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.
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...
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 punishmen...
Shraddha Polymats a Registered Partnership Firm Through Its Partner Ma ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
Deshmukh, J. 1. Rule, returnable forthwith and heard finally, with consent of parties. 02. The petitioners have approached this court invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking direction to respondents to issue Eligibility Certificate to them under the Package Scheme of Incentives, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "The PSI" or "The Scheme") as contained in Resolution dated 7.5.1993 issued by the Government of Maharashtra. 03. The petitioners in this group of petitions have contended that the communications dated 09.08.2005 and 10.02.2010 are arbitrary, invidiously discriminatory, violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India and capriciously decline benefits which are legitimately available and due to them under the PSI. 4. The parties have agreed to treat Writ Petition No.5366 of 2010 by Shradha Polymats, a partnership firm, as the lead petition. Thus, the facts in said Writ Petition No.5366 of 2010 are referred to hereinafter and the decision ...
Latur Gorakshan Trust Through Its Secretary Shri Kantaprasad Vishnudas ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 3. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the Revision was fixed for hearing before the Revisional Authority on 20.5.2009. He invited my attention to the document at page 65 of the compilation of writ petition and submitted that, office of the Revisional Authority had sent a notice of hearing of the matter on 18.5.2009 by fax. The same was received at about 6.30 p.m. on that day. Therefore, a letter was written by one of the office bearer of the petitioner Trust, requesting to the Revisional Authority i.e. Minister, stating therein that, the notice of hearing is received by the petitioner on 18.5.2009, by fax. It is further stated in the said communication that, Shri Kantaprasad Vishnudasji Rathi, who is Secretary of the petitioner Trust, is not available in the town and eight days prior to receiving such notice, he has proceeded to Bad...
Sk. Kalu Sk. Ibrahim and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
1. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 16/10/1998, passed by learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Akola in a Sessions Trial No. 144 of 1997, whereby the original accused were convicted of the offences punishable under Sections 148,149, 307, 326, 323 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for various durations of 3 months to 5 years and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs.500/- to 1000/- for various offences. In default of payment of fine, they were directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the durations of 15 days to six months respectively. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Heard the submissions at the bar. 3. The Facts, in nutshell, are as under: Injured witnesses Radhesham Shrivas (PW1), Sunil Ambhore (PW2), Devanand Jadhav (PW3), resident of Village Gadge Nagar, Akola knew each other as also the accused. First informant Radhesham, a Barber by profession, along with his brother Sundar went to the H...
indus Engineering Co. a Sole Proprietary Firm Through Its Proprietor I ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
1. The Petitioners Claimants have challenged impugned award dated 27 January 2009 passed by the sole Arbitrator appointed in view of the Arbitration clause provided in the agreement pertaining to the work of Supply and Transportation to site of imported D.I. Pipes and Specials for Variav R.W.S.S. Surat for Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board. 2. The Claimants prevented from performing the contract, as alleged; the Respondents refuted the same. Admittedly, the shipment did not take place. The non opening of letter of credit by the Respondents was another factor. The Claimants admittedly, received advance of Rs.60 lakhs, but quite late, as per the agreed time. There arose dispute. This Arbitration proceedings to resolve the same. 3. The first sole Arbitrator resigned on 19 May 2006. The present learned Arbitrator, entered upon the reference on 26 May 2006 and proceeded from the stage of evidence and arguments, based upon the material available on record, including written notes of ar...
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 defau...
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 cons...
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 ...
Amit Sanjay Gaurollu Vs. University of Mumbai and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-2012
Oral Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) 1 In these proceedings the Petitioner has sought a direction to:- (i) allow him to attend the Seventh semester of the Bachelor of Engineering Degree course which commenced on 25 July 2011; (ii) declare his results of the Fifth and Sixth semesters; and (iii) allow the Petitioner to appear for the Seventh and Eighth semesters examinations which were to be conducted in or about May 2012. 2 The Petitioner passed his Higher Secondary Certificate Examination in June/July 2008 and after appearing for the common entrance test, was admitted to Vidyalankar Institute of Technology(the Fourth Respondent) for the B.E. Degree Course. In December 2008, the Petitioner appeared for the First semester examination and was declared to have failed in all the subjects. Upon revaluation, he was declared to have passed in the subjects of Physics and Mechanics. In March 2009, the Petitioner appeared for the Second semester examination and cleared all the subjects. In M...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »