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.
Shripad Janardan Phadke Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-18-2014
1. The applicants are the accused in S.T.C. No. 651/2005, pending before the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Navapur [District : Nandurbar]. The said case is in respect of offences punishable under Section 153-A of the IPC and Section 295-A of the IPC. The applicants made separate applications (Exhibits 16 and 17) before the Magistrate, contending that the charge sheet had been filed beyond the period of limitation, and that, the cognizance of the alleged offences could not be taken in view of Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [For short, "the Code"]. The said applications were rejected by the Magistrate by a common order dated 26-3-2013. Being aggrieved thereby, the applicants have approached this Court by filing the present Application, invoking the inherent powers of this Court. The applicants pray that the order passed by the Magistrate be quashed and set aside and the applications (Exhibits 16 and 17) be allowed. 2. I have heard Mr. G.S. Rane, the learned Counsel fo...
Babasaheb Kedar Shetkari Through Its Chairman and Another Vs. Madhukar ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-18-2014
1. Rule. Heard finally. 2. In the Complaint (ULP) No.102 of 2009 filed by the elected representatives under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as œthe MRTU and PULP Act?), the Industrial Court has, by its judgment and order dated 24-1-2012, declared that the petitioner-employer is engaged in an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act by denying the lawful claim for bonus of the employees. The Industrial Court has directed the petitioner-employer to pay the difference of bonus for the years 2006-2007 and 2007-08 as per the provisions of the amended Section 12 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 on the basis of monthly salary or wages of Rs.3,500/- instead of Rs.2,500/, after deducting the amount of bonus already paid for the said period to such employees. The employer is, therefore, before this Court in this writ petition. Findings of the Industrial...
Kailash Rajput and Others Vs. Intelligence Officer, Air Intelligence U ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-2014
Oral Order: 1) Heard the learned Counsels for the respective applicants. Also heard the learned Special Prosecutor for the Customs. 2) All the three Bail Applications are arising out of the investigation carried out by the Intelligence Officers, Air Intelligence Unit, Customs and subsequent filing of the complaint bearing NDPS Special Case No.51 of 2013 filed on 12th April, 2013 alleging commission of offences against all the three applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 29, 22, 28 read with Section 23 and 8(c) of NDPS Act, 1985. 3) At the threshold it must be mentioned that all the three bail applications under consideration are preferred not on the merits of the matter, but, under the provisions of Section 167(2) of Criminal Procedure Code on the ground that till date there is no complaint against the applicants for finding in possession of Ketamine and Methamphetamine. According to the applicants, they are entitled for bail as there is no complaint filed within the per...
Kailash Rajput and Others Vs. Intelligence Officer, Air Intelligence U ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-2014
Oral Order: 1) Heard the learned Counsels for the respective applicants. Also heard the learned Special Prosecutor for the Customs. 2) All the three Bail Applications are arising out of the investigation carried out by the Intelligence Officers, Air Intelligence Unit, Customs and subsequent filing of the complaint bearing NDPS Special Case No.51 of 2013 filed on 12th April, 2013 alleging commission of offences against all the three applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 29, 22, 28 read with Section 23 and 8(c) of NDPS Act, 1985. 3) At the threshold it must be mentioned that all the three bail applications under consideration are preferred not on the merits of the matter, but, under the provisions of Section 167(2) of Criminal Procedure Code on the ground that till date there is no complaint against the applicants for finding in possession of Ketamine and Methamphetamine. According to the applicants, they are entitled for bail as there is no complaint filed within the per...
Nagnath Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through Its Secretary, Home Depa ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-18-2014
1. The petitioner is the accused in Sessions Case No. 41/2010, pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai. The respondent no.3 herein was also originally an accused in the said case. The respondent no.3, however, applied for tender of pardon to him, which was granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by an order dated 3-8-2013. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, granting pardon to the respondent no.3, and has therefore, approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition. The petitioner prays that the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai, granting pardon be quashed and set aside. 2. Rule was issued and considering the nature of challenge, was by consent, made returnable forthwith. 3. I have heard Mr. S.S. Thombre, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. A.A. Nimbalkar, the learned Counsel for the respondent no.3. I have also heard Mr. V.P. Kadam, the learned Additiona...
Prashant Mukund Patil Vs. Chief Officer Konkan Housing and Area Develo ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-2014
Dhanraj Khamatkar, Member: 1. Mr.Prashant Mukund Patil has filed a consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service (herein after referred as complainant) against the Chief Officer, Konkan Housing and Area Development Board (herein after referred to as opponent). The complaint was registered as consumer complaint no.CC/12/328. Facts leading to this complaint can be summarized as under:- 2. The complainant had applied for a plot in response to an advertisement by the opponent in newspaper dated 24/10/1983 to tab the interest of common man for Housing project at Virar. The complainant had applied for the same. Total 1285 persons responded to the advertisement. Out of 1285 applicants, opponent had informed to only 702 applicants in the year 1987 to deposit 10% of the cost of the plot. Accordingly, the complainant paid deposit of Rs.500/-. The complainant paid 25% of the cost i.e.Rs.26,125/- of a plot no.484 allotted to the complainant. The opponent had revised the cost of plot to Rs.1,21...
M/S. Mehul Realtors Private Ltd. Vs. Mumbai Municipal Corporation of G ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-2014
Oral Judgment: (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) In view of urgency, heard finally. 2. The Petitioner as owner/landlord of the property bearing C.T.S. nos.1211, 1211/1 to 8 with structure/building standing thereon known as œPandya House? on plot no.84-B of TPS III, situate at Sarojini Road, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai (for short the œproperty?) has filed the present Petition and prayed for direction against Respondent nos.1 to 3 (Mumbai Municipal Corporation and its officers) to take immediate steps/action for vacating and demolishing the dilapidated structure basically room premises nos.1 and 11. 3. There is no dispute with regard to the dilapidated condition of the building in question and the related notices issued by the Corporation since 2008 onwards. Out of 14 structures/rooms, 13 rooms are already vacated by the occupants by settling the matter with the Petitioner-owner. Room premises no.11 which was also the subject-matter of the Petition has been demolished in view of settlement....
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Though Itâandeuro;andtrade;s ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-17-2014
1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally. 2. The award of Rs.6,22,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. in M.A.C.P. No. 75 of 2011, recorded by the learned Member, M.A.C.T. Jalna dated 04.05.2013 is assailed by the Insurance Company. 3. On 8.5.2010, Raju Uttam Choudhary was driving his motorcycle with pillion rider. He was knocked by offending vehicle. F.I.R. vide Crime No. 63 of 2010, dated 8.5.2010 was registered at Badnapur police station against the unknown vehicle. 4. Police Inspector, Chandrakant, allegedly had instructions of Superintendent of Police, Jalna, carried further investigation and prosecuted owner of Maruti Zen car bearing registration MH-21-V-.541 (original respondent No.1 Dilip). Taking base of this, the learned Member relied upon evidence of said Chandrakant, for involvement of vehicle, had recorded award fixing joint and several liability on owner of said vehicle alongwith Insurance Company. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company confined his submissions to involv...
Vilas Kashinath Parab Vs. Nashiket Parab and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel for the respondents waive service. 2. The respondent/complainant has filed a criminal complaint no.376/P/2010/D in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class at Mapusa under Section 190(A) of Criminal Procedure Code, thereby praying that the petitioner/accused has committed offences of forgery, cheating and use of false document, thereby punishable under Sections 198, 465, 468 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. It is the case of the complainant that the petitioner, though was age-barred has fraudulently obtained the Government job by using false birth certificate, showing his age less. 3. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class issued process under Section 198, 465, 468 and 420 of Indian Penal Code under Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The said order of issuance of process was challenged by the present petitioner in Criminal Revision Application No.52/2012, before the Addit...
K. Ganeshan and Another Vs. Shambu D. Gauns and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-17-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Dessai, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Karpe, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioners have taken exception to the orders dated 16/12/2013 and 22/01/2014, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Pernem, Goa ('trial Court') in Regular Civil Suit No.17/2006. 4. The petitioners are the original plaintiffs whereas the respondents are the original defendants in the said Regular Civil Suit No.17/2006 pending before the learned trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their designation in the said suit. 5. The defendants have filed their written statement in the said suit thereby disputing the case of the petitioners. The defendants filed an application dated 21/11/2013 for amendment of the written statement. By order dated 16/12/2013, the learned trial Cou...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »