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.
Sudhakar Vs. Government College of Engineering and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-20-2013
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The Letters Patent Appeal is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel of the parties. 2. The appeal challenges the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 26.9.2012 thereby upsetting the findings as recorded by the learned Labour Court and the learned Industrial Court. 3. The appellant had approached the learned Labour Court by way of complaint alleging that he was in continuous service as Laboratory Assistant from 1.7.1999 till 30.4.2000 and his services were terminated by the respondents without following the mandatory provisions of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The learned Labour Court, on the basis of the evidence that was led before it, allowed the complaint by judgment and order dated 25.2.2004 holding that the complainant had proved that he was in continuous service for a period of 240 days. Though the learned Labour Court granted ...
M/S.Fairfield Atlas Limited Vs. the Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-2013
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. Rule, by consent made returnable forthwith. Learned counsel for the Respondents waives service. By consent and on the request of counsel, the petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The Petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of transmission gears and was importing cutting tools such as hobs, broaches, cutters etc. for use as capital goods in its manufacturing operations in India from related persons. Since the suppliers of the Petitioner were related, the issue arose as to whether the relationship between the two had affected the price of goods imported. Since documents were not produced by the Petitioner despite a request by the Department, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs passed an order dated 24 December 2003 by which he directed that the declared invoice value be enhanced by 25%. The adjudicating authority, however, allowed an opportunity to the Petitioner to produce the documents within a period of three months for finalization of the case. This...
Abdulla Gani and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-2013
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. Rule. Learned counsel for the Respondents waives service. By consent, the Rule is made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal, by consent and on the request of learned counsel. 2. The issue which falls for determination in this case is whether interest can in law be directed to be paid on a delayed refund of a pre-deposit made before the CESTAT during the pendency of an appeal, when the appeal results in the action of the Department being set aside. 3. The Petitioners were the Appellants before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal against an order of adjudication passed on 25 February 2008 by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai imposing penalties of Rs.7.50 crores and Rs.50.00 lakhs respectively under Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. Initially, an order of adjudication had been passed in pursuance of a notice to show cause dated 9 May 1989. The order of adjudication dat...
Prakash Vs. Nagema Begum and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-19-2013
Oral Judgment: The petitioner has questioned impugned order dated 5.3.2005 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ahmedpur below Exh.23 in R.T.C. No.1027/2004. 2. It is grievance of the petitioner (original accused) that he was serving as Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Latur and being a Government servant in the service of Government of Maharashtra and being a public servant, acting in discharge of his duties of his office, he was entitled for protection under Section 197(1) of Cr.P.C. in respect of prosecution under Section 13 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as "M.E.P.S. Act"). He is facing accusation on the ground that he had disobeyed the orders of School Tribunal and, therefore, proceeded against for alleged offence punishable under Section 13 of the M.E.P.S Act. It appears that in order to challenge the impugned order, an efficacious and alternate remedy under Section 397 of Cr.P...
Mahendrakumar Kanhyalal JaIn Vs. Mahavir Urban Co-operative Credit Soc ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-19-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard submissions at the Bar. 2. A question of law, which is sought to be raised in this petition is as to whether summons can be issued against the accused calling upon him to produce documents in his custody or possession in the criminal trial, wherein complainant wants to rebut defence of the accused. 3. It appears that in the pending Summary Criminal Case No. 3061/2003, in a trial arising out of complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant Shri Mahavir Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., Jalgaon through its authorised Recovery Officer had lodged complaint on the ground that the accused (present petitioner) had obtained loan from the complainant-company. The cheque in question bearing No. 841812 drawn upon United Western Bank Ltd., Jalgaon on 9.4.2003 for sum of Rs.72,16,911/- was presented by the complainant in Akola Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., Akola, branch Jalgaon on 10.4.2003 for encashment. The cheque was returned dishonour...
Mohammed Zakir Mohammed Ghouse Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-19-2013
Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With consent of parties, matter is heard for final disposal. 2. The proceeding is filed to challenge the orders made by S.D.M. Degloor and the State Government in externment proceeding. The externment proceeding was started on the basis of report given by Degloor police station. It was informed by police that atleast 5 crimes were registered against the petitioner for offences committed under IPC and Bombay Police Act and he had created terror in society. Police had proposed to keep the petitioner out of 3 districts like Nanded, Latur and Parbhani. Such notice was given under Section 56 of Bombay Police Act to the petitioner. Petitioner gave reply to the notice and denied the allegations. He contended that in C.R.No.25/2000 mentioned in the show cause notice, he was acquitted in the year 2002 itself. He informed that he was acquitted in other crime like Crime No.131/01, 11/08 and 56/10. Police had filed copies of FIR alongwith rep...
Maulik Kotak and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-19-2013
Common Judgment: 1. Heard submissions at the Bar. The petitioners in all these petitions pray for quashing and setting aside the orders passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, J.M.F.C courts at Nanded, Newasa, Sangamner, Kopargaon as also Chalisgaon thereby issuing process in respective Summary Criminal Cases and also pray for setting aside the complaints filed by respondents-complainants. (mentioned details of number of cases and the details as to the courts and orders impugned )Criminal Writ Petition No.Name of Court whose order is impugnedCriminal Case No.Offences U/s.64/2003Order dated 19-11-2002 by CJM, Nanded.SCC no. 3199/2002500,34. IPC65/2003Order dated 05-07-2002 JMFC, Newasa, Dist. Ahamadnagar.208/2002500, 34 IPC.108/2003Order dated 21-09-2002 by JMFC, Sangamner Dist.Ahmednagar1246/2002295-A, 499, 500, 501 `read with 34 IPC109 /2003Order dated 07-08-2002 JMFC, Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar.1292/2002500, 109, 120B/34 IPC557/2003Order dated 14-07-2003 by JMFC, Chalisgaon...
Vijay Ghogare and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-2013
Oral Order: (Chief Justice) This Writ Petition challenges the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra State Public Services [Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Special Backward Category and Other Backward Classes] Act, 2001 (Maharashtra Act No.VIII of 2004) and the Government Resolution No.BCC2001/ 1887/PR. KR.640/01/16B dated 25 May 2004. 2. When this Writ Petition was called out, Mr. Khambatta, learned Advocate General, appearing for the State of Maharashtra raised a preliminary objection about maintainability of these Writ Petitions. This was on the ground that as per the law laid down by a Bench of Seven Judges of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar vs Union of India and others, (1997) 3 SCC 261, only the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal established under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 enacted by the Parliament in exercise of the powers under Article 323A of the Constitution of India is to function ...
Abdul Karim Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-18-2013
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) The appellant challenges the judgment and order dated 17th June, 2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Warora, thereby convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life. 2. It is the prosecution case that the deceased Mumtaj was married to the appellant about 13 years prior to the date of incident. After their marriage, initially, they were residing at Wara-Shiwni, Madhya Pradesh. However, prior to 5 years they shifted to the village Shankarpur where the parents of the deceased were residing. The accused and deceased along with their two sons and daughter were residing at Shankarpur. It is the prosecution case that the accused was in habit of drinking and gambling. He used to beat the deceased. The mother of the accused had come to Shankarpur and she was at Shankarpur in the house of accused for about 2 to 3 months. On earlier day of incident, she al...
Ravindra Dnyaneshwar Patil and Another Vs. the Secretary, Ministry of ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-18-2013
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioners have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for following reliefs :- i) issue writ of mandamus or any other form of writ or any other direction to the respondent declaring that :- ii) the certificate issued by respondent no.2 to unqualified Doctors for running a laboratory be declared as null and void. iii) direct respondent no.2 to verify if there are other Doctors who does not possess requisite qualification and are running the laboratories, and initiate action against the officers involved in granting registration certificate as annexed in Annexure-17 and 18. iv) direct the respondent nos.3, 4 and 5 to register an FIR and investigate the matter on the report lodged by petitioner on 23-10-2012. v) transfer the investigation to Central Bureau of Investigation by registering the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »