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.
The Conservator of Forests and Another Vs. Smt. Kusumtai Wd/O. Ganpatr ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-13-2013
Oral Judgment : 1. This is a First Appeal filed by the Conservator of Forest, Nagpur challenging the Judgment and Award dt.24.5.2001 passed by the Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act in W.C.A. (F) Application no.24 of 1999, by which the appellants were directed to pay compensation in the sum of Rs.1,63,070/- with interest @ 12 % p.a. FACTS : 2. Deceased Ganpatrao Dhote, the husband of original applicant no.1/respondent no.1 herein and the father of other respondents was in the employment of appellant/Forest department for about a period of twenty years before his death as a Forest Guard attached to Bhalewada bit under South Umrer Forest range. At the relevant time, the deceased was posted at Compartment No.421 having territorial area of 24 kms. His duty was to preserve the forest from theft and to see that no part of the forest catches fire and to extinguish the fire. On the fateful day, on 29.1.1999, with his usual uniform, the deceased went on duty towards the forest with h...
Deputy Conservator of Forest Vs. Sayyed Rafique Sayyed Rashid
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-13-2013
Oral Judgment: Since the issue involved in these writ petitions is identical, they are heard together and are decided by this common judgment. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. By these petitions, the petitioner, the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Akola Division, impugns the judgments passed by the Labour and the Industrial Court holding that the petitioner had committed unfair labour practice in terminating the services of the respondents and that they should be reinstated in service. 3. The respondents-employees had filed complaint under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 alleging therein that they were working with the petitioner since the year 1991 and 1992 and were in continuous service. It was pleaded by the respondents-employees that though the record showed that they were appointed under the Employment Guarantee Scheme and their names were shown in the register of the Employment Guarantee Scheme on...
Dinkar Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-13-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. The petitioner, who has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the order of issuance of process dated 19.8.1992 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Udgir in Regular Criminal Case No.226/1998, being a private complaint filed by respondent No.2 - Kashiram Sangram Hallale. According to learned Advocate for the petitioner, the process under Section 302, 201, 504, 506 Part I, 109 and 498-A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code ought not to have been issued as against the petitioner. It is not in dispute that accused Nos.1 to 5 did not challenge the impugned order of issuance of process. It is also contended with reference to ruling in HariSingh Mann vs. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa and others, reported in 2001 (1) Mh.L.J.465 that once the complaint was dismissed for default, it could not have been reviewed in view of the bar under Section 362 of Cr.P.C. Reference is also made in this rega...
Ramesh Dagaa Landge Vs. Sau. Sindhubai Ramesh Landge and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-13-2013
T.V. Nalawade, J. 1 The petition is filed to challenge the judgment and order of Criminal Revision Application No.29 of 2008, which was pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Shahada. The Sessions Court has set aside the judgment and order of J.M.F.C. by which the maintenance was refused to Respondent No.1 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Sessions Court has awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month in favour of Respondent No.1. 2 Both the sides are heard. 3 The parties are Hindu by religion. Their marriage took place in the year 1992. They have two issues out of this marriage. In the year 2005, maintenance proceedings was filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by present Respondents, but it was dismissed for non-prosecution, due to absence of the wife. The present proceedings came to be filed in the year 2007. The J.M.F.C. granted maintenance to two issues, but refused the maintenance to the wife by holding that, she ...
Saurabh P. Lokhande Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-2013
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Kanade, J.) 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents. 2. Rule. Rule is returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, Petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. By this Petition which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner is seeking appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 09/05/2011 passed by Respondent No.2. By the said impugned order, Respondent No.2 Director General of Civil Aviation was pleased to suspend the License of the Petitioner with immediate effect by exercising the power vested in him under section 19(b) sub-rule (3) of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 (For short the said Rules) 4. Brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding this Petition are as under:- 5. Petitioner was issued a Commercial Pilots License sometime in November, 2007 by the Republic...
Blue Dart Express Limited and Another Vs. Municipal Corporation of Gre ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-2013
Oral Judgment: (Dr. Chandrachud, J.) Leave to amend in terms of the draft tendered and taken on record. The amendment may be carried out during the course of the week. Verification dispensed with. 2. The First Petitioner is a Company which is engaged in the express package distribution business, more popularly described as a courier service. The Petitioners accept consignments on behalf of consignors for delivery at various destinations within and outside the country. Section 194A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 provides for an exemption from octroi of articles which are meant for immediate exportation. Octroi is imposed on goods which are imported into the limits of the Municipal Corporation for consumption, use or sale. 3. Section 194A is in the following terms: 194A. Exemption of articles imported for immediate exportation.- Subject to such rules, not inconsistent with this Act, as the Commissioner, with the approval of the Standing Committee, shall from time to time f...
Satyanarayan Mohanlal Jalan and Others Vs. Employees State Insurance C ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-12-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. The petitioners have prayed to quash the criminal proceeding arising from criminal complaint no.2865/1995 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalgaon. It appears that complainant employees State Insurance Corporation at Jalgaon prosecuted the petitioners on the ground that there was failure to pay contribution in respect of wage periods from April 1992 to March, 1994. The contribution in respect of which default was committed is stated in the sum of Rs.23,958/- alleging violation of section 39 and 40 of E.S.I Act read with Regulation 31 of the E.S.I. Regulations 1950. The complainant alleged that non payment of contribution payable under the Act is a continuing offence and petitioners were sought to be prosecuted on that basis. It appears that proceedings remained pending pursuant to order dated 12.8.2002. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon ruling in the case of C.K.Gupta and another Vs. Employees State Insurance Corp...
Gangadhar Narsingdas Agrawal and Others Vs. Ministry of Environment an ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-12-2013
A.P. Lavande, J. Heard Mr. D. Khambatta, Mr. D. Mehta, Mr. N. Sardessai, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. C. A. Ferreira, learned Asst. Solicitor General and Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General for the respondents. 2. All the four writ petitions are being disposed of by common judgment since the issues involved in all these petitions are almost identical. 3. For the sake of convenience, we shall deal with the facts in Writ Petition No.685/2012 since the arguments which have been advanced in this petition by learned Senior Advocate Mr. D. Khambatta, have been adopted by learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in other writ petitions. 4. The petitioners, in Writ Petition No. 685/2012, are engaged in mining activities. It is the case of the petitioners that the mine is situated at a distance of about 1.22 kms. from Bhagwan Mahaveer Wildlife Sanctuary. On 15th December, 1995, respondent No.1 granted permission for diversion of forest land for mining lease under...
The Indian Seeds and Agri-horticultural Farm Vs. the State of Maharash ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-12-2013
Oral Judgment:- 1. Heard learned counsel for respective parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner-original complainant questioned the judgment and order dated 25.8.2003 passed by learned 1st Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in Criminal Revision Application No.289/2002, whereby the learned 1st Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon was pleased to quash the process issued under section 500 of Indian Penal Code, against the respondent-accused. 3. It appears that complainant had prosecuted the accused on the ground that he had defamed the complainants reputation in the market as well as in the mind of people in the society resulting in mental agony for the petitioner. Complaint was lodged being a Criminal Case No.127/1998 under section 420 and 500 of Indian Penal Code. Learned Trial Magistrate Jalgaon was pleased to issue process only under section 500 of Indian Penal Code on the ground that he was prima facie satisfied on the basis of verification and inquiry with one Ravindr...
Jayandra @ Devendra S/O Manohar Kaurati Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-12-2013
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) By this appeal, the appellant takes exception to the Judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-8, Nagpur, dated 12th August, 2009 whereby convicting the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. The prosecution case is that there was a dispute between the deceased who was the mother of the appellant with respect to the ownership of the land which was inherited by the deceased from her mother. It is the prosecution case that on 17th June, 2007, the deceased had come to the house of P.W.1 Prabhakar and P.W.3 Kasibai who is the wife of Prabhakar. It is the prosecution case that the deceased was complaining to these witnesses regarding the behaviour of the accused. It is the further case that when accused was passing from the road nearby he hear...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »