Mumbai Court October 2014 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.
Sanj Daily Lokopchar and Others Vs. Gokulchand Govindlal Sananda
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-10-2014
1. Admit. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. In Regular Civil Suit No.17 of 2013 for grant of damages of Rs.25,00,000/- for the per se defamatory publications and for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants-owner, printer and publisher of daily newspaper Sanj Daily Lokopachar from publishing news items of defamatory and malicious in nature against the plaintiff and his family members, the Trial Court has passed an order of temporary injunction on 15-3-2014. The defendants are restrained temporarily from publishing any defamatory article as well as other article relating to plaintiff and his family members, till the final decision of the suit. The original defendants are before this Court in this appeal under Order XLIII, Rule 1(r) read with Section 104 of the Civil Procedure Code. The parties shall hereinafter be called according to their original status as 'plaintiff' and 'defendants'. 3. Plaintiff Gokul Govindlal Sananda al...
Courts on its own Motion through the Registrar General, High Court (A. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-2014
P.C. A.S. Oka, J 1. The submissions of the learned Senior Counsel appointed as Amicus Curiae were heard on 8th May 2014 when he made several suggestions as regards the policy framed by the State Government for grant of protection to the witnesses in the criminal cases. With a view to enable the State Government to come out with the modified policy, order was reserved. Thereafter, the matter was again listed before this Bench on 8th August 2014 when the State Government pointed out that no further policy has been framed. A note was filed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader. 2. We must note here that two main issues are involved in this Suo Moto Petition. The first issue involved is regarding the grant of protection to the social activists and whistle blowers. As far as the protection to the whistle blowers and the social activists is concerned, a Government Resolution is already in place which takes care of the said issue. The second issue is regarding the grant of protection to...
Sachin Sabharwal Vs. Senior Inspector of Police and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-2014
P.C. 1. The Applicant has moved this court under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code on being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai on 22nd September, 2014. Applicant is an accused of the offences punishable under sections 376 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The Complainant was working in the office of the Applicant. They allegedly had sex by consent. The Complainant alleges that though the Applicant had agreed to marry her, he, however, failed to fulfill the promise. The prosecution case, therefore, is that the consent was given under the mis-conception of facts. 2. With these allegations FIR vide Crime No.92 of 2013 has been registered at Bandra Police Station and it is pending investigation. It appears that the FIR was registered in the month of February, 2013. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Konde-Deshmukh is not able to tell the court as to why investigation has not been completed even after l...
Bharatiya Kamgar Sena Vs. Otis Elevator Employees Union and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-2014
S.J. Vazifdar, J. 1. The petitioner and the first respondent are registered under the Trade Union Act, 1926. Respondent No.2 is the Otis Elevator Company (India) Limited, Western Region, which is one of the undertakings of M/s. Otis Elevator Company (India) Limited. 2. The petitioner has challenged an order of the Industrial Court declaring the first respondent-union as the recognized union under section 11 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") in respect of the second respondent's undertaking known as M/s. Otis Elevator Company (India) Limited (Western Region). 3(A). By an application dated 29th January, 2005, the first respondent sought to be declared as the recognized union under section 11 of the said Act. The application stated as follows. Over 50% of the employees in the said undertaking were members of the first respondent for the whole of the period of six calendar months immediat...
Meena and Another Vs. T.R. Patil Vidyalaya and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-09-2014
Oral Judgment : 1. Since common issues arise in both these writ petitions, they being decided by this common judgment. 2. The issue that arises for consideration is whether discontinuation of services of an employee on the ground that he has deemed to have voluntarily abandoned his services as per Rule 16(3) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Service (Conditions of service) Rules, 1981 (for short, the Rules of 1981) should be preceded by an enquiry as contemplated under Rules 36 and 37 of the Rules of 1981. 3. The aforesaid issue arises on the following facts. Both the petitioners had been appointed as Assistant Teachers on 24/6/1985 at the respondent School. During their course of service, a complaint has been lodged against both of them by another Assistant Teacher resulting in their criminal prosecution. The petitioners remained absent from duty continuously from 1/1/2000. On 15/2/2003, the management passed a resolution that as the petitioners were continuously absent for a pe...
Tatyasaheb Ramchandra Kale Vs. Navnath Tukaram Kakde and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-2014
R.M. Savant, J. 1. The issue which at most times is central to a challenge to an order passed confirming the motion of no confidence against the Sarpanch/Upa-Sarpanch has been referred to a larger bench of this Court by the Division Bench of this Court ((A.S.Oka and S.C. Gupte, JJ) vide its order dated 24th January 2014. The Division Bench has crystallized the said issue as under :- "Whether failure to formally move and second a motion of no confidence as required by Rule 17 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Meeting) Rule, 1959 would render the motion of no confidence carried by the requisite majority under Section 35 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, invalid ? The issue therefore revolves around whether Rule 17 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Meeting) Rules 1959 is directory or mandatory in the context of a motion of no confidence passed under Section 35(3) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (for short "the BVP Act"). The genesis of the reference lies in the dis-ag...
Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Sharad Damodar Shrangarpawa ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-09-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. The original respondent no.1 Sharad Damodar Shrangarpawar filed Insurance Case No.6/1988 in the Employees Insurance Court at Nagpur, challenging the orders of recovery passed under the relevant provision of the Employees State Insurance Act towards unpaid contribution. The Employees Insurance Court in exercise of its power under Section 75(1)(g) of the said Act has set aside the orders. Hence, this appeal has been filed by the Corporation. 2. The Employees' Insurance Court has recorded the finding in the order impugned that the respondent no.1 was the Managing Director of the factory M/s. Vikrant Exchange Engine Company Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur. He submitted resignation on 10.11.1986, which was accepted in the meeting of the Board of Directors on 08.04.1987. The court has recorded the finding that merely because the respondent no.1 was the Managing Director of the Factory, he is neither the owner nor the occupier of the factory. The reliance was placed upon the decision of ...
Bhavika and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-2014
Oral Order: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties, the petition is heard finally. 2. Aggrieved by the direction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad, to issue process against the present petitioners for the offences punishable under section 406, 420 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the present petition is filed. 3. The complaint filed by the respondent no.2 would show that the marriage between the petitioner no.1 Bhavika i.e. original accused no.1 and younger brother of the complainant Sameer took place on 3/1/2013. After some days of co-habitation, there was estrangement between the parties on 14/2/2013. Thereafter, various complaints came to be filed by the present petitioner no.1. In the situation, the respondent no.2 filed the present complaint against the petitioner no.1 as well as her relatives i.e. the next of the petitioners. The gist of the complaint is that dowry was paid from the side of the bridegroom to the bride in the marri...
Nitin Gandhi and Another Vs. Dinyar Pheroz Dubash and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-2014
M.S. Sonak, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 28 October 2013 in Chamber Summons No.2087 of 2011 in Suit No.1241 of 2007 declining the appellants (original plaintiffs) leave to implead subsequent purchaser of the suit property and for consequential amendments to the plaint. 2. We have heard Mr. Shailesh Shah, learned senior counsel for the appellants, Mr. Pradeep Sancheti, learned senior counsel for respondent No.5 (subsequent purchaser), Mr. Ramchandran N. for respondent Nos.1 to 3 (original defendant Nos.1 to 3) and Ms. Usha R. Tiwari for respondent No.4 (original defendant No.4). With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, we have taken up not merely this appeal, but also Notice of Motion No.2308 of 2007 in Suit No.1241 of 2007 (Motion seeking interim reliefs in the Suit), for final hearing and disposal. 3. For the purposes of present appeal, the parties shall be referred to by their descriptions in the trial court, i.e., the appellants shall be referred...
Bhavika and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-09-2014
Oral Order: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties, the petition is heard finally. 2. Aggrieved by the direction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad, to issue process against the present petitioners for the offences punishable under section 406, 420 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the present petition is filed. 3. The complaint filed by the respondent no.2 would show that the marriage between the petitioner no.1 Bhavika i.e. original accused no.1 and younger brother of the complainant Sameer took place on 3/1/2013. After some days of co-habitation, there was estrangement between the parties on 14/2/2013. Thereafter, various complaints came to be filed by the present petitioner no.1. In the situation, the respondent no.2 filed the present complaint against the petitioner no.1 as well as her relatives i.e. the next of the petitioners. The gist of the complaint is that dowry was paid from the side of the bridegroom to the bride in the marri...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »