Mumbai Court March 2014 Judgments
The Chief Manager, Federal Bank Ltd. Vs. the State of Goa, Through the ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Nadkarni, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Amonkar, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for respondent no.2. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the complaint bearing Criminal Case No.18/L/12/C pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class ('JMFC' for short) at Vasco-da-Gama and also quashing of the summons dated 14/05/2012 issued by the learned JMFC in the said case. 3. The said Criminal Case No.18/L/12/C arises out of a private complaint filed by respondent no. 2, on 30/04/2012, against the accused (petitioner), under Section 26 of the Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979 ('the Act' for short). It is alleged that Shri K. A. Sebastian, Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Vasco-da-Gama, who is an Inspector under the Act, had inspected the establishment of the accused at Vaddem, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa on 01/02/2012 and had observed that the accused...
Tag this Judgment!Sushma C. Hede and Another Vs. Police Inspector and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
Z.A. Haq, J. 1. Heard Shri Arun Bras De Sa, learned Advocate for the Petitioners, Ms. Pinto, learned Public Prosecutor for the Respondent no. 1 and Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Advocate for the Respondent no. 2. 2. This is a Petition filed by the Petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying that the Order passed by the learned Magistrate on 06.07.2013 and the consequential FIR No. 196/2013 dated 27.07.2013 registered at the Ponda Police Station, be quashed. 3. The Respondent no. 2 has filed complaint before the learned Magistrate stating that his daughter Sapana, aged about 15 years, is studying in IXth standard in Kamalabai Hede High School, Karai, Shiroda; that on 05.09.2012, in the late evening, she informed the respondent no. 2 that Smt. Sushma Hede (Petitioner no. 1) and Shri Ramkrishna Tukaram Parkar (Petitioner no. 2), had detained her in the school premises for almost three hours and made her sign a false complaint against one Shri Yogesh Khand...
Tag this Judgment!Pandurang Babu Konkeri and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Ano ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
P.V. Hardas, J. 1. Criminal Appeal 502 of 1993 is filed by original accused No.1, while Criminal Appeal 472 of 1993 is filed by original accused Nos.2, 3 and 4. The Appellants who stand convicted for offence punishable under Sections 302 and 307 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and accused Nos. 2 to 4 who are sentenced to imprisonment for life and each accused to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of which to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months and rigorous imprisonment for three years and each accused to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default of which to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur by judgment dated 12 August 1993, by these Appeals challenge the conviction and sentence. Since original accused No.1 was not sentenced, a reference is made by the Trial Cort under Section 318 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for passing sentence against him. The Appeals and the Reference are being accordingly decided by this common ...
Tag this Judgment!Fatima Bi Ali Kazi Vs. M.A. Rashid and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel for respondents no. 1, 3 and 4. None for respondent no. 2. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that both the Courts below have committed a serious error of law by examining the case of the appellant/plaintiff from a different perspective. He submits that it was never the case of the appellant that the appellant had entered into a contract with the original owner, M/s Zuari Real Estate Company Pvt. Ltd. for purchase of the suit-plot. He has submitted that it was the case of the appellant/plaintiff that she had made an agreement with respondent no. 1/defendant no. 1 who represented to her that he was developing the property of which suit-plot was the part after having entered into an agreement for purchase of the property with the owner and that he had right and authority to transfer the suit-plot and, therefore, the appellant made payment of price of the suit-plot to respondent no. 1. He also submits ...
Tag this Judgment!Brian Robert Alexander and Others Vs. M/S. A.G. Enterprises
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
Oral Order: (CJ.) These appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent take exception to the order dated 7 March 2014 of the learned Trial Judge. By the impugned order the Notice of Motion No.232 of 2012 taken out by the plaintiffs to set aside the order of Prothonotary and Senior Master extending time to file written statement, is disposed of as infructuous and Notice of Motion (L) No.369 of 2014 taken out by the defendant seeking to recall the order dated 17 February 2014 is allowed. 2. The broad facts leading to filing of these appeals are, appellant-plaintiffs filed the present suit being Suit No.4378 of 1994 for a declaration that the additional FSI of 1573.90 sq.ft which has become available due to a change in the Development Control Rules in respect of the suit land belongs to the original plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also claim the sum of Rs.1.60 crores together with interest thereon from the respondent-defendant for utilization of the said FSI. 3. It appears that since no written sta...
Tag this Judgment!Nandkishore Naik Vs. State, Through Pp
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
1. Heard Mr Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Ms. Milena Gomes Pinto, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (A. P. P.), on behalf of the State. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27/04/2012 and further judgment, order and sentence dated 30/04/2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, South Goa, Margao ('Trial Court') in Sessions Case No.17/2009. 3. The appellant was accused no. 2 in the said Sessions Case and he and one Vishwanath Gaonkar (accused no.1) were tried by the Trial Court for offences punishable under Sections 304 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC') and Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. 4. The case of the prosecution, in short, was that on 07/02/2009 at 8.00 p.m. at Temer Bandol Hill, the accused no. 2 committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder by causing death of Mohan Gaonkar by means of firearm and on the same day, at the same time and place, both the accused persons, with thei...
Tag this Judgment!Adarsh Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Another Vs. Anula Rajendra Nile a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
1. The Petitioner challenges the order dated 16 October 1998 passed by the Industrial Court Member, Mumbai issuing a Recovery Certificate for Rs.4,44,216/- in favour of Respondent No.1 on an application filed by the Respondent No.1 under Section 50 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (The Act). 2. The Respondent No.1 was working with the Petitioner - Bank. A charge-sheet came to be issued to the Respondent No.1 on 22 December 1993 and her services came to be terminated. The Respondent No.1 filed a Complaint (ULP) No. 532 of 1994 in the Labour Court Mumbai. The complaint was under Section 28 read with Item “ 1(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) of Schedule IV of the 'Act'. Respondent No.1 alleged that semblence of inquiry proceeding her termination was conducted, that too not in accordance with principles of natural justice. It was contended that without completing the inquiry as such, by way of victimisation, service...
Tag this Judgment!Dattu Vitthal Shimpi Vs. Raghunath Narayan Wani (Since Deceased) Throu ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
Oral Order: 1. The application is filed against the judgment and order of Regular Civil Appeal No. 107 of 2004 which was pending in the Court of District Judge-1, Jalgaon. The Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the present applicant challenging the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Suit No. 352 of 1998, which was pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jalgaon. The suit filed by the present respondent was for eviction under the provisions of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as œthe Act?). The said suit was decided in favour of the respondent. Both sides are heard. 2. The suit was filed in respect of one room having size of 6 X 12 feet, which is a part of house property bearing C.T.S. No. 1413 from Maruti Peth, Jalgaon Municipal Council. It is contended that the plaintiff purchased the suit property from previous owner on 20.05.1981 and notice of attornment was given to defendant. 3. It is the ca...
Tag this Judgment!Vidarbha Mining Association Vs. Central Government Tribunal Revisional ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
P.R. Bora, J. 1. Rule with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and the matter heard finally. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing and setting aside the common order dated 26.08.2010 passed by Central Government Tribunal i.e respondent No.1 in Revision Application No.17 (16)/2008-RC.II AND F No.17 (18)/2008-RC.II. Prayer is also made for maintaining the order passed by respondent No.3 on 26.06.2008 in respect of grant of mining license in favour of the petitioner. Further, a direction is sought to set aside the notification dated 29.09.2009 issued by the Central Government-respondent No.2 under Section 17A(1A) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as œMMDR Act?). 3. The petitioner, a partnership firm having its office at Kamptee, District Nagpur, vide its application dated 16.09.2004 had applied for grant of mining lease in respect of 69.10 H/R of area from village Chikhla, Taluka Tumsar, Dist...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra B. Kasare Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-2014
Oral Order: Chief Justice) 1. Learned counsel for respondents prayed for adjournment on the ground that learned Addl.Solicitor General has been instructed to appear in this matter. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of defence adopted by respondents, we do not consider it necessary that learned Addl.Solicitor General shall be troubled for a small matter like this. Rule. Returnable forthwith. 2. This is an unfortunate case where the petitioner, working under Assistant Garrison Engineer, Naval Work, Uran, District: Raigad as a Refrigerator Mechanic, suffered a paralytic stroke in the year 2006. The aforesaid stroke rendered him permanently disabled by 50% and to add to his woes the respondents are failing to reimburse his medical bills for small amounts between Rs.2000/and Rs.5000/-. Thus, leading him to knock the doors of this Court for relief. 3. The petitioner was employed in the office of respondent No.6 on 13 December 1982. On 11 July 2006, when ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »