Mumbai Court June 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.
Mahadeo and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Dep ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-27-2014
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner teachers seek salary as per the pay scale prescribed by State Government through its resolution dated 21st May 2010 extending 6th wage revision to teaching and non-teaching staff of unaided non-government i.e. private educational institutions. They are working with respondent no.7, which is an unaided private minority School. It is not in dispute that respondent no.5 is a minority educational society while respondent no.7 is the school which has been recognized by State Government as per the provisions of Secondary School Code as revised in 1979, (hereinafter referred to as "SS Code" for short). Permission to open school has been given on 17 August 1991 and as per clause 2 of that permission, management is obliged to pay wages to teachers in the pay scales as prescribed by State Government from time to time. It is in this background that on 23.04.2012, a notice for final dis...
Chaya and Others Vs. Suresh and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-27-2014
1) Admit. 2) Notice after admission made returnable forthwith. Heard both the sides for final disposal. 3) The appeal is filed against the judgment and award of Claim Petition No.202/2008 which was pending before the Ad-hoc District Judge-2 and Ex-officio Member of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Latur. In a petition filed by the present appellants under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation in respect of death of husband of appellant No.1, the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.7,07,224/-. The appeal is filed for enhancement of compensation. 4) It is the case of the appellants / original claimants that deceased was serving as a labour at Makni Dam in Irrigation Department of the State Government and he was permanent employee. It is contended that on the date of the death he was drawing monthly salary of Rs.8,128/-. It is contended that he was aged about 50 years. It is the case of the claimants that they were all depending on the deceased for their livelihood. Th...
Kishor Vs. State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Department of L ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-27-2014
Oral Judgment: (S.B. Shukre, J.) 1. Rule. The learned Assistant Government Pleader Mrs. Kalyani Deshpande waives service for the respondents. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged legality and correctness of the order of his premature retirement dated 28/3/2014 passed by respondent No.2 following the decision taken by the Review Committee regarding premature retirement of the petitioner. 3. The petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Clerk on 10/01/1993 and was posted to work at Civil Court, Junior Division, Kelapur, Distt. Yavatmal. After some years he was promoted as Senior Clerk and again promoted as Assistant Superintendent on 17/02/2001. He was posted as Assistant Superintendent at various places, such as at Wani, Ner, Kelapur and was working as such lastly in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Digras. Since he was attaining the age of 55 years, his case was placed for his suitability to continue in service before ...
P.A. Ambure and Others Vs. Vyapari Sahakari Bank Maryadit and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-2014
A.S. Oka, J. 1. These Appeals have been taken up for final disposal together as by a common Judgment and Order dated 7th June, 2006, two Writ Petitions filed by the first Respondent have been decided by the learned Single Judge. 2. The first Respondent is a Co-operative Bank duly registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The Appellants are the employees of the first Respondent Bank. On 4th March, 1989, a letter of demand was submitted by the Appellants and others to the first Respondent. The demand was for revision of pay scales, grant of dearness allowance at enhanced rate, etc. The Appellants issued notice of strike in accordance with sub-section (1) of section 24 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short the MRTU and PULP Act). The said notice of strike was issued on 6th April, 1989 in accordance with the Rules framed in the year 1975 under the provisions of MRTU and PULP Act. By the said not...
Chanchal and Another Vs. Gangaram Dajiba Nagare since deceased through ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-27-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of parties. 2. Petitioners (original plaintiffs) made application for permission to file certified copies of certain documents. Learned trial Judge rejected the said application on the ground that the documents cannot be read evidence in view of Section 79 of the Evidence Act. 3. Learned trial Judge should have appreciated that production of documents on record and allowing them to be exhibited are distinct from each other. Learned trial Judge may not give evidentiary value to those documents or allow them to be exhibited. However, production of documents on record cannot be refused. 4. Hence, impugned order is quashed and set aside. Learned trial Court shall allow production of documents enlisted with application (exhibit 315) and may consider the question of exhibiting those documents in evidence separately. Rule is made absolute in the above with no order as to costs....
Mahendrakumar Namdeorao Hedaoo Vs. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate S ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-27-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties. In the fact and circumstance of the case, we discharge the notice issued to the Managing Director, Indian Oil Corporation dated 20/6/2014. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee dated 13/11/2013 thereby invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner and the order of termination dated 08/01/2014 passed by the respondent No.2-Indian Oil Corporation. 3. Though the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order of the Scrutiny Committee, during the pendency of the petition, he has given up the challenge to the order of the Scrutiny Committee and restricted his claim in the petition only for grant of protection of his services on account of his long standing service. 4. Shri Manish Bhat, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 states that even the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State...
Krishna Vs. State of Goa and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-26-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard rival submissions at length on this Criminal Revision Application preferred by the present petitioner/original accused challenging both the earlier concurrent decisions against him in the matter of offences punishable under sections 279, 337 and 304-A of I.P.C. 2. The present petitioner was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class vide order dated 22/3/2013 in Criminal Case No.89/S/2009/B for the offences mentioned above and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for six months and pay fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence under section 279 I.P.C. He was directed to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- for the offence punishable under section 304-A of I.P.C. Thirdly, he was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for one month and pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under section 337 of I.P.C. Substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction, Criminal...
Shivaji Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-26-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Applicant-Shivaji along with his parents and brother were prosecuted and the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vaijapur on 27.8.1996 in Regular Criminal Case No.70 of 1995 found that they were guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and therefore, they all were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498A r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and were directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- by each of them, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month each; as also, they all were convicted for offence punishable under Section 323 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- by each of them, in default they were directed to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month each. The appeal was carried by them before the Sessions Judg...
Ramkrushna and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-26-2014
1. By the present Writ Petition, the petitioners are questioning the correctness of the judgment and order, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad in Criminal Revision Application No.66 of 2010, dated 5.10.2011, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad was pleased to dismiss the Revision filed by the present petitioners. The petitioners are also questioning the order, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Osmanabad, dated 4.5.2010 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.83 of 2009, whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Osmanabad was pleased to issue process against the present petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 191, 192, 417, 420, 465, 468, 471 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. According to the petitioners, petitioner no.1 is the Secretary and petitioner no.2 is the Joint Secretary of one Kamaleshwar Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Pimpalgaon (K), District Osmanabad, which is a registered Trust. The said Tr...
TATA Chemicals Ltd. Vs. The Collector and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-2014
Oral Judgment: [A.S. Chandurkar, J.] 1. Rule. Heard finally with the consent of the contesting parties. Considering the nature of controversy, service of notice of hearing on respondent No.5 is dispensed with. 2. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenges the order dated 22.3.2013 passed by the Collector, Raigad in proceedings under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, the said Act) and under Clause 28(3) of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 (for short, the Control Order). As the aforesaid order passed by the Collector is an appealable order, in the alternate, the petitioner has prayed that the Appellate Authority be directed to accept the appeal that was sought to be preferred by the petitioner under Section 6C of the said Act. 3. The facts giving rise to the present proceedings are that: The petitioner Company, which carries on the business of manufacture and sale of chemicals and fertilizers, imported f...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »