Mumbai Court June 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.
island Aviation Services Limited. Vs. the Government of India and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-2013
P.C. Rule, returnable forthwith. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22 January 2013 passed by the FFRO cum Civil Authority, Bureau of Immigration, Mumbai (Exh.H) as confirmed by the Appellate Authority being Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs, Foreigners Division (Immigration Section) through its Joint Secretary (Exh.J). 2. In the impugned orders, respondentsauthorities have held that the petitionerairline allowed the passenger Ms.Farah Sayad, British National, to enter into India through Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport by their flight, though she was not having valid Indian visa on her passport. Respondentsauthorities have, therefore, held the petitionerairline, to have contravened the provisions of the Passport (Entry Into India) Act, 1920 and the Rules thereunder and have imposed penalty of Rs.1 lac under section 3 of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act,2000. 3. In view of the orde...
Bhimrao S/O Keshao Telang Vs. Prabhudas S/O Pundlik Rangari and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-21-2013
1. Heard Shri Anand Parchure, the learned counsel for the petitioner; and Shri M.G. Bhangde, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Shri G.R. Agrawal, Advocate, for the respondent No.1. 2. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Head Master of the School by an order dated 23-4-1997, which was the subject-matter of challenge in Appeal No.STN/40 of 1997 filed by the respondent No.1 under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (MEPS Act) before the School Tribunal, Nagpur. The School Tribunal, by its judgment and order dated 1931999, has allowed the said appeal by setting aside the order of promotion of the petitioner as Head Master and directing the respondent No.2-Management to appoint the respondent No.1-Prabhudas Pundlik Rangari to the post of Head Master of the School. Hence, this writ petition. 3. The facts of the case are in a very short compass. The question of inter se seniority between the petitioner and the res...
Abhijit Uddhavrao Nikam and Others Vs. the Maharashtra Public Service ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-2013
Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J). 1. This is the common order on the above two petitions. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent, the petitions are taken up on board for final hearing. Heard the learned counsel. 3. In the year 2012, the respondent, M.P.S.C. had undertaken the process for recruitment to the post of Deputy Collector, amongst other, for the State of Maharashtra. The four petitioners herein had applied to the post of Deputy Collector, pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondent. On 10th June, 2012, they successfully cleared the preliminary examination and appeared for the main examination held on 1st, 2nd and 3rd September, 2012. The main examination consisted of six papers. The first two papers were of languages and the remaining four papers were of General Studies. Each paper for General Studies carried 150 marks and was of objective type. On declaration of results on 20th February, 2013, the petitioners found that their names were not included in the list ...
Seva Medical Foundation and Others Vs. Sanjiv Gajanan Punalekar and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-2013
Oral Judgment: (Smt. Sadhana S. Jadhav, J.) 1. The Petitioners herein by way of this Review Petition are seeking the relief of modification of the Scheme approved by this Hon'ble Court (Coram: R.M.Lodha and S.A. Bobade, JJ.) to Section 41AA of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 in Writ Petiton (PIL) No.3132 of 2004). Pursuant to the Scheme approved by this Court, the Charity Commissioner issued a Circular on 31st August 2006 for implementation of the Scheme approved by this Court. It was directed by this Court that the Scheme would come into operation with effect from 1.9.2006. The Petitioners had filed Writ Petition No.10500 of 2009 praying therein a relief that the Scheme cannot be made applicable to the Petitioner-Trust. The prayer clause (a) reads as follows:- (A) That this Honourable Court be pleased to hold that the Scheme framed by this Honourable Court in Writ Petition (PIL) No.3132 of 2004 dated 17th August 2006 is not applicable, to the Petitioner herein, since the Petitioner ...
Sitaram Hiraman Jopale Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-2013
Oral Judgment: [Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.]: 1. The Appellant-original accused has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 30th June, 2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik in Sessions Case No. 181 of 2005. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to RI for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default RI for three months. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under: Deceased Bharati was daughter of PW2 Palvi. Bharati was married to the appellant about 15 years prior to the incident. They had two daughters and a son. The appellant was doing nothing and was jobless. The appellant had a piece of land but he was not cultivating it. Hence Bharati, wife of the appellant used to call her father PW2 Palvi to help her in cultivation of the land. Bharati used to tell her father PW2 Palvi that her husband used to ill-treat her He would assault her with shoes and also...
Chandrakant Phoolchand Sanghvi and Others Vs. Anilkumar Phoolchand San ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-2013
Oral Judgment:- The matters are listed for final hearing by consent of the parties. Heard accordingly. The rival contentions so raised are revolved around the common facts and circumstances, between the parties and therefore, this common judgment. 2 There are two groups of the same family involved in the matter. The Petitioner Nos.1 to 5 (in Arbitration Application No.34 of 2012) be referred to as CPS group, and the Respondents therein (i.e. Respondent Nos.1 to 3) be referred as APS group. The APS group has filed Arbitration Application(Lodg.) No.493 of 2013 and prayed for an appointment of Sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute in accordance with Deed of Family settlement and agreement dated 24.4.2006. The APS group, apart from joining CPS group, has also added three companies as parties-respondent nos.6 to 8. Both the parties have invoked Section 11 of Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'Arbitration Act'). Events:- 3 The basic events are quoted as under: (a) Between 20...
Narendra Barde Vs. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-2013
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Kanade, J.) 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent of parties, matter is taken up for final hearing. 3. By this Petition which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner is seeking the following reliefs:- (a) This Hon'ble court may be pleased to quash and set aside Resolution No.920 dated 25.10.2012 (Exhibit 'E' to the Petition) and Order No. MPS/3800(83) dated 02.11.2012 (Exhibit 'G') and Order No. MPS/3800 (84) dated 02.11.2012 (Exhibit 'H') whereby the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were promoted to the post of Deputy Municipal Commissioner; (b) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondent No.1 to promote the Petitioner to the post of Deputy Municipal Commissioner with effect from 02.11.2012; (c) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Petition, this Hon'ble ...
Prabhakar Khanderao Waghe @ Bhagwant Pawar Vs. Smt. Hirabai Prabhakar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-2013
P.C. The Petitioner husband has challenged the order passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.9, Pune dated 27th December, 2010 granting maintenance of Rs.5,000/- each to the wife and the child of the parties and restraining him from having any communication with them. The Petitioner and Respondent No.1 who were married about 40 years ago. Their child Respondent No.2 is shown to be 38 years of age. Respondent No.1 is shown to have lived with the Petitioner for 12 years and thereafter separated. The parties cannot be taken to be living in any domestic relationship. Hence domestic violence act would not apply. Order passed under that act is, therefore, seen to be passed without jurisdiction. 2. Respondent No.2 is stated to be mentally challenged. However, he is not a child as defined in Section 2(b) of the D V Act. The child may be entitled to be maintained as a mentally challenged person under any other law. The Petitioner may make such application under appropriate law in th...
Pradnya Padmakar Damle Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-2013
Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, the petition is taken up on board for final hearing. Heard the counsel. 2. The petitioner was working as a part time teacher for deaf students in respondent no.1-corporation during the period 1st January, 1986 to 31st January, 2010. Initially she was on the establishment of respondent no.2 i.e. Topiwala National Medical College and B.Y.L. Nair Charitable Hospital during the period 1st January, 1986 to 31st January, 2008 and thereafter transferred to the establishment of respondent no.3, Lokmanya Tilak Municipal Medical College, Sion, Mumbai from 1st February, 2008 till 31st January, 2010, the date of her superannuation. During the total period of 24 years of her service as part time teacher, for a period of six months, she had worked, on ad-hoc basis in leave vacancy, as full time teacher. While in service, she had applied for the post of a full time teacher, but could not get it for want of existence of s...
Rutu Enterprises Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-2013
P.C. The submissions were heard yesterday. However, order was not passed to enable the learned AGP appearing in W.P. (L) No.969/2013 to take instructions. 2. These petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment as issues involved are more or less identical. The Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the MSRDC") which is a Government of Maharashtra Undertaking and which is registered under the Companies Act, 1956 executed contracts with various contractors in relation to space under 21 flyovers in the cities of Mumbai, Thane and Navi Mumbai. The contracts were for beautification / landscaping and maintenance thereof with utilization of the space under the flyovers for display of advertisement/ showrooms and pay and parking activities. The challenge in these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the notices issued in March, 2013 by which foreclosure of the contracts in respect of five flyovers was made by the Maharashtra St...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »