Mumbai Court March 2013 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.
Rajendra S/O Ramaji Mahisbadwe Vs. the Joint Commissioner and Vice Cha ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-11-2013
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order of termination dated 03.11.2009, passed by Respondent no.2 Additional General Manager/Engineering LMD National Aviation Company of India Limited. Though in the petition, order dated 05.10.2012 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, invalidating caste claim of the petitioner as belonging to Halba Scheduled Tribe, has also been questioned, the petitioner has only claimed protection in employment and expressly restricted his challenge only to the order of termination and has given up the status as belonging to Halba Scheduled Tribe. Right to challenge order invalidating caste certificate is given up with knowledge that Respondent Employer as also Caste Scrutiny Committee are opposing the prayer for protection. This protection in service is being claimed on the basis of various judgments, particul...
Balkrishna V. Dessai, Technician, Goa Industrial Development Corporati ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-11-2013
By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought the following reliefs: (A) that this Honourable Court be graciously pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, order of direction calling for the records from the Respondent Corporation culminating in order of promotion of the Respondent no.2, to the post of Assistant Field Manager, and after examining the legality, validity, propriety and reasonability thereof, be pleased to quash and set-aside the order dated 23/12/2005; (B) that this Honourable Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction commanding the Respondent Corporation to forthwith withdraw the order dated 23/12/2005; and further direct the Respondent Corporation to hold review Departmental Promotion Committee and fill up the post of Assistant Field Manager as per the Recruitment Rul...
Dr. Vijaypat Singhania and Others Vs. Hari Shankar Singhania and Other ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-2013
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. By a judgment dated 1 October 2009 the learned Single Judge dismissed petitions filed by the Appellants under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitions sought to question the legality of an arbitral award dated 4 August 2008 of a sole arbitrator, Mr.Justice S.N.Variava. 2. On 21 February 1980 a deed of partnership was constituted in which three branches of the Singhania family were represented. The three branches, in these proceedings, would for convenience of reference, be referred to as the Kanpur, Kolkata and Mumbai branches. Clause-10 of the deed of partnership provided that a partner could retire with a stipulated period of notice and unless mutually agreed to, upon retirement, an outgoing partner would be entitled to receive his proportionate share in the properties of the firm in specie after deducting the liabilities. Clause-11 of the deed of partnership provided as follows: That in the event of dissolution of the firm a...
High Court on Its Own Motion Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-2013
A.S. Oka, J. Under the administrative order dated 9th January 2013 passed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, this Revision Application has been assigned to this Court. On 22nd January 2013, this Court directed that the Revision Application shall be fixed for final hearing. By the judgment and order dated 20th December 2012, this Court disposed of Writ Petition No.3569 of 2012 filed by one Nitin Babasaheb Mandlik. The said Nitin Babasaheb Mandlik and his two brothers, namely Santosh and Krishna, were prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged that on 8th/9th April 1988 when the alleged offence was committed, the said Krishna was a juvenile in conflict with law within the meaning of the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). The said Krishna is hereinafter referred to as "the Juvenile". 2. The case against all the three brothers was c...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Raju Jagdish Paswan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-2013
P.V. Hardas, J. On 21/6/2010, the victim, daughter of PW 10 - Hanmant, left her home at about 10 a.m. in order to attend her school. She was wearing the school uniform and was carrying her school bag, which contained a memento as well as a box of sweet, commonly known as "Pedhas", for distribution to her friends. Before going to school, she was playing with PW 4 - Akash and other children near the Marguaai Temple. The prosecution has alleged that the accused suddenly came there and took the victim along with him towards a stream. The prosecution further alleged that on the next day the dead body of the victim was found at the behest of the accused. The medical evidence indicated that the victim had died because of drowning and before her death she had been subjected to forcible sexual intercourse as well as unnatural intercourse. The Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli, by judgment dated 6/11/2012 in Sessions Case No.193 of 2010 held the accused guilty for offences punishable under Secti...
Tony Hijol Govis Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-2013
Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J. 1 This appeal is directed by the appellant-original accused against the Judgment and Order dated 21.08.2006 passed by the learned 2nd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Gr. Bombay at Sewree in Sessions Case No. 738 of 2005. By the said Judgment and Order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for causing death of his wife Maria. The appellant was again convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for causing death of sister-in-law Juliana. For each of the offences, the appellant was sentenced to suffer R.I. for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- i.d. R.I. for six months. The learned Sessions Judge directed that both the substantive sentence of imprisonment shall run concurrently. 2 The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under: (i) The complainant P.W. 1 Wilfred was residing at Ganesh Murthi Nagar, Cuff Parade, Colaba, Mumbai. He was residing there alongwith his family members including his wife...
Eurotex Industries and Exports Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra Through I ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-2013
A.S. Oka, J. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the acquisition proceedings in respect of lands bearing R. Survey Nos.377/1 to 377/6 and R.S. No.329/1 situated at Village Kasaba Kagal, Taluka Kagal, District Kolhapur. The challenge in this petition is to the declaration dated 27th August, 2011 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1894) as well as to the Award dated 22nd September, 2011 made under Section 11 of the said Act of 1894. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has urged two grounds in support of the petition. The first ground is that no opportunity of being heard in accordance with Section 5A of the said Act of 1894 was made available to the petitioner. His submission is that an opportunity of personal hearing has not been granted. He pointed out the individual notices issued on 18th September, 2008 under Section 4(1) of the said Act of 1894 fixing the da...
Uttam Chand Garg Vs. Motilal Oswal Securities Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-2013
The Petitioner-original Respondent has challenged Award dated 16th March, 2009, passed by the sole arbitrator in the matter of arbitration under (Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 hereinafter referred to Arbitration Act) the Bye-laws, Rules and Regulations of the National Stock Exchange of Indian Limited (hereinafter referred to NSEIL). 2 The operative part of the Award is as under: THE AWARD (i) The applicant's claim for the dues in the NSE F and O segment is maintained but no sums are payable by the respondent in view of adequate surplus being available in NSE capital market segment for reasons adequately stated in para 7I above. (ii) The sole arbitrator refrains from passing any order on the respondent's counter claim on the surplus of Rs.20,87,858/33 in NSE capital markets and release of shares held in DP for reasons sufficiently enumerated in para 7G above. (iii) In regard to appropriation of the surplus funds and securities parties may agitate the mater bef...
Smt. Gauri Sanjay Bhosale Vs. Sanjay Raghunath Bhosale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-2013
NareshH. Patil, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Family Court, Mumbai in Petition No.A-182/2000 dated 2nd February, 2005. The respondent - Sanjay Bhosale filed a petition initially for judicial separation. Thereafter by way of application for amendment the same was converted into petition for dissolution of marriage on ground of cruelty. 2. According to the respondent in the family court petition it was urged that the appellant and respondent were married on 1.1.1997 as per Hindu Vedic rites in Mumbai. The original petitioner was employee of Indian Airlines working as a driver on shift duties. At the relevant time the respondent had to work overtime. The appellant did not approve of respondent working overtime. She used to talk to him on phone and disturb other staff members. The appellant was having suspicion about conduct of the respondent. The appellant's temperament was sensitive on petty domestic issues. She was threatening the respondent to ...
Basawant Devidas Nandgavali Vs. the Secretary, Water Resources Departm ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-2013
A.P. Bhangale, J. 1. Rule. Heard finally by consent. Perused affidavits on record. The petitioner has prayed for to quash and set aside the impugned order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred as MAT) and for opportunity to contest his claim of notional and deemed date of promotion on merits by condoning the alleged delay. 2. It is case of the Petitioner that on 27-07-1976 he was appointed as Junior Engineer (Mechanical) in the office of the Irrigation Department at Aurangabad. On 15-09-1983 employees from the open category were promoted as Deputy Engineer (Mechanical) against reserved post on the ground that the persons from the reserved categories were not available though the Petitioner was eligible for promotion against the reserved post. The petitioner was promoted on 18-02-1991 as Deputy Engineer(Mechanical) at Nanded, when he came to know that his name was shown in the select list of 1982 itself but for reasons unknown he was not promoted. The p...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »