Mumbai Court August 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.
Chunnilal and Sons Vs. Smt. Sunita Ramkishan Kamble and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-20-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard both sides. 2. The present first appeal has arisen out of the award passed by the learned Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, directing the present applicant/appellant to pay compensation to the present respondents for the death of deceased Ramkishan. As there is delay in filing the first appeal, the present civil application for condonation of delay is filed. 3. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned. The application is accordingly disposed of. 4. The first appeal stands admitted, on registration thereof, on the following question of law:- "Whether the learned Commissioner committed patent error in concluding that there was employer and employee relationship and death of the deceased occurred during the course of employment?" Print of the paper-book is dispensed with. By consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is taken up for final hearing. 5. The respondents came with a case before the learned Commissioner t...
Ku. Waishali D/O Pandurang Nandanwar (Sou. Waishali Rahul Saolikar) Vs ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-19-2013
Oral Judgment: (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 26.2.1996 in the reserved category on the basis of then existing caste certificate Halba (S.T.). After 12 years of service, respondent no.2 referred the caste certificate of the petitioner to respondent no.1. The petitioner submitted relevant documents. The matter was duly enquired/conducted. Ultimately, by order dated 31.5.2013 the caste claim of the petitioner was invalidated. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition and challenged the impugned order of termination dated 31.5.2013 as well as invalidation of certificate and also prayed for protection of service in view of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of KavitaSolunke...Versus...State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2012 AIR SCW 4472 and the decision of this Court in the case of A.P. Ramtekkar and others...V...
Vijaykumar and Others Vs. Manohar and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-19-2013
FACTS: 1. This appeal relates to the disputes amongst thetrustees/members of an educational trust registered under theprovisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act (hereinafter referredas to the "B.P.T. Act" for the sake of brevity). When the disputereached the Court of Additional District Judge, Nilanga Camp atLatur, the learned Additional District Judge, Nilanga on03.05.2002 in Misc. Application No. 29/1999 and Misc.Application No. 52/1999 made the following operative order.O R D E R i) The application bearing M. A. No. 29/99and cross objection therein are herebydismissed. ii) The application bearing M. A. No. 52/99stands allowed and the impugned order ofremoval of the applicants therein fromtrusteeship of the trust Mahatma BasweshwarShikshan Sanstha, Latur PTR No. F52(Latur)is hereby setaside. Thedirection to Assistant CharityCommissioner, Latur and stipulation imposedon the trustees under impugned order shallstand vacated. iii) The applicants in M. A. No. 52/99 to holdthe reins of the ...
Shivaji Nanasaheb Shinde Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-19-2013
A.I.S. Cheema, J. 1. The appellant accused Shivaji Nanasaheb Shinde has been convicted for offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC in brief) by Judgment dated 12.05.2000 by Additional Sessions Judge Kopargaon, in Sessions Case No.2/2000. For offence under Section 302 of IPC, he has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year. For offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC, he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. Case of the Prosecution 2. Case of the prosecution in brief may be stated to be as under :- (a) In the night between 05.10.1999 to 06.10.1999, the Head Constable Prakash Eknath Taware of Police Station, Kopargaon received memo from Medical Officer, Kopargaon that Shivaji Nanasaheb Shinde (later on made accused) was admitted in t...
Ramnivas S/O Shivram Tyagi Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-19-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. The appeal is filed against the judgment and order of Sessions Case No. 01 of 2012, which was pending in the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Jalna. The appellant is convicted of the offence punishable under Section 304 - Part II of the Indian Penal Code and he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with a default clause. He is also convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 185 [b] of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. Both the sides are heard. Learned counsel for the appellant has filed notes of arguments also. 3. The facts leading to institution of the appeal, in short, can be stated as follows: The incident took place on 25th July, 2011, at about 03.45 p.m. There was a procession called Dindi of more than 400 devotees who were proceeding to Lalwadi from Ambad side. On the way, around 150 members of Dindi took a brief halt n...
Shivaji Bajirao Karande Vs. Hon'ble President, Industrial Court and An ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-2013
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Oka, J.) Rule. The learned AGP waives service for the Respondents. Forthwith taken up for final disposal. 2. The Petitioners in both the Petitions are challenging the disciplinary inquiry under the provisions of the Maharashtra Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Rules of 1979"). As the Presenting Officer appointed in the disciplinary inquiry by the State Government is a law graduate, Applications were made by the Petitioners before the Inquiry Officer for grant of permission to them to appoint a legal practitioner. By the impugned orders, the said Applications have been rejected. The Inquiry Officer passed an order of no cross-examination of the witnesses examined by the Presenting Officer. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Chandrakant s/o Shridhar Deshpande v. Government of Maharashtra and another (1990 (1) Bom.C.R. 17). He submitted that...
Collector, Jalgaon Vs. Sayyad Mumtaj Sayyad Ahmad and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-16-2013
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. This Civil Revision Application takes exception to the order passed below Exhibit-1 in Regular Civil Suit No.232 of 2011 by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon on 23rd January, 2012. This Civil Revision Application is filed by the Collector, Jalgaon i.e. State Authority. 3. The learned A.G.P. appearing for the applicant invited my attention to the pleadings in the suit and also prayers therein, and submits that, averments/prayers in respect of land acquisition cannot be dealt with by the civil Court. It is submitted that, the Civil Court did not take into consideration the provisions of Section 156, 157 and 158 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (For short, "said Act"). It is further submitted that, the plaintiffs have already moved the revenue authorities for correction in respect of the boundaries and said proceedings are yet pending. It is further submitted that, suit chal...
M/S. Investment Combine Vs. Shree Tatyasaheb Kore Warana Sahakari Sakh ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-2013
P.C.: The Plaintiffs-Applicants have taken out this Notice of Motion, as Summary Suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC) and Summons For Judgment arising out of the same, were dismissed on 11 November 2011 as none appeared for the Plaintiffs and the Court has passed the following order on merits:- None appeared for the Plaintiffs though called out twice. 2 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Defendants. Without going further into the merits of the matter admittedly, no statutory notice as contemplated under Section 164 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 was issued and as there is no averments made into that effect, in my view, on this ground itself as the Suit itself is not maintainable, the present Summons for Judgment is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 3 The Suit as well as the Summons for Judgment are accordingly disposed of. 2 Admittedly, none appeared for the Plaintiffs. The Court heard the Defendants-Respo...
Mulheim Pipecoatings Gmbh Vs. Welspun Fintrade Limited and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-2013
Oral Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) Admit. The Learned Counsel for the Respondents waive service. On the request of the Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and by consent, the appeal is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. The appeal is from the judgment of a Learned Single Judge which has been rendered on a Petition which was filed by the Appellant under Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Appellant which is a company incorporated in Germany entered into a Share Purchase Agreement (SPA) with the Respondents. By its petition, the Appellant sought a direction under Section 45 for a reference to arbitration in accordance with an arbitration agreement embodied in clause 11.13 of the SPA. The Appellant has in pursuance of the arbitration agreement invoked arbitration by lodging a request for arbitration (RFA) to the International Chamber of Commerce, Paris. The First Respondent instituted a suit in this Court on the Original Side, for seeking a ...
Ahammad MainuddIn Shaikh Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through the Secr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-2013
S.B. Shukre, J. 1 By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 30th April, 2013 passed by respondent No.1 the appellate authority confirming the order passed by respondent No.2 on 15th January, 2013 externing the petitioner under Section 55 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for a period of one year, from Kolhapur District. 2 This petition has been finally heard at the stage of admission with the consent of parties. Hence, rule made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service of the notice. 3 We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Anand S. Patil, and Mr.A.S.Gadkari, learned A.P.P. for the State. 4 The main contentions raised before us on behalf of the petitioner are that, the impugned orders dated 30th April, 2013 passed by the appellate authority and 15th January, 2013 passed by the externing authority Kolhapur, suffer from serious illegalities and arbitrariness. According to learn...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »