involve the same questions and are accordingly disposed of by this common judgment. There is one petitioner in Writ Petition No. 568 of 2012 and there are two petitioners in Writ Petition No. 616 of 2012. We will refer to the facts as stated in Writ Petition No. 616 of 2012. 2. The petitioners seek a Writ of Certiorari to quash and set aside a decision of the Government of Goa, taken in its 'Cabinet Meeting' held on 23rd May, 2012 (in Agenda Item No.18), not to accept the recommendations of Respondent No.2 Goa Public Service Commission (GPSC) in regard to the selection to 9 (nine) vacancies to the post of 'Junior Scale Officer of Goa Civil Service'. The petitioners have also sought a Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to accept the said recommendations of GPSC pursuant to advertisement No. 2 of 2011 as modified by advertisement No. 4 of 2011. 3. By the said advertisement No. 2 of 2011 issued on 11th February, 2011, the GPSC invited ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Oral Judgment: ( B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. Petitioners challenge common judgment and order dated 24.2.2010 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Original Applications No. 261 of 2009 to 288 of 2009 dismissing the said original applications. The petitioners had challenged order dated 24.4.2009 issued by respondent Dean and Chairman, Selection committee, Ayhurvedic College and Hospital, Nagpur, thereby terminating their services with effect from 24.4.2009. 2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the filing of these petitions are as under : That, respondent no. 2, after approval of respondent no. 1, had advertised total 35 posts as under : Sr.No. Name of Post No. of Payscale PostsSr.No.Name of PostNo. of PostsPay-scale1.Peon42550-55-2600-60-32002.Ward Attendant252550-55-2600-60-32003.Asst. Cook22550-55-2600-60-32004.X-Ray Assistant12550-55-2600-60-32005.Rasshala Sevak12550-55-2600-60-32006.Washerman12610-60-2910-65-3300-70-40007.Barber12610-60-2910-65-3300-70-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
P.C. This Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking reliefs as prayed against the Respondents. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner tenders Affidavit of service proving service dated 05th December, 2012. The same is taken on record. It is stated in the Affidavit that Respondents have refused to accept the service. Today the Petition is taken up for final hearing however, none appears for the Respondents. 3. The Petitioner had provided a loan of Rs.1,55,58,000/- (Rupees one crore fifty five lakh fifty eight thousand only) to the first Respondent under a Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreement entered into on 24th October, 2009. The loan was repayable with interest @ 6.45% per annum as under :- (1) totaling to Rs.63,97,870/- in 41 equated monthly installment, 1st installment of Rs.1,55,043/-, 2nd installment of Rs.1,96,150/- and 3rd to 41 installments of Rs.1,55,043/- commencing from 06.12.2009 and ending on 06.04.20...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: By the present appeal the original-complainant in Criminal Case No.234/S of 1994 of the 38th Court, Metropolitan Magistrate, Ballard Estate, Bombay has challenged the order dated 25th November, 1994 passed by the learned Magistrate, dismissing the complaint and acquitting the respondent no.1. 2. Considering the brief controversy involved in this matter it will be wholly unnecessary to narrate in detail regarding the complaint instituted by the appellant except that he had filed the said case for bouncing of a cheque for an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) given by the respondent no.1. The said complaint was filed on the allegation of respondent no.1 thereby having committed the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. After the respondent no.1 pleading not guilty to the accusation explained to him, during the course of hearing examination-in-chief of the first witness for complainant-appellant was recorded on 11th July, 1994 and the matte...
Tag this Judgment!