Mumbai Court August 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.
Rashtriya Shikshan Sangh Sidhewadi and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-2012
Oral Order:- Rule. Respondents waive service. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of all parties. 1] This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the order passed by the Minister, Social Justice, Government of Maharashtra. 2] The order has been passed on an Appeal of the petitioners before me. The grievance of the petitioners in the said appeal was that the petitioners have established an Ashram School and there are other schools, each one of which are mentioned in the petition and it is stated that there are proper facilities and amenities for residential as well as non residential students. 3] On some of the complaints that were made on account of a political fall out, an Administrator was appointed in respect of these schools and Institutions on 2nd April 2007. That order was challenged by way of Writ Petition No.7080 of 2006. That petition was allowed and the appointment of Administrator was set aside. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated ...
Shamsundar S/O Namdeo Barsale and Others Vs. the Divisional Commission ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-27-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. Both these writ petitions are filed challenging the judgment and order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, dated 23rd December, 2011, in Appeal/CR/115/2011, in which respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were the appellants. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of village Digras (Kh), Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani. The petitioners moved a common requisition notice for passing ‘No-Confidence-Motion’ against respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Learned Divisional Commissioner held that such common notice was illegal, and so, while allowing the appeal, he set aside the resolution passed by the petitioners in the meeting. 2. The only point that the learned counsel for the petitioners raised is that Rule 2 (1) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch (No Confidence Motion) Rules, 1975, is directory and not mandatory. 3. Rule 2 of said Rules reads as under:- “2. (1) The members of a panchayat who desire to more a m...
Chandrakant Alias Bandu Shankar Salunke Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-2012
Smt. S.S. Jadhav, J. 1 The Appellant herein is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- i.d. to suffer R.I. For 2 years in Sessions Case No. 196 of 1991 by Sessions Judge, Pune by Judgment and Order dated 10th September, 1991. 2 Being aggrieved by the said Judgment, the Appellant herein has preferred the present Criminal Appeal. By an Order dated 20th January, 1991, the substantive sentence imposed upon the Appellant was suspended by this Court. However, since the Appellant had chosen to remain absent, warrant was issued for obtaining presence of the Appellant at the final hearing of the Appeal. The Appellant was taken into custody on 24th July, 2012. Hence, the present Appeal is being heard as a jail Appeal. 3 Such of the facts which are necessary for the decision of this Appeal are as follows: (i) According to the prosecution, on 16th October, 1990, Subhash Bhoir had visited the...
Ashish S/O Jagannath Mali and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-27-2012
Oral Judgment: 1] Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and taken up for final hearing with the consent of respective learned counsel for the parties. 2] By the present application filed by the applicants under Sections 482 and 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants prayed that the first information report and further proceedings of C.R. No. 78 of 2010, registered at Shahada police station under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, lodged by respondent no.2 against them, be quashed and set aside. 3] Alternatively, the applicants prayed that respondent no.1 police station officer, Shahada police station be directed to transfer the first information report and papers of C.R. No. 78 of 2010 registered against the applicants at the instance of respondent no.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code to Mukundwadi police station, Aurangabad. 4] The factual matrix of the case is as follows:- The ...
Subhash Jethu Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Home Department a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-2012
Oral Judgment: (Khanwilkar, J.) 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. This petition takes exception to the externment order passed by the Appropriate Authority which has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority, in exercise of powers under Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. 3. Several grounds have been urged in this petition. However, it is not necessary to traverse through all those grounds, as, in our opinion, the first ground urged before us goes to the root of the matter. According to the petitioner, the impugned externment order passed by the Appropriate Authority and as confirmed by the Appellate Authority does not record subjective satisfaction of the fact that witnesses were not willing to come forward to depose against the petitioner out of fear, which is one of the cardinal requirement to invoke Section 56 of the Act. This position is no more res integra. The Apex Court in the case of PandharinathShridhar Rangnekar v. Dy.Commissioner of Police, State of...
PravIn Navnath Shinde @ Gotya Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-2012
Oral Judgment: These two appeals by two convicts question the Judgment of their conviction rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai for the offence punishable under Section 397 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years with a fine of Rs. 5000/- or in default simple imprisonment for three months each on conclusion of Sessions Case No.83 of 2008 before him. 2. Facts which are material for deciding these appeals are as under :- On 3rd November, 2007 at about 7:45 p.m. the victim Pankaj was returning from his place of work along with his friend Thyagarajan Naidu towards Turbhe Railway Station. When they were crossing the tracks, the two appellants and a third person stopped them. One of the appellants snatched mobile phone from the pocket of Pankaj. The other appellant handed over a knife to the appellant who had snatched the mobile phone. That person inflicted an injury on victim's abdomen on the rig...
Subhash Jethu Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Home Department a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-2012
Oral Judgment: (Khanwilkar, J.) 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. This petition takes exception to the externment order passed by the Appropriate Authority which has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority, in exercise of powers under Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. 3. Several grounds have been urged in this petition. However, it is not necessary to traverse through all those grounds, as, in our opinion, the first ground urged before us goes to the root of the matter. According to the petitioner, the impugned externment order passed by the Appropriate Authority and as confirmed by the Appellate Authority does not record subjective satisfaction of the fact that witnesses were not willing to come forward to depose against the petitioner out of fear, which is one of the cardinal requirement to invoke Section 56 of the Act. This position is no more res integra. The Apex Court in the case of PandharinathShridhar Rangnekar v. Dy.Commissioner of Police, State of...
Chandrakant Alias Bandu Shankar Salunke Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-2012
Smt. S.S. Jadhav, J. 1 The Appellant herein is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- i.d. to suffer R.I. For 2 years in Sessions Case No. 196 of 1991 by Sessions Judge, Pune by Judgment and Order dated 10th September, 1991. 2 Being aggrieved by the said Judgment, the Appellant herein has preferred the present Criminal Appeal. By an Order dated 20th January, 1991, the substantive sentence imposed upon the Appellant was suspended by this Court. However, since the Appellant had chosen to remain absent, warrant was issued for obtaining presence of the Appellant at the final hearing of the Appeal. The Appellant was taken into custody on 24th July, 2012. Hence, the present Appeal is being heard as a jail Appeal. 3 Such of the facts which are necessary for the decision of this Appeal are as follows: (i) According to the prosecution, on 16th October, 1990, Subhash Bhoir had visited the...
Gauri Shekhar Telvane Vs. Maharashtra University of Health Sciences an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-2012
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. The Petitioner appeared for the Common Entrance Test held in 2010 by the Association of Unaided Private Medical and Dental Colleges in the State of Maharashtra on the basis that she belonged to the Other Backward Class category ('OBC'). The Petitioner claimed that she belonged to the VaishyaVani community which was designated, according to her, as an OBC. On the strength of the reservation claimed by her, the Petitioner was admitted by the Fourth Respondent for the Bachelor of Physiotherapy course for 2010-11. The Sub Divisional Officer, Bhivandi had issued a caste certificate to the Petitioner on 17 June 2008. On 2 July 2010, the Petitioner submitted an application for scrutiny of the caste certificate to the Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee, Mumbai Division. 2. On 1 October 2010, a Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Vishwanath Pandurang Mahadeshwar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2011)1 Mh.L.J. 310) held that inclusion of the VaishyaVani and...
Atlantic Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. Vs. Government of Goa and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-27-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri Sonak, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Ms. Linhares, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents. 2. The above Petition challenges an Order passed by the Respondent no.2 dated 25.03.2004, passed in Case No.CL(MWA-22)/2003/1955. By the impugned Order, the Respondent no.2 found legal justification in the direction to the Petitioners to pay the difference amount under the Minimum Wages Act 1948. 3. Shri Sonak, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, has pointed out that during the course of the hearing of the proceedings before the Respondent no.2, the Petitioner had led evidence of an expert to establish that the work being carried out by the Petitioners has nothing to do with the natural fibre or cotton and that whatever activity was carried out was synthetic in nature. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the Respondent No.2 whilst passing the impugned Order has relied upon the Notification of the year 1991 wherea...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »