Mumbai Court August 2012 Judgments
Sau. Aruna W/O Narendrasingh Bais Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
Oral Judgment: (P.V. Hardas, J.) The appellant in Criminal Appeal No.132 of 2007 (Original Accused No.1), who stands convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections : (a) 302 of the Indian Penal Code (Rigorous Imprisonment for life); (b) 498-A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to suffer further Simple Imprisonment for three months), and (c) 201 of the Indian Penal Code (Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.500/-, in lieu thereof, Simple Imprisonment for three months), and the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.131 of 2007 (Original Accused No.3), who stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of which, further Simple Imprisonment for three months, by the learned Ad Hoc Additional Sessions Judge-4, Chandrapur, vi...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. S.K. Yusuf S/O Sk. Aziz and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
Oral Judgment: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 5.1.1996 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Akola in M.A.C.P. No.149/1990, whereby the petition filed by the claimants/ respondents no.1 to 3 herein, claiming compensation on account of death of a minor boy-Sk. Mahboob Sk. Yusuf caused in motor vehicular accident, which occurred on 22.12.1993, on Murtizapur - Daryapur Road, involving the motor vehicle - Matador bearing No.MH-28-9638 owned by respondent no.4 and insured with the appellant. 2. Mr. Pophaly, learned counsel appearing for the appellant limited his contention about the liability of the appellant to satisfy the award passed against the owner on account of death of the person travelling in goods vehicle and particularly in the accident occurred prior to coming into force the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act 54 of 1994. 3. Deceased was travelling in a goods vehicle as owner of the goods. The learned Tribunal, mainly relying upon the decision in ca...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India, Ministry of Communication, Department of Post and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.P. Bhangale, J.) 1. These petitions were filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 15/10/1999 passed by the Full Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Camp at Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as the CAT) in Original application nos. 459 of 1997 and 460 of 1997, wherein it is held that a government servant completing the age of Superannuation on 31/03/1995 and relinquishing charge of his Office in the afternoon of that day is deemed to have effectively retired from service with effect from 01/04/1995. Thus, the Tribunal directed the petitioners herein to give benefit of O. M. no 7/1/95-P and PW(F), dated 14/07/1995 of the Government of India , Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Pension and Pensioner's Welfare) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 2. The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- The respondents/Government Servants from the Postal Dep...
Tag this Judgment!Champalal S/O Chunnilal Paliwal, (Dead Through Lrs.) and Others Vs. th ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 30.12.1991 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur holding that the petitioner Champalal could not have been retained in service, in public interest. Though this order mentions provision of Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the 1979 Rules for short) or Rule 13(1) thereof, it is not in dispute that same reference needs to be construed as reference to Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the 1964 Rules for short). Petitioner, thereafter had preferred an appeal under Rule 13 of 1964 Rules before the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and that Authority has maintained said order. 2. During the pendency of this challenge, the petitioner expired on 03.01.2008 and his legal h...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Atchut Mucund Alornekar and Others Vs. Central Bureau of Investig ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
U.V. Bakre, J. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 2. By this petition filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed to quash and set aside all proceedings in Criminal Case No. 2/S/2012/B pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Vasco-da-Gama (Goa) along with the F.I.R. registered on 25/04/2008 by the CBI(ACB), Goa. 3. F.I.R. dated 25/4/2008 was lodged by Shri S. S. Harwalkar, the superintendent of Police, CBI/ACB/Goa. It was alleged that during the period from 2005 to 2006, M/s. Adani Exports Ltd, Ahmedabad imported two consignments of Naphtha and one Consignment of Fuel Oil at Goa Port. The petitioners and others named in the F.I.R. illegally allowed the warehousing of the said consignments in the private Bonded Tank of M/s. Ganesh Benzoplast Ltd., Mormugao, after expiry of licence No. 2/05 on 31/12/2005 and without permission of Assistant Commissioner of Customs. They did...
Tag this Judgment!Mayuresh Park Jasmine I, J and K Co-op Housing Society Ltd. Through It ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-2012
S.R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. This consumer complaint pertains to alleged deficiency in service on the part of builder /developer -Saikripa Developers (herein after referred as builder) by the Co-operative Housing society viz. complainant- Mayuresh Park Jasmine I, J and K Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. (herein after referred as complainant society). Opponent no.1Saikripa Developers is the builder, while opponent no.2-Mr.Shreegopal Barasia is described as Chairman and Managing Director, while opponent no.3-Mr.Harisingh Gogavat is described as Chief Promoter and Authorized signatory of the firm company which is registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1958. At the outset, it may be mentioned that if opponent builder firm is registered under the Indian Partnership Act, then it will have only partners and not Chairman and Managing Director which has a character akin to the company registered under the Companies Act. 2. It is the grievance of the complainant society that the...
Tag this Judgment!Firoz Hyder Shaikh @ Kalya Firoz Vs. the Commissioner of Police and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.M. Khanwilkar, J. ) 1. This letter petition was received through jail. It has been converted into Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the preventive detention order dated 5th September, 2011 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai in exercise of powers under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as `the said Act'). 2. Since the petition has been received through jail, we requested Mr.U.N.Tripathi to appear as amicus curiae to espouse the cause of the petitioner as also to assist the Court. We gave him liberty to file formal memo of petition to urge grounds as may be permissible in law to challenge the preventive detention order. The Public Prosecutor was requested to furnish complete compilation of the documents served on the detenu along with the grounds of detention to enable the...
Tag this Judgment!Mahanagar Gas Limited Vs. M/S. Babulal Uttamchand and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
Oral Judgment: (Chief Justice) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 9 March 2012 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the arbitration petition of the appellant herein under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with the only modification of reducing the future rate of interest from 18% to 12% from the date of the award (5 March 2010) till realization on the claim as well as the counterclaim. 2. The appellant awarded the respondent (the claimant) the work of project management and construction of pipeline network for domestic supply of natural gas in the area of Santacrtuz by work order dated 12 October 2002. The said work was to be completed within three years from the date of letter of acceptance. The work was valued at Rs.3.87 crores. The respondent, accordingly, mobilised the requisite resources and made investment. The respondent was also required to enter into the agreement with the customers for providing gas connections. 3. The appell...
Tag this Judgment!Larsen and Toubro Limited Vs. Balasaheb Shankar Koli and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard finally by consent of parties. 2 The Petitioner/management has challenged the impugned interlocutory order dated 26 July 2012 passed by the learned Industrial Court, Mumbai, thereby stayed/kept in abeyance the transfer orders dated 9 May 2012 and 17 May 2012 issued by them, transferring Respondent no.1 to Security Department at Gate No.7, Powai Campus and again to Security Department, Madh Establishment. 3 Admittedly the main complaint is still pending. The learned Industrial court by impugned order dated 26 July 2012 has allowed the Interlocutory Application filed by Respondent no.1/complainant in the following terms: “i) Application is allowed. ii) It is hereby prima facie held and declared that the Respondents have engaged in and engaging in unfair labour practice under items 3, 9 and 10 of Sch. IV of the Act. iii) The transfer orders dated 9.5.2012 and 17.5.2012 issued by the Respondents are kept in abeyance and the Respondents are directed to allow the A...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Rosario S. Fernandes Vs. the State of Goa, Through Its Chief Secr ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-28-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.P. Lavande, J.) Heard Mr. Menezes, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Mordekar, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents no.1 to 4 and Mr. Pangam, learned Counsel for respondent no.5. 2. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 02/07/2004 exhibit G passed by respondent no.3 and resolution dated 06/12/2003 exhibit M passed by respondent no.5. 3. The case of the petitioner is as under: The petitioner is a citizen of India and is residing at House No.1519/A situated at Zuem, Baradi, Velim, Salcete, Goa (hereinafter referred to as 'the house' for short). Respondent no.1 is the authority vested with the powers under Article 372-A of the Goa Legislative Diploma No.2070 and Rules made thereunder known as the Code of Communidades (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') to decide the matters regarding regularisation of unauthorized occupation and encroachment of land vested in Communidade. Respondent no.5 is a body created under the Co...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »