Mumbai Court July 2012 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.
Dayaram Dagdoba Maske, Parali District Vs. the State of Maharashtra, T ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Looking to the nature of controversy involved, Rule is made returnable forthwith and matter is heard finally with consent of the parties. Adv. Brahme for petitioner assails selection of the respondent no. 6 as Assistant Professor on the ground of lack of essential qualification of NET/SET in her. Exemption from NET/SET is available only if candidate has Ph.D. Here, respondent 6 does not possess NET/SET and relies upon Ph.D. which she acquired after the last date prescribed for making of applications. He also alleges bias or malafides on part of the Selection Committee. Petitioner also seeks appointment in respondent 5 College in her place. While issuing notice on 12.1.2012, this Court has already cautioned the parties that petition may be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 2. Respondent 1 is State of Maharashtra through its higher and technical education department while respondent 2 is the University established under the Maharashtra Universities ...
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Mumbai Vs. M/S. Sneh Deep Auto C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
1. The Petitioner, the Government of India undertaking, dealing in business of refining and marketing of Petroleum and Petroleum products, have filed this present Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the Arbitration Act) and thereby challenged Award dated 10th April, 2008. 2. The basic facts are as under: The Petitioners entered into a dealership agreement with the Respondent on 1st June, 1995. During inspection on 19/20th February, 2001 the Petitioners noticed malpractices and irregularities. They also noticed variation in the stock of petrol and HSD. A show cause notice was issued dated 30th August, 2001. The same was replied by the Respondent on 5th September, 2001. An inspection conducted by Anti Adulteration Cell and, accordingly, submitted inspection report dated 28th September, 2002. The same was forwarded to the dealer. Therefore, again a show cause notice dated 30th September, 2002 was issued referring to various defaults. As the ne...
Shiva Sahakari Up Jal Sinchan Sanstha Ltd. Vs. the Nanded District Cen ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent heard finally. This writ petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 29th August, 2011 passed by the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Mumbai, Bench Aurangabad, in Appeal No. 26 of 2010. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner is a registered society and is established to lift water from river by way of lift irrigation. The respondent No.1 is the District Central Co-operative Bank and the respondent No. 2 is the branch of the said bank. The petitioner society applied for loan of Rs.11,94,000/- to the respondent No.1 bank, through the respondent No.2. The respondent No. 1 sanctioned loan with thirteen yearly instalments with interest @ 13% p.a. for 12 years period for repayment, on condition of executing promissory notes, by the present petitioner. The petitioner society then paid initial instalment and then amount towards the price of sugar cane was forwarded to the bank by the sugar factory, w...
Manek Dara Sukhadwalla Vs. Shernaz Faroukh Lawyer and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
Misc. Petition (L) No.915 of 102 is filed by Manek Dara Sukhadwalla (hereinafter referred to as 'the Petitioner') seeking an order to hold that Shernaz Faroukh Lawyer and Ms. Villy Awasia (hereinafter individually referred to as 'the Respondent No.1' and 'Respondent No.2' respectively and collectively referred to as 'the Respondents') do not have a caveatable interest in the estate of deceased-testator and to discharge/remove the Caveat filed by them. Notice of Motion No.152 of 2012 has been filed by 'the Petitioner' praying that the Testamentary Suit No.29 of 2012 filed by 'the Respondents' be dismissed on the ground of failure of disclosure of cause of action. Both the above proceedings are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. One Mr. Purvez Burjor Dalal (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased-testator') died at Mumbai on 7.12.2011 leaving behind certain assets/properties. 3. The Petitioner has filed Probate Petition No.5 of 2012 (now Testamentary Suit No.25 of 2012) which...
Kanhayya Traders and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
P.C.:- 1. Writ Petition is filed for quashing and setting aside the order made by J.M.F.C. Dondaicha in application no. 192 of 2009. In a private complaint filed by respondent no.2 for offences punishable under Sections 403, 406, 407, 408, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, J.M.F.C. has made order under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and the concerned Police Station is directed to make investigation of the matter. Both sides are heard. 2. Present petitioners are said to be borrowers of Dadasaheb Rawal Co-operative Bank Ltd., Dondaicha, Tq. Shindkheda, Dist Dhule. Accused no.2 Jaideosing Rawal was Chairman of this bank at the relevant time. The complainant, who is share holder of the Bank has made allegations that Swodharak Vidhyarthi Sanstha belongs to the family of accused no.2, Kanhayya Traders, a concerned belongs to a daughter of accused no.2 and Krushiraj Traders belongs to a daughter of accused no.2. It is contended that accused no.2 conspired w...
Ganesh S/O Shalikram Kasdekar and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
Oral Judgment: On 16th April, 2012 when the matter was called out none had appeared on behalf of the appellants and the matter stood over to 29th July, 2012. Again on 29th July, 2012 none was present for the appellants and, therefore, so as to decide the appeal as soon as possible, Shri. H. S. Rahangdale, learned Advocate, has been appointed (amicus curiae) to represent case on behalf of the appellants. 2. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order passed by IInd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur in Sessions Trial No. 83/2004, dated 19/12/2005 whereby the appellants were convicted of the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of which to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months. 3. Facts stated, in nutshell, are as under:- On 11th May, 2004 at about 7:00 p.m., injured Subhash (PW5) and his wife Kantabai (PW4) w...
Arvind S/O Ramnath Lipane Vs. Mula Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
1. This writ petition is filed challenging the common judgment and order dated 5.10.2010, passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Ahmednagar in Revision (ULP) No. 58 of 2007 and in Revision (ULP) No. 1 of 2010. 2. The petitioner herein was working as Lab Chemist with the respondent Karkhana. During his service period, certain misconducts, against the petitioner, were reported and more particularly, the misconducts of absenteeism, disobedience of the orders of the superiors, indiscipline behaviour etc. To conduct the enquiry of the said misconduct, an Inquiry Officer was appointed. Charges were framed and the charge sheet was served on the petitioner. Domestic enquiry was held. The petitioner did participate in the said enquiry. Enquiry Officer had submitted his report holding the petitioner guilty for the charges of misconduct levelled against him and by way of punishment, his services came to be terminated. 3. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said punishment imposed by t...
Suryamani S/O Baliramji Suryawanshi Vs. Smt. Pournima W/O Bhimrao Keva ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
Oral Judgment: Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard Shri Khapre, the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant; and Shri Jaiswal, the learned counsel for the respondent-landlady. 2. The Trial Court has passed a decree for eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the shop blocks in question on 3-3-2010 in Regular Civil Suit No.271 of 2003 on the ground of bona fide requirement established by the respondent-landlady. In Regular Civil Appeal No.219 of 2010 preferred by the petitioner-tenant, the learned District Judge-7, Nagpur, by his judgment and order dated 5-3-2011, has confirmed the decree passed by the Trial Court on the ground of bona fide requirement. The Appellate Court allowed the cross-objection of the respondent-landlady and also passed a decree on the another ground putforth by the respondent-landlady under Section 16(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, viz. that the tenant has, without the landlord's consent given in writing, erected on the premises any permanen...
Sonali Subhash Mitkari, Aurangabad and Others Vs. the State of Maharas ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Heard respective Counsel. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 3. In all these petitions, common question arises. The question is, whether petitioners who have secured more than 60 % marks in Diploma in Pharmacy can be treated as candidates who have passed said examination in "first class with condonation", in order to enable them justify/claim admission to 2nd year of Bachelor of Pharmacy, directly. It is not in dispute that all these petitioners have been directly admitted to Bachelor of Pharmacy course and at the end of the year of their course i.e. 2nd year B. Pharm., they have been held not eligible and their admissions have been cancelled mentioning that they did not fulfill requirement of Rule or para 2.1 of the admission brochure. In all these matters, it is claimed that because of interim orders granted by this Court, the petitioners have continued prosecuting B.Pharm. course and have also passed the final degree examinat...
Dada S/O Gopinath Nimse Vs. Collector, Ahmednagar and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
P.C. Application moved by third party applicants seeking their impleadment in the suit has been allowed by the trial Court in view of order passed below exh. 13 in Regular Civil Suit No.320/2011. 2. The suit is presented by petitioner / plaintiff raising challenge to the notice issued by the Tahsildar directing the petitioner to remove encroachment allegedly made on the public way. According to plaintiff, there is no public way as contended in the notice and construction is made by him on the area belonging to him. Third party applicants in their application contended that they are the adjoining owners of the land and the suit way is being used by them as access to their property. It is contended that petitioner is extending threats and prohibiting third party applicants from using the way. As such they moved public authority for taking action against petitioner. Trial Court, considering the contentions raised by third party applicants that they would be directly affected by result of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »