Mumbai Court February 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.
M/S. Haldyn Glass Limited and Another Vs. Maharashtra General Kamgar U ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-2014
1. As substantially common questions of law and fact arise in these batch of Petitions, they are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. All these Writ Petitions take exception to the Awards made by the 1st and 10th Labour Courts, Mumbai. The Labour Courts have denied the relief of reinstatement to the dismissed workmen. However, compensation / back wages in the range of Rs.2 Lacs to Rs.6 Lacs came to be awarded to most of the workmen involved in the dispute. 3. The Writ Petition No.1892 of 2008 has been preferred by the Union objecting to denial of reinstatement or in the alternate urging that the compensation / back wages awarded is not commensurate. The rest of the Writ Petitions have been preferred by the employer, contending that no relief whatsoever ought to have been granted in favour of the union / workmen. 4. For the sake of convenience, the particulars of the References, workmen involved therein, relief granted etc. are set out in the chart beneath :- 1st LABO...
Vishal Agarwal Vs. State of Goa, Through Public Prosecutor and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-20-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. With the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith. 2. This petition is directed against the order dated 23/2/2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa and the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class on 14/10/2011 disallowing the application of the petitioner for compounding the offence punishable under section 279 of the I.P.C. The petitioner was driving the vehicle Zen on 7/1/2010 at Agacaim and due to his rash driving dashed one mini bus on its front side and thereby caused damage to the bus and the petitioner who was the driver of the zen also got injured. Except the petitioner, none was injured. Police registered offence against the petitioner. He was charge sheeted and now he is facing a Criminal Case No. I.P.C/S/143/10/C before the JMFC, at Panaji. The petitioner got injured himself and filed an application for getting the offence compoundable before the learned JMFC. The Magistrate after considering the provi...
Jaishri and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through Its Secretary, Ur ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-20-2014
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Rule. The Advocates for respondents waive service. By consent Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the constitutional validity of Section 3 of the then Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, now, the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. 3. It is prayed that subsection (4) to Section 3 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 and proviso to subclause (d) of subsection (1) to Section 6 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965, (hereinafter referred to as,?the Municipal Councils Act? for short), are ultravires Articles 13(2), 14, 243Q and 368 of the Constitution of India. 4. A further prayer is to quash and set aside the notification dated 1st November, 2011, issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, declari...
Ruksana and Others Vs. Azmat Khan and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-20-2014
1. The appeal is admitted on 20.2.2007. 2. At the time of admission, no substantial question of law was formulated. It is now formulated, as under:- Whether deceased Shaikh Aleem expired during the course of employment suffered an accident? 3. Heard. Shaikh Aleem was truck driver on truck No. MH-26-7230 on monthly salary of Rs.5000/- plus Rs.50/- daily Bhatta. On 23.5.2005, Shaikh Aleem had been to Jintur for unloading cotton at Ayodhya Ginning factory on Jintur Yeldari road. At 11.00 p.m., he had parked the vehicle in the factory. Thereafter, in the process of unloading, he came out of the factory and while walking on the road side, he was knocked by unknown vehicle. Resultantly, he was injured and shifted to Government Hospital and later succumbed to the injuries on 24.5.2005. Post mortem was drawn. The cause of death was due to hemorrhagic shock due to multiple injury with bomice infracraninal hemorrhage. 4. The claimants-appellants asserted that death occurred due to accidental inj...
Amol Vishwanath Bade Vs. Dattatraya Dinkar Ghule and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-20-2014
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.1 on caveat. The revision is being disposed of after hearing these parties finally. 2. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming to be Opponent No.4 in Regular Darkhast No.25/2009 pending before Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pathardi. According to the petitioner, he objected to the execution of the Darkhast on the ground that the decree passed under the Specific Relief Act, 1963 was preliminary decree and so, the same was not executable unless final decree proceedings are drawn up before the trial Court. The executing Court heard the petitioner referring to him as "alleged Judgment Debtor No.4" and after hearing the decree holder also, has rejected the application of the present petitioner. 3. I have heard counsel for petitioner and counsel for respondent No.1. According to learned counsel for petitioner, respondent No.1 Dattatraya had brought suit for specific performance against r...
Kawadu and Others Vs. Jainabai and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-20-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. The present appeal is directed, against judgment and order dated 2.11.1998, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandrapur, in Regular Civil Appeal No.49 of 1986, which was partly allowed, which arose from judgment and order dated 4.2.1986, passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Brahmapuri, in Regular Civil Suit No.187 of 1977, whereby the suit was decreed. 2. Though served on merits, the respondents did not turn up for hearing. 3. The appeal was admitted, on 12.3.2001, on the substantial questions of law as to whether the First Appellate Court was justified to grant relief of joint possession to the plaintiffs as joint co-owners and whether any interference is required at the instance of this Court. 4. The facts of the case, in brief, are thus: That Kawadu son of Rushi Kowe purchased the suit land Bearing Khasara No.52 admeasuring 2.57 HR, assessed at Rs.7.76, situated at Mouza Viticheck, P.C.No.36 in Tahsil Brahmapuri. 5. It is the cas...
Shripad Kulkarni and Others Vs. State of Goa, Through the Police Inspe ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-20-2014
R.S. Dalvi, J. 1. Rule. Made returnable forthwith. 2. This Writ Petition is filed by the Management Personnel of a limited Company against the State and their Employees. Respondent no. 2 served as Manager, Human Resources. She claimed leave on personal grounds. She was not allowed. She was called to office on the date of the incident. She claimed that she was handed over a resignation letter to sign which she was coerced to do. She has lodged a criminal complaint on 23.5.2013 against the petitioners herein for the offences under Sections 342 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that no cognizable offence is disclosed in the complaint. It is her case that it is clearly and apparently disclosed. Upon that complaint the FIR has been registered and investigation has proceeded. The investigation is essentially in terms of the statements of several persons of the company as witnesses. About eight such statements are recorded, seven of wh...
Pintu @ Arjun Suraji Suryavanshi Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-2014
Oral Judgment: (P.V. Hardas, J.) 1. Appellant who stands convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of which to undergo further RI for 6 months, by Ad-Hoc Additional Sessions Judge-2, Sangli, by judgment dated 26.8.2008 in Sessions Case No. 33 of 2008, by this appeal questions the correctness of his conviction and sentence. 2. The facts in brief, as are necessary for the decision of this appeal, may briefly be stated thus: (i) PW-7 API Rajendra Rajmane who on 6.11.2007 attached to Chinchani- Wangi Police Station was informed by PSO Jadhav at about 8.35 pm about the receipt of an anonymous telephone call about a murder which was committed near Vithal Rakhumai temple. An entry was accordingly taken in the station diary and PW-7 API Rajmane proceeded with the staff to the scene of incident. On reaching the scene of incident, he noticed that a murder of Suresh had been comm...
Mayuri Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary, Social Welf ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-20-2014
Oral Judgment: (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. The petitioner's caste claim has been invalidated by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, namely, the Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee, Dhule, by its order dated 5th October, 2010. 3. Petitioner was claiming admission against a reserved seat and that is how, she approached this committee for validation of her caste certificate. The petitioner laid claim to Rajput Bhamta which is notified as a de-notified tribe (Vimukta Jati). The Petitioner produced before the said committee Caste Validity Certificates in relation to her cousins, but, the committee has opined that the Caste Validity Certificates are not in relation to the immediate relations but distant one and have discarded them. 4. The second ground on which the caste claim of the petitioner has been invalidated is because the petitioner could not state anything about the criminal record of the ancestors in the family...
Navbharat International Ltd. Vs. Cargo Onboard M.V. Amitees (at Kandla ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-2014
1. Notice of Motion No.2853 of 2010 is taken out on behalf of Defendant No.2 and Notice of Motion No.3649 of 2010 is taken out on behalf of Defendant No.3. Both the parties have taken out their respective Notices of Motion as parties to whom prejudice was caused by the ex-parte order dated 12th January 2010 obtained by the Plaintiff for arrest of the cargo on board m.v. Amitees at Kandla. While obtaining the ex-parte order of arrest, the Plaintiff had given an undertaking in writing to this court under rule 941 of The Bombay High court (OS) Rules to pay such sums by way of damages as this Hon'ble Court may award as compensation in the event of a party sustaining prejudice by such ex-parte order. 2. The order of arrest was held to be wrongful by the Division Bench of this Court by a judgment and order dated 23rd March 2010. 3. On 6th September 2010, the Plaintiff sought leave of this Court to withdraw the Suit. The application for withdrawal was opposed by the counsel for Defendant No.2...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »