Mumbai Court December 2013 Judgments
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Sanjay Ramchandra Yadav
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-24-2013
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner / Executive Engineer, Ahmednagar Irrigation Division Ahmednagar seeks to challenge the judgment and award dated 30/08/2011 passed by the Labour Court, Ahmednagar in Ref. I.D.A. No.6/2005 thereby holding that the termination dated 01/09/1987 meted out to the respondent employee, is invalid. The said termination was, therefore, quashed and set aside and the petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent in service with continuity but without back wages. 3. The case of the petitioner can be summarized as under:- (a) The respondent was appointed on the maintenance of water supply activity to the agricultural fields. (b) The canal and pipeline installed by the petitioner was to be maintained and repair work on such canal and pipelines was to be catered to. (c) It is claimed that the respondent was not eligible or entitled to seek reinstatement in service. (d) In vi...
Tag this Judgment!The Society of St. Mary's School and Others Vs. the Pune Zilla Parisha ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-24-2013
A.S. Oka, J. 1. These Petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment. The first issue involved in these Petitions is whether in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Society for Unaided Private School of Rajasthan Vs. Union of India (2012)6 SCC 1)the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (for short the Education Act) are applicable to the unaided minority schools not receiving aid or grants to meet the whole or part of its expenses from the Appropriate Government or the Local Authority. If the answer to the said question is affirmative, the second question involved is whether the Schools subject matter of these Petitions are the unaided minority schools. 2. Under Clause (c) of Subsection (1) of Section 12 of the Education Act, an unaided school not receiving any kind of aid or grants to meet its expenses from the appropriate Government or the local Authority is under an obligation to admit in Class-I, to the extent of at ...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannath Raghunath Shelke Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through Princ ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-24-2013
A.S. Oka, J. 1. On 15th April 1996, the Petitioner was convicted for committing an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. On 10th September 1997, the Petitioner was released on parole. Initial period of 30 days of parole was extended by a further period of 30 days upto 9th November 1997. 2. The Petitioner did not surrender and was arrested and brought to jail on 28th June 1999. On 2nd February 2000, the jail authorities penalized the Petitioner by directing that his name should be removed from the remission system for a period of 10 years. We must note here that though the said order has been challenged in this Petition, in terms of prayer clause (a) of the petition, in view of filing of a separate Petition earlier for the same relief which was dismissed for non-prosecution, in light of the order dated 18th November 2013 passed by this Court, the said prayer cannot be considered in this Petition. 3. The case made...
Tag this Judgment!Khr Hospitality India Ltd. and Another Vs. State of Goa, Through Secre ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-24-2013
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. Heard by consent. 3. The petitioners have approached this Court initially for a writ or order or direction thereby quashing and setting aside the impugned communication dated 12.11.2013passed by the respondent no. 3/Gram Panchayat thereby resolving to keep the application of petitioner for grant of NOC pending. 4. However during the pendency of the petitioner, the respondent no. 3 Panchayat has passed a resolution on 17.12.2013 thereby refusing permission on the ground that the property in question is designated in CRZ-III area and, as such, no construction is permitted. 5. We have heard Mr. Dessai, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. C. A. Coutinho, learned Advocate for the respondent no. 3 and Mr. Alex Pereira, intervenor in person yesterday on 23.12.2013. 6. Since prima facie we are of the view that the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat which is the contempt of the order passed by this Court in Writ ...
Tag this Judgment!Nayan @ Appu Sureshchandra Jariwala Vs. State of Gujarat and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-24-2013
Oral Judgment: (A.G. Uraizee, J.) 1. We have heard learned counsel, Mr Gajendra Baghel for the appellant and Mr Harsheel Shukla, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. Admitted. Mr Shukla, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of admission. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal today itself. 2. The appellant has challenged the judgment dated 30th August 2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.3964 of 2013 whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant to quash the detention order under the Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (œPASA?, for short) at pre execution stage. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though the detention order has been passed, yet the same has not been served upon the detenu. 3. The brief facts of the present appeal are that the appellant filed writ petition to quash th...
Tag this Judgment!Haast Precision Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by Its Director Amarprit Singh and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-23-2013
Oral Judgment:(B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. The Petitioners have approached this Court praying for a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the Respondent nos. 1 and 2 not to in any manner, act in furtherance of the announcement and declaration of results on 11th December, 2013, that a consortium consisting of Respondent nos. 3 to 5 is the lowest bidder and further not to award the contract of providing beach life guarding and water safety services in Goa to the Respondent nos. 3 to 5 in terms of Tender dated 23/09.2013. 2. The facts in brief giving rise to the present Petition are as follows : The Department of the Tourism of State of Goa, had invited Tenders vide notice dated 23.09.2013. The Tender notice was by E-tendering mode only. The work in question was for development, deployment, management and operations of water safety patrol with all state of the art facilities/systems on turnkey basis at nominated water bodies for the Department of Tourism of the State of ...
Tag this Judgment!Ananta Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-23-2013
1. The appeal is filed against judgment and order of Sessions Case No. 13/2009, which was pending in the Court of Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Gangakhed, District Parbhani. The appellant is convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court for offences punishable under sections 304-B and 498-A of Indian Penal Code. The maximum substantive sentence given to the appellant is 10 years for the offence punishable under section 304-B of I.P.C. Both the sides are heard. 2. In short, the facts leading to institution of the appeal can be stated as follows:- The deceased Seeta was sister of complainant, Ranba (PW 2). She was given in marriage to the appellant/accused on 23.6.2007. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the parents of the appellant Accused Nos. 3 and 4 are brothers of the appellant. Accused No. 6 is the wife of accused No. 4. The remaining accused are acquitted by the Trial Court. After the marriage, the deceased started cohabiting with appellant in village Shelgaon where her husband was living ...
Tag this Judgment!Pradeep Agarwal and Another Vs. M/S. Ravi Foudation and Others
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-2013
Mrs. Usha S. Thakare, Member: [1] Complainants, Mr. Pradeep Agarwal and Mr. Sandeep Agarwal are the real brothers. They have filed present complaint for claiming possession of Flat No.802 booked by them in the building known as Gaurav Palace, Kandivali (West) in Mumbai and for claiming compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental tension together with interest thereon @ 9% p.a. and also claimed costs of the complaint by alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opponents. [2]Facts giving rise to this complaint in short are as under:- Complainants wanted to purchase a flat for their personal use. They contacted the Opponents. Opponent No.1 is a Builder. Opponent No.2 is a partner of the Opponent No.1 M/s. Ravi Foundation. Opponent No.3 is also a Builder. Opponents Nos.1 and 3 have formed a joint-venture for construction of a building in which the Complainants have booked a flat on 19/07/2002. Opponent No.1 agreed to sell to the Complainants, a flat bearing No.802 in the proposed buil...
Tag this Judgment!Gorakh Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through Principal Secretary, Home ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-21-2013
Oral Judgment: Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 2. The petitioner has filed an appeal under section 60 of the Bombay Police Act, challenging the order of externment, as passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ahmednagar. Along with the appeal, the petitioner has also filed an application for stay of the impugned order. This application for stay has been filed on 31.10.2013. The grievance of the petitioner is that the appellate authority has still not decided the application for stay. 3. Mr. N.V. Gaware, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that not deciding the application for stay, in effect, amounts to rejection of the petitioners application for stay without considering the merits thereof. I find substance in this contention advanced by the learned counsel. 4. The procedure adopted by the appellate authority, namely: of not passing any order at all on the application for stay can not be called as fair, just or reasonable. From t...
Tag this Judgment!Dipak Chandrakant Shirke Vs. Nilesh Marotrao Nagolkar
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-21-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 3. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused in Summary Criminal Case No.3624 of 2007 of the Court of 8th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur, assails the order dated 23.01.2013 passed by the said Court rejecting the application preferred by him for dismissal of the complaint. 4. Considering the short controversy involved in the matter, it appears wholly unnecessary to recite in detail regarding the said case except stating that upon the complaint made by the respondent of the petitioner having committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the process was issued against the petitioner and three more accused. It appears that the petitioner thereafter preferred an application Exh. 106 for dismissal of the said complaint on the count that he is not the Dir...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »