Mumbai Court October 2015 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.
Shaikh Jamir Sayed Saifoddin Vs. The Chief Officer, The Municipal Coun ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-15-2015
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The Petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 31.07.2012 delivered by the Labour Court thereby, dismissing Complaint (ULP) No.13/2011 and the judgment dated 24.06.2013 delivered by the Industrial Court thereby, rejecting Revision (ULP) No.52/2012. 3. One Shri Sayed Saifoddin Yusufoddin was working as a Fireman in the Fire Brigade Division of the Respondent. Since he was suffering from Tuberculosis, he stood medically retired on account of being unfit due to health reasons from 19.10.1999. An application dated 01.12.1999 was filed by the Petitioner along with a notarized adoption deed dated 20.05.1999, thereby projecting that the Petitioner was adopted by Sayed Saifoddin. 4. The Petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground on 25.02.2011 subject to the approval from the Directorate of Municipal Council, Mumbai. As the approval was not received and the appointment of the Petitioner was...
Sanjay Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through the Home Department and O ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-15-2015
Oral Judgment: (A.B. Chaudhari, J.) 1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for quashing FIR No.60/2015 dated 8.4.2015 registered at Police Station, Paranda, for the offences u/ss.353, 355, 504 and 186 of the Indian Penal Code that was lodged by the respondent no.3 Sundarao s/o Bhausaheb Humbe, Advocate against the applicant Dr. Sanjay s/o Shridhar Andhare. 2. The applicant is M.D. in Medicine and runs Sushrut Hospital at Shivajinagar, Barshi Dist.Solapur. He was a witness in Criminal Case No.64/2009. The case was pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Paranda Dist.Osmanabad. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Paranda, had issued a non-bailable warrant for arrest of the applicant “ doctor since according to the Court, he did not appear as a witness in response to the summons issued to him earlier. On the date fixed namely 8.4.2015, in the morning hours, in response to the non-bailable warrant, he appeared before t...
Venkatesh M. Karekar and Others Vs. Rosemary Fernandes and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-15-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. J.E. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The above appeal came to be admitted by an order dated 16th January, 2009, on the following substantial questions of law : (i) Whether the suit could be said to be falling one under Article 59 or Article 60 of the Limitation Act, 1963? (ii) Whether the First Appellate Court fell in error in holding that the limitation should be reckoned from the date of knowledge or the limitation has to be reckoned from the date of attaining majority by the plaintiffs? (iii) Whether it was necessary for the plaintiffs to have claimed possession also as a relief along with declaration and injunction? 3. Mr. S.D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, in support of the first and second substantial questions of law, has pointed out that the suit filed by the appellants has to be considered in terms of ...
Manikrao Krishnarao Marotkar Vs. The Manager, Trimourti Moulds Pvt. Lt ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-15-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. The Labour Court has answered Reference IDA No. 68 of 1999 in respect of termination of service of the petitioner with effect from 14.01.199, in the negative. It has been held that the petitioner has failed to join duties in spite of the fact that the employer had sent various reminders calling upon the petitioner-employee to join the duties. This award dated 29.03.2008 is the subject matter of challenge by the employee in the present writ petition. 2. On 08.06.2009, this Court issued notice for final disposal of the matter and the order passed is reproduced below. "Heard Shri Kalbande for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is patently erroneous as learned Labour Court, Nagpur, clearly erred in failing to consider the relevant documents produced by the petitioner on record at Exh. 16, 18 and 25 which clearly showed that the petitioner was desirous of joining his duties, but the respondent refused to permit him to d...
Dr. Shalik Bhaurao Ade and Others Vs. Medical Council of India and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-2015
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. In all these petitions, common questions of fact and law are raised and, therefore, they can be disposed of by a common judgment. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. 3. These petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India involve a challenge to the orders of Medical Council of India (`MCI') and Maharashtra Medical Council ('MMC') against Petitioners/Doctors for breach of professional code of ethics. 4. We would take the facts in two petitions so that the principal arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and the Respondents can be appreciated. Facts i n Writ Petition No.562 of 2014 (O.S.) : 5. In Writ Petition No.562 of 2014, the Petitioner-Dr. Shashikant Patel is a citizen of India. He is registered as a medical practitioner with Respondent no.2 MMC bearing registration no.47177. The Petitioner was appointed as a Professor of Anatomy by the medical college namely Melmaruvathur Adiparasakthi Insti...
Prabodh Jamnadas Kothari Vs. Vikram Jamnadas Kothari and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-2015
P.C. : 1. Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff tenders the Plaintiff as his first witness along with a compilation of documents. The Plaintiff™s affidavit dated 18th December 2012 is taken on record as his examination “ in “ chief after the Plaintiff admits the same as a statement on oath duly signed by him and affirms its contents. The Plaintiff has duly filed his affidavit of documents, notices to admit documents and facts, respectively, under Order XII Rule 3 and 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, notice to produce documents under Order XII Rule 8 and application for leading of secondary evidence. The same are already taken on record. 2. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, the Plaintiff™s documents are admitted in evidence as mentioned below. 3. The documents at Sr. No. 1 of the compilation, which is a photocopy of the will dated 5 August, 1987 made by the deceased Jamnadas Khimji Kothari, is admitted in evidence and marked by consent of the parties as...
Executive Engineer Minor Irrigation Division Vs. Sitabai and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-14-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short the said Act) challenging the judgment dated 20-11-2001 passed by the learned Commissioner under the said Act. By said judgment, an amount of Rs.67,776/- has been granted as compensation to the respondent nos.1 and 2. The respondent No.3 has filed cross objections challenging the direction issued by the learned Commissioner at Sr. No.7 in its operative order with regard to reimbursement of the amount of compensation. 2. On 17-5-1990, a truck carrying cement bags met with an accident. One Bandu who was working as a coolie was injured in said accident and he later succumbed to his injuries. He was aged about 45 years when the accident took place and according to the claimants, he was getting Rs.40/- per day as wages. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein filed application under provisions of Section 10 of the said Act seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.42,776/-. In the said ...
Larsen and Toubro Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-2015
G.S. Kulkarni, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arises out of a tender floated by respondent no.2 “ the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. for procurement of what is described as LT AC Single Phase 5-30 AMPS Static Energy Meters with IR Port? (for short ˜the said tender™). The petitioner impugns the letter of Award of the contract dated 2nd September, 2015 issued by respondent no.2 in favour of respondent nos.3 to 5. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to respondent no.2 to conduct retesting of the meter as contemplated under the tender conditions by any other NABL laboratory across the country and re-tender / float afresh the tender. 2. Respondent No.2 on 7th August, 2014 issued the tender in question inviting bids for supply of the electricity meters 20 lakhs in quantity. The tender document issued by respondent no.2 contains various instructions to the tenderers. The bids were to be submitted in two ...
State of Maharashtra and Another Vs. Prakash Nishad @ Kewat Zinak Nish ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-2015
Oral Judgment: (V.K. Tahilramani, A.C.J.) 1. The Confirmation Case No. 4 of 2014 arises out of the reference made by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in Sessions Case No. 407 of 2010 for confirmation of death sentence awarded to the appellant / accused Prakash Nishad @ Kewat Zinak Nishad. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, by Judgment and Order dated 27.11.2014 in Sessions Case No. 407 of 2010, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC' ) and sentenced him to capital punishment of death. By the very same Judgment and Order, the accused was also convicted under Sections 376, 377 and 201 of IPC, as follows:- (i) Section 376 IPC - Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, R.I. for three months; (ii) Section 377 IPC - Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, R.I. for three months; (iii) Section 201 IPC - R.I. for 7 Years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, R.I. for three m...
Antonio Sylvester D'Souza Vs. Village Panchayat of Korgao, through its ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-14-2015
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Mr. D. Pangam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. G. Naik, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1, Mr. S. Dhargalkar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 3 and Mr. V. Menezes, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents waive service. 4. The petitioner inter-alia prays for a writ in the nature of mandamus or direction to the respondent nos.1 to 3 to execute and implement the demolition order dated 17.08.2002 and carry out demolition in respect of the illegal construction in the property surveyed under No.393/2 of Korgao Village of Pernem Taluka. 5. Briefly, it is the case of the petitioner that on 17.08.2002 the respondent no.1 Village panchayat has directed the demolition of a structure erected by the respondent no.4 in the property surveyed under No.393/...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »