Mumbai Court July 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.
Karan Ramesh Ghuge Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Police and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-2013
S.B. Shukre, J. 1. This Writ Petition has been filed against the order dated 24th December, 2012 passed under Section 57(1)(a)(i) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-2, Nashik City externing the petitioner from the limits of Nasik City and Nasik Rural for a period of two years, which has been confirmed by the appellate authority on 22nd March, 2013. 2. Heard. Rule, returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the grounds that it is based upon extraneous material of which no notice was given to the petitioner and that in-camera statements of witnesses were vague, in as much as the dates on which they were recorded were not disclosed, resulting in causing of prejudice to the defence of the petitioner. 4. Learned A.P.P. for the State has submitted that reasonable opportunity has been afforded to the petitioner to...
Bingumalla Venkata Ramanaiah Vs. Coal India Limited and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-04-2013
Oral Judgment: (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for parties. 2. The petitioner has challenged the action of respondents of not issuing the relieving order though the petitioner is in the list of employees who are promoted. 3. The right of promotion, as settled, always has a foundation of service terms and conditions and the material available with respondents to consider the case of employees especially when the criteria is of merit-cum-seniority. The concept and purpose of assessing the material with regard to the merit of the employees is within the purview and the power of the employer. It does not mean that the employees have no say in a case where inspite of his merit, the employer fails to consider the same and/or denies the right to be considered for promotion. 4. The learned advocates appearing for the parties have relied on the Office Memorandums dated 12.09.2002 issued by Coal India Li...
Swapneel S/O. Maroti Sonwale and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra, ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-04-2013
Oral Judgment: (R.V. Ghuge, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties, the petitions are taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself. 2. The petitioners claim to be belonging to Wani caste, which falls in Other Backward Classes. The petitioners state that they have taken education from 5th standard till 10th standard from the respondent no.3 Amanvishwa High School, Dhartidhan Society, Garkheda. The school record and especially the Admission Register wrongly maintains the caste of the petitioners as Lingder instead of Wani. It is further contended that the school leaving certificates issued by the respondent no.3/school bears the entry Lingder in the caste column. The petitioners thereafter passed their 11th and 12th standard from the Swami Vivekanand College. However, the school leaving certificates submitted to the College prompted the said college to continue with the same entry Lingder relating to the caste of the petitioners. 3. The p...
Shriram @ Shirya and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-04-2013
A.I.S. Cheema, J. 1. Criminal Appeal Nos.208/2010, 170/2010 and 192/2010 have been filed by accused who were tried before the Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Beed in Sessions Case No.22/2009 and were convicted on 21.4.2010. Two of the accused persons involved (here respondents in Criminal Appeal No.235/2012) in the same incident were absconding and after they were apprehended, they were tried vide Sessions Case No.76/2010 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Beed and were acquitted. Thus, the State filed Criminal Appeal No.235/2012. Appellant/ accused Shriram, who had jointly filed Criminal Appeal No. 208/2010, was granted leave to file separate appeal and thus, he filed Criminal Appeal No.170/2012. By this common judgment, we are disposing of all these appeals. 2. Unless mentioned otherwise, we will refer to witnesses and documents from Sessions Case No.22/2009. 3. In brief, the case of prosecution is as under: Deceased Sandipan Namdeo Jadhav was residing with his brothers Ram and ...
Krishna Dhakhu Pilernekar Vs. Scrutiny Committee for Verification of C ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-04-2013
A.P. Lavande, J. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of learned Counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: (a) Issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the Order dated 8.01.2013 passed by the Respondent No.1; (b) Issue a direction to quash and set aside the Caste Certificate dated 11.04.2012 and Caste Validity Certificate in favour of the Respondent No.4 as belonging to OBC; (bb) to declare that the Notification dated 1.03.2013 is prospective in nature and consequently validity of the Caste Certificate issued by the Respondent No.3 in favour of the Respondent No.4 be valid from the date of the said Notification i.e. 1.03.2013 and not prior to the date of passing of the said above Notification; 3. Briefly, the case of the petitioner is as under: The petitioner contested the election of Village Panchayat, Merces from Ward No...
Maharashtra Film Stage and Cultural Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. M ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-2013
Oral Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. The appeal arises from a judgment of a Learned Single Judge rejecting a Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Petition sought to challenge an award of an arbitral Tribunal consisting of three arbitrators. 2. The claim in arbitration arose out of an agreement dated 12 April 2002that was entered into between the Appellant and the Respondent. The agreement envisaged that the Appellant proposed to organise thirteen star studded events which were to be produced and shot at Film City between June 2002 and February 2003. Under the agreement, the Respondent was to secure exclusive rights in respect of each of those events on the terms and conditions stipulated by the parties. Clause 1(b) of the agreement defines the expression events to mean and include thirteen shows, each of a duration of a minimum of three hours scheduled to be shot at Film City during the period between June 2002 and February 2003. The rights c...
Murari Kawadu Kumbhre Vs. the Maharashtra State Co-operative Tribal De ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-03-2013
Oral Judgment: (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) Petitioner has challenged impugned order dated 30.10.2009 issued by respondent no.3 whereby it is held that an amount of Rs.2,01,988/- is required to be withheld pending decision of appeal before the Sales Tax authority. The petitioner received an amount of Rs.2,78,011/- out of the total amount of gratuity payable to the petitioner who retired on 30.6.2008. 2. The case of the respondents is that the petitioner along with the Accountant is answerable for non-filing of the Return for the years 1995-1997. The Sales Tax Department, therefore, imposed penalty. Appeal against the said order is pending before the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Amravati. 3. Admittedly, no show cause notice or the enquiry conducted against the petitioner during his service period for the alleged non-filing of Return of the year 1995-1997. There is nothing on record to show that the respondents never filed any Sales Tax Return till 2008. Perusal of the proceedings itself shows tha...
Ramkishan Digambar Jadhav and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-03-2013
NareshH Patil, J. 1) The appellants were charged and tried for offence punishable under sections 498-A, 302 and 304-B read with section 34, Indian Penal Code, in Sessions Case No.23 of 1996 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli, District Nanded. By judgment and order dated 21st September 1998 the trial Court convicted appellantsaccused No.1 Ramkishan, accused No.2 Digambar and accused No.5 Venkat for offences punishable under sections 498-A and 304-B read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for offence punishable under section 304-B read with section 34, Indian Penal Code and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month each, for offence punishable under section 498- A read with section 34, Indian Penal Code. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. The original accused Nos.1...
Avadhut Rokdoba Shinde and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Throug ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-03-2013
R.M. Borde, J. 1 The petitioners, who are holders of small plots out of land situate at village Ladgaon, are questioning proceedings of acquisition of lands at the instance of MIDC (Additional Shendra Industrial Area) undertaken by Respondent No.3 Sub-Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad. The petitioners also pray for issuance of writ of quo warranto to Respondent No.3 calling upon him to explain as to in what capacity of law, he has proceeded in respect of acquisition of lands situate at village Ladgaon, Taluka and District Aurangabad. 2 Petitioners are admittedly purchasers of small pieces of plots situate at village Ladgaon on different dates between the period 2004 to 2009. The lands in village Shendra, Taluka and District Aurangabad, were notified under Section 1(3) of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as Act of 1961), as Industrial Area for establishment of Shendra Urban Industrial Zone on 06.01.1996. According to pe...
M/S. S. Mohan Singh Bhatiya Vs. Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Li ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-03-2013
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of Shri Parsodkar , learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Modak, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 and Shri De, learned counsel for respondent No. 3. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a registered Partnership firm, seeks a direction against Respondents No. 1 and 2 to permit it to participate in e-Reverse Auction and to consider its tender along with other bidders in accordance with law. This Court on 22.04.2013 issued notices and on 26.04.2013 after hearing counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2, directed the parties to maintain status quo till 06.05.2013. On 10.05.2013, after hearing counsel for the respondents, the Court clarified that the tatus quo granted by it on 26.04.2013 enabled the petitioner to raise his bills at the rate calculated at Rs.2,50,00,000/- proportionately. This order continues to operate even today. 3. Civil...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »