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. Bombay Intelligence Security (i) Ltd. Vs. Harinarayan Jeet Bahadu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-2014
1. The Petitioner-employer has filed the present Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the judgment and order dated 17.1.2006 passed by 8th Labour Court, Mumbai in Complaint (ULP) No.139 of 2005, as also the judgment dated 10.4.2007 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Mumbai in Revision Application (ULP) no.33 of 2006 confirming the judgment of the Labour Court. The Labour Court by its Judgment has allowed the complaint filed by Respondent no.1 and has declared that the Petitioner has committed unfair labour practice under Items 1(b) (d) (f) of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 and has directed the Petitioner to permit Respondent no.1 to forthwith report for work with continuity of service and full back wages with effect from 1.3.2005. 2. Respondent no.1-employee had filed Complaint (ULP) No.139 of 2005 against the Petitioner-employer. In the complaint filed by Respondent no.1 before the Labour Court, the case of Respondent no.1 in sh...
Sagar Balwant Patil Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-2014
A.S. Gadkari, J. 1. The appellant, who stands convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of which to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Sessions Case No. 95 of 2009, by its judgment and order dated 12 July 2011, has questioned the correctness of his conviction and sentence by the present appeal. 2. The facts in brief which can be summerised from the record and as are necessary for the decision of this appeal may briefly be stated thus: (i) PW-8 Dhondiba Gundu Khandekar, head constable then attached to Juna Rajwada police station, Kolhapur on 9.6.2009 was on duty at CPR Hospital Police Chowki, Kolhapur and his duty hours were 8pm to 8am till next day. On 9.6.2009, he received written intimation from the Medical Officer of CPR Hospital about the admission of the patient Sarika Sagar Patil who had sustained burn ...
Shaikh Rafiq Abdul Gafoor Shaikh and Others Vs. the State of Maharasht ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-21-2014
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No.26 of 2008 decided on 30th July, 2011. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellants herein i.e. Original accused Nos.1 to 4 have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 r.w. 34 of IPC and each accused has been sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for two months each. The accused / appellants No.1, 2 and 4 have been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 498-A r.w. 34 of IPC and sentenced to sufferRigorous Imprisonment for one year each and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. However, accused / appellant NO.3 has been acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 498-A r.w. 34 of IPC. 2. The prosecution case in nut shell is, as under: The alleged incident has occurred on ...
Shobhabai Vs. Kundlik and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-21-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule was issued in this Civil Revision Application on 8.8.2013. Contesting parties are heard finally. 2. The present revision application has been filed by original defendant No.1 in Regular Civil Suit No. 1600/2012. The petitioner - defendant No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) filed application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as CPC for short) for rejection of the plaint on the ground of limitation. The 16th Civil Judge, Junior Division, Aurangabad passed a brief order, which is impugned in this revision application, mentioning that it is settled principle that the plea of limitation is mixed question of law and fact and that the provisions of Section 5 of Limitation Act are not applicable to suit. The Civil Judge passed order that the aspect cannot be decided at preliminary stage without leading any evidence and rejected the application. Thus, the defendant has filed this revision application, pointi...
Milagrina Dias and Others Vs. the Sanguem Municipal Council
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-2014
Oral Judgment:- 1. Heard Mr. T. Pereira, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. V. P. Thali, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The above appeal came to be admitted by order dated 02.07.2010 on the following substantial questions of law. (a) Whether on the basis of the admission of the respondent that the appellants have been granted an aforamento the consequences available for an aforamento as provided under the Portuguese Civil Code are available to the appellant? (b) Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in dismissing the suit in toto though the appellants were held to be in lawful possession of the suit property? 3. Mr. T. Pereira, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that the appellants have been granted an aforamento in the year 1932 for the purpose of cultivation and putting up a construction therein by the respondent and according to him the appellants are in possession of the said por...
Rentworks India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Small Industries Development Bank of Ind ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-2014
1. The question in the present Notice of Motion is, whether, having regard to the Plaintiffs case in the suit herein as noted below, the Defendant should be restrained by a temporary injunction (a) from prosecuting its Original Application pending in the DRT at the date of the present suit against the Plaintiff and (b) from taking any step under and/or relying upon the Deed of Indemnity and the Deed of Hypothecation, of which cancellation is sought by the Plaintiff in the present suit. 2. The Plaintiff provided some equipment on lease to Subhiksha Trading Services Pvt. Ltd. (Subhiksha) under a Master Rental Agreement (MRA) for a lease rent and on terms and conditions set out therein. The MRA inter alia provided that at the end of the lease period the equipment was to be returned to the Plaintiff. The MRA also provided that in the event of default by Subhiksha in payment of rent the Plaintiff had the right to repossess the equipment. During the subsistence of the MRA, the Plaintiff and ...
Shantu Sazu Bhonsle and Others Vs. Saraswati Sadashiv Tari, Since Dece ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-21-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellants and Shri Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents. 2. The above Appeal came to be admitted by an Order dated 25.06.2010, on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether in a suit for injunction simpliciter, the finding of possession recorded by the Courts below in favour of the Respondents, is perverse having been rendered. (ii) On the wrong assumption that name of plaintiff no. 1 alone is recorded in the survey records when in fact the names of large number of persons are entered herein as occupants. (iii) Contrary to the admissions that there are other co-owners of the said property surveyed under no. 40/3, with large number of houses located therein, a position duly corroborated by survey plan. (iv) Contrary the admission made by the Plaintiff no. 2 (Pw.1), to the effect that the defendants were having their residential house in the suit property surveyed unde...
Real Team Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the State of Maharashtra (Through Its ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-20-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. In view of the earlier orders passed by this Court, the writ petition is admitted. 2. Rule. 3. Respondents waive service. By consent of parties, rule is made returnable forthwith. 4. By this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging an allotment of the plot bearing No.T22 in the Chikalthana Industrial area which plot admeasures 4950 Square Meters. That allotment is made by the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, a Government of Maharashtra undertaking, in favour of Respondent No.5. 5. The brief facts, which led to the filing of this writ petition, are that the 1st Respondent is the State of Maharashtra. The 4th Respondent is the Corporation established under the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961. The Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are officers of Respondent No.4 and incharge of promoting and encouraging Industrial Development. The 5th respondent is the allottee of the plot referred to above. The 6th Res...
Satish D. Darekar Vs. Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation Pimpri an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-2014
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Oka, J.) 1. The Petitioner was served with a notice under Section 53(1) of Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short œMRTP Act?) alleging that on the land bearing survey no.51/3 of village Tathawadade, Taluka Mulshi, District Pune, the Petitioner has carried out illegal and unauthorized construction consisting of ground plus four upper floors totally admeasuring 5200 square meters. It is alleged that the Petitioner has constructed a hotel. It is stated to be a RCC construction. The notice was issued by the Pimpri Chichwad Municipal Corporation which is a Planning Authority within the meaning of the MRTP Act. 2. Writ Petition No.7402 of 2013 was filed by the Petitioner for challenging the said notice and for other consequential reliefs. After considering the case of the Petitioner, a Division Bench of this Court by a Judgment and order dated 10th October 2013 upheld the legality and validity of the said notice under Section 53(1) of the said MRTP...
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
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »