Mumbai Court August 2014 Judgments
Subhash Baliram Savaskar Vs. Solapur Municipal Corporation and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-2014
B.P. Colabawalla J. 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of parties Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. By this Petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has sought a declaration that the order of suspension dated 19th September, 2013 passed by Respondent No. 2 has come to an end and/or ceases to operate with effect from 19th March, 2014 in view of proviso (b) to section 56 (1) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act (hereinafter referred to as the MMC Act). As a consequence thereto, the Petitioner has also sought quashing of the communication dated 21st March, 2014 addressed by Respondent No. 2 to the Petitioner rejecting his request to resume work. 3. According to the Petitioner, proviso (b) to section 56 (1) of the MMC Act stipulates that any officer or servant whether appointed by the Corporation (in the present case Respondent No.1) or any other competent authority, may be suspended by the Commissioner (in the present ...
Tag this Judgment!Vijaya Vs. Chhatrapati Shivaji Shikshan Sanstha and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-28-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. By an order dated 05/09/2001, this petition was admitted. Rule was expedited. The appointment of respondent No.4 made by the Management pursuant to the termination of the petitioner on the post which she had previously occupied, was made subject to the result of this petition. 2. The submissions of Mr.S.R.Barlinge, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner are as under:- (a) The petitioner is educationally qualified to be appointed as an 'Assistant Teacher' and the same is undisputed. (b) The first appointment order of the petitioner is dated 01/08/1991. (c) The said appointment order, in clause 2, indicates that she was appointed on probation for one academic year. (d) A second appointment order was issued to the petitioner, which is dated 15/06/1992. The same is indicated to be a continuing order of appointment. (e) By the second order, as well, she was appointed on probation by way of continuation with the earlier appointment order. However, probation ...
Tag this Judgment!Manohar Bhau Dubale Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-2014
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 5.1.1999 and 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, thereby convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code for a period of 2 years and payment of fine of Rs.1,000/-, i/d to suffer R.I. for 2 months and also for offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and directed to suffer R.I. for 5 years and payment of fine of Rs.2,000/- i/d. R.I. for 2 months. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased Ranjana was the daughter of the complainant, namely, Maruti Hari Waidande, from village Jam, District Satara. She got married with the appellant in 1982. The incident of suicide took place on 22.5.1992. After marriage, Ranjana started residing with her husband. However, she was ill treated as she was not given food to eat and clothes to wear. She used to complain to her father about the ill-treatment at the hands of the appellant. She was abandoned by the appellant who...
Tag this Judgment!AKSH Optifibre Limited Vs. 221, Creative Industrial Estate
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-2014
Oral Judgment: (S.J. Vazifdar, J.) 1. Admit. With the consent of the parties, the appeal is taken up for final hearing. 2. This is an appeal against the order of the learned single Judge granting the appellant (original defendant) leave to defend the suit filed by the respondent subject to its depositing the rupee equivalent to Euros 11,37,866.30 at the rate as may be applicable on the date of such deposit within eight weeks. 3. The respondent raised indents upon the appellant for supply of certain goods on the terms and conditions contained therein. The same were accepted by the appellant. The documents were to be sent through the respondent's bankers being Dresdner Bank AG to the appellant's bankers being Union Bank of India. Pursuant thereto, the respondent manufactured and supplied the material. The documents were forwarded by the respondent through its bankers being Dresdner Bank AG to the appellant's bankers being Union Bank of India. The documents included the invoices. 4. There...
Tag this Judgment!Ajitnath Jain Shwetambar Mandir Trust Nagpur Vs. Dnyaneshwar Gulabrao ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-28-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. By order dated 28-08-2013 notice for final disposal of this writ petition was issued. Accordingly, I have heard Shri M.G. Sarda, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri H.D. Dangre, Advocate along with Shri A.N. Ansari, Advocate for the respondent. Rule. Rule heard forthwith with the consent of parties. 2. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the judgment passed by the learned District Judge-11, Nagpur in an appeal filed under Section 34 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short, 'the said Act'). By aforesaid judgment, the suit for eviction of tenant which was decreed by the trial Court has been dismissed by allowing the said appeal. 3. The petitioner/original plaintiff is a trust registered under provisions of Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. As it was in need of the suit premises that was occupied by the tenant, the trust filed Regular Civil Suit No.239 of 2005 for eviction on the ground of the tenant being in arrears of rent ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-28-2014
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By these petitions, the issues raised for the decision of this Court are as follows: 1. Whether this Court, in its writ and/or supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should entertain a proceeding under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (For short, M.C.S. Act), challenging the recovery certificate u/s 101, directly by avoiding or not resorting to the statutory remedy u/s 154 and section 154 (2A) of The M.C.S.Act ? 2. Whether the remedy u/s 154 r/w section 154 (2A) of the M.C.S.Act could be termed to be a statutory remedy available and not merely an alternate remedy ? 3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has argued vehemently and at length that in the peculiarity of the facts of his case and relying upon reported judgments, the petitioner's case is fit enough to be entertained directly by this Court under its writ or supervisory jurisdiction without direc...
Tag this Judgment!Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Vinod Tejraj Gowani and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-2014
1. By these two arbitration applications, the applicants seek appointment of sole arbitrator. Since the issues involved in both the proceedings are common, both the applications were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding these two applications are as under. 2. On 25/03/1997 the applicants entered into an agreement with respondent Nos.1 and 2. The said agreement was described as 'Deed of Partnership.' It is the case of the applicants that by the said agreement the applicants and respondent Nos.1 and 2 constituted a partnership firm M/s Kanha and Company being respondent No.3 therein comprising of four partners. The agreement to agree joint development of the properties described therein was amongst the applicants, respondent Nos.1 and 2 and respondent No.3 and in any event for the benefit of respondent No.3. The said document is duly registered with the office of Sub Registrar of Assurances of Bombay. 3. Disput...
Tag this Judgment!State of Maharashtra Vs. Arvind
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-28-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This is an appeal preferred against the judgment and order recording acquittal of the respondent passed by first Ad-hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Amravati in Sessions Trial No.267 of 2000. The respondent was charged for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. It was the case of the prosecution that on 05/10/2000 at about 7.00 a.m., the respondent kidnapped the minor daughter of the complainant (hereinafter called as, 'the prosecutrix') and by giving false promise of marriage, the respondent took her from the custody of the lawful guardian-her mother, without her consent. It is also alleged that after unlawfully taking away the prosecutrix from the custody of her lawful guardian, the respondent, during the period from 05/10/2000 to 13/10/2000, committed rape upon the prosecutrix at various places where the respondent had allegedly taken the prosecutrix. 2. As the respondent pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him for of...
Tag this Judgment!Arun Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-28-2014
1. Appellant-original accused No.1 Arun Jagtap (hereinafter referred to as accused), who is in jail was tried along with accused No.2 Ratan Jagtap and accused No.3 Rahul Suradkar in Sessions Case No.148/2011 before the Sessions Judge, Jalna for offence under Sections 307, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short). Only the appellant came to be convicted and only under Section 307 of IPC and he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.10 Lakhs and in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years. The Sessions Court directed that, on depositing of fine by the accused or after recovering it, the same be paid to the victim Gangadhar Limbaji Pagare (P.W.2) as compensation under Section 357(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short). Thus, this appeal. 2. The case of prosecution in short is as follows :- (a) On 26.4.2011, P.W.1 Sanjay Limbaji Pagare, (hereafter referred as complai...
Tag this Judgment!Ibrahim Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-28-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Present applicant who is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7(iii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short "the Act") read with Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short "the Rules) and the offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Act and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to suffer further simple imprisonment for one month, has filed present Criminal Revision Application. 3. In brief, the case of the applicant is as under:- The applicant was charged that he was operating a Bakery in the name and styled as 'M/s.New Royal Bakery' without any license and that the toast, which he was selling, was found to be adulterated one, when its samples were sent by PW 1 - Food Inspector to the Public Analyst as it contained Tartrazine. As regards the next charge leveled against the applicant that the toast was found adulterated, the s...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »