Mumbai Court April 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.
Aman Shah HussaIn Shah and Others Vs. the Chief Officer and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-16-2013
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of Shri Tathod, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Sahu, Advocate holding for Shri Dhatrak, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 and Shri Kariya, learned counsel for respondents No. 3 to 7. 2. The petitioners, who are working on clock hour basis, rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Piara Singh and Ors., reported at (1992) 4 SCC 118, to urge that they cannot be substituted by another set of ad-hoc employees and they should be continued in service till the regularly selected candidates report for work. The support is being taken from the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Rajendra Vitthalrao Kamble vs. Government of Maharashtra and Ors., reported at 2012(4) Mh.L.J. 505. 3. The respective counsel appearing for the respondents submit that the petitioners are not ad-hoc employees and they were w...
Al-millat Muslim Welfare Society Vs. Municipal Council, Kamptee and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-16-2013
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of parties. 2. Petitioner, a Society, seeks relief of direction to respondent Authorities to grant licence in respect of a slaughter house on land survey number 22/5, PH No. 19, mouza Ajni, tahsil Kamptee, District Nagpur in accordance with the provisions of Section 268 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the 1965 Act). 3. Mr Hussain, learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits that provisions of Section 268 of the 1965 Act empower respondent no. 1 Municipal Council to grant permission or licence for establishment of municipal slaughter house or a private slaughter house. He further states that petitioner had applied for building permission to Gram Panchayat, Ajni (respondent no. 3) within whose area such slaughter house is to come up. He submits that in view of provisions relating to deemed sanction contained under Section ...
Anil S/O Govindrao Shirkhedkar Vs. Babanrao Ganpatrao Wadaskar and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-16-2013
1. Admit. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. The learned Deputy Charity Commissioner, Amravati, by the judgment and order dated 14-8-2000 passed in Application No.31 of 2000, filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 9 under sub-section (1) of Section 50A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (for short, the BPT Act), framed a Scheme in respect of Shri Hanuman Mandir, Wedapur, Tq. Warud, Distt. Amravati (for short, the said Trust), bearing PTR No.A-1287 (Amravati), as per Annexure-A appended to the said judgment and order. This was the subject-matter of challenge by the appellant in Misc. Civil Appeal No.168 of 2009, which has been dismissed by the learned District Judge-2, Amravati, by his judgment and order dated 14-9-2010. Hence, this second appeal. 3. The learned Deputy Charity Commissioner, by his judgment and order dated 14-8-2000, settled a Scheme in respect of the said Trust under sub-section (1) of Section 50A of the BPT Act, as per Annexure-...
Bhiva Janaji Chapte Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-15-2013
Oral Judgment: [Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.] 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.10.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No. 457 of 2005. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 376 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/- IDRI for one year on each count. The appellant is further convicted under Section 201 of IPC and sentenced to R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs. 100/- IDRI for six months. The learned Sessions Judge directed that the substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under: (a) PW 1 Krishna, the father of the victim girl was residing at Chaptewadi, Tal. Ambegaon, Dist. Pune. He had four daughters and one son. One of the daughters was the victim girl who was aged about 11 years at the time of the incident. The other daughter was PW 2 Jayashr...
Venco Research and Breeding Farm Ltd. Vs. Rastriya Shramik Aghadi and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-15-2013
P.C. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission. 2. By this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner - first party challenges the order dated 8th August 2012 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Satara below Exhibit 105 in Reference (IDA) No.94 of 2005 rejecting the petitioner's application dated 17th April 2010 for amendment of the written statement. 3. Brief facts of the present matter are, as under: In the present proceedings, the State of Maharashtra vide its order dated 13th September 2005 made a Reference to the trial court. In the said Reference, the petitioner filed written statement dated 19th September 2006 and thereafter they preferred application below Exhibit 105 for amendment of the written statement. The said application was rejected by the learned Labour Court, Satara on the ground that the petitioner has made ...
Chandrakant Dagadu More Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-15-2013
Oral Judgment: (Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.) The appellant Chandrakant More original accused no.1, has preferred Criminal Appeal No.739 of 2007 and the appellant Maruti More original accused No.2, has preferred Criminal Appeal No.744 of 2007. Both these appeals are directed against the very same judgment and order i.e. judgment and order dated 15.7.2004 passed by the learned 1st Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Islampur in Sessions Case No.6 of 2003. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted both the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/- i/d S.I. for two years. As both the appeals are directed against the very same judgment and order, both the appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under: Deceased Ramchandra, his wife Mangal and their sons were residing jointly with PW-5 Laxman and his family. Laxman wa...
State Through Shri Abel Alex Rodrigues, Food Inspector Directorate of ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-15-2013
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 9th July, 2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mapusa, Goa, acquitting the respondents of the offence punishable under Section 87(F) of Goa Public Health (Amendment) Act, 2005. 2. Respondents are alleged to have stocked for sale Goa 1000 Gutkha and RMD Gutkha containing tobacco as one of the ingredients, the stock and sale of which is prohibited in State of Goa, in their premises VS-22 Venor Plaza, Calangute, Bardez Goa. It is the case of the prosecution that on 29th April, 2006 the inspector appointed under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 visited the premises of respondent no.1 where respondent no.2 was present as a vendor. On inspection, the inspector found 25 sealed packets of Goa 1000 Gutkha and 8 sealed packets of RMD Gutkha kept in the shop. Since the articles contained tobacco, the sale, manufacturer, distribution and stocking of which is prohibited in the State of Goa under Section 87A(1) and 87A...
Anandsagar Bahuddeshiya Social Krida Mandal (Sanstha) Vs. the State of ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-15-2013
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. This writ petition takes exception to the order dated 3/6-09-2012 passed by respondent No. 1 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner and the order dated 29-02-2012 passed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 thereby refusing to grant licence to start and run the Social Club/Card Room in favour of the petitioner. 3. The facts leading to file this writ petition, as disclosed in the writ petition, are as under:- The petitioner is registered under the provisions of Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 with the aim and object to open Social Club for amusement of its members. The petitioner herein, is the original appellant in appeal filed before respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The said appeal was filed challenging the order dated 29-02-2012 passed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Respondent No.1 herein, is the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, respondent No. 2 is the Minister for Department of Home, Ma...
Sunil S/O Khanderao Gaikwad and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra a ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-15-2013
A.V. Nirgude, J. 1 Both these appeals arise from the judgment and order dated 1st September, 1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad in Sessions Case No.41 of 1999. 2 The parties to the appeals would be referred to as their original designation before the trial Court. The sessions case was filed against two accused. They were charged under Section 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Judge of the trial Court vide impugned judgment held that Accused No.1 was guilty of offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to Rigorous Imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with a default clause. The learned Sessions Judge found Accused No.2 guilty under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer one year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- with default clause. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted both the accused for the offence punishabl...
Ramesh S/O Raghunath Komatwar Vs. Jubedabegum Abdul Kadar Kazi
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-15-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with consent of the parties. 2. This writ petition takes exception to the order dated 06.03.2013, passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Beed, in Misc. Civil Application No. 255 of 2011. 3. The learned counsel appearing for petitioners submits that defendant filed application for transfer of the Suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 28 of 2011 from the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Dharur to the Courts of Civil Judge Junior Division, Majalgaon and or Civil Judge Senior Division, Majalgaon. 4. The learned counsel appearing for petitioners submits that there was no affidavit, supporting the allegations made in the application filed by the original defendant. He invited my attention to the judgment of Madhyapradesh High Court in the case of SudarshanJain Vs. Deep Chand Jain and others reported in AIR 2006 MadhyaPradesh 6 and submitted that the application for transfer of the case on mere allegations of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »