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.
Parul Hemant Mehta and Another Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-2015
Oral Judgment: (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. Since the issues involved in both these Petitions are common, the Petitions are therefore, disposed of by this common judgment. 2. As stated, the terms and conditions of services of the Petitioners, who were employees in the Respondent Company was governed by the General Insurance (Rationalisation of Pay Scales and other Conditions of Service of Development Staff) Scheme, 1976 (the Rationalisation Scheme, 1976?) made under General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 (for short, Act of 1972?). The Rationalisation Scheme, 1976 did not provide for payment of pension except for the transferred employees. The Central Government therefore introduced the General Insurance (Employees) Pension Scheme, 1995 ( Pension Scheme of 1995) with effect from 1 November 1993. The Pension Scheme, 1995 was made applicable, inter alia, to those employees of the Respondent who were in service on ...
Ravi Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-12-2015
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha, in Sessions Case No. 52 of 2012 on 09.4.2013, thereby convicting the present appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376 (2)(f) read with Section 511 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. The trial Court also directed that on payment of fine, Rs.4,500/- be paid to the prosecutrix by way of compensation. 2. The prosecution case, as it was unfolded during the course of trial, is narrated as under: (a) Kailash Kurhade (P.W.2) is the first informant. He has lodged oral report with police station Arvi on 10.2.2012. The report is at Ex.26 whereas printed F.I.R. is at Ex.27. (b) The first informant was discharging his duties as Chowkidar in a school at Arvi known as Gandhi Vidyalaya. His duty hours used to be ...
Sheikh Jafar Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-12-2015
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of Adv. Naik with Adv. Agrawal for petitioner and Shri Ukey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents. Perused the papers. 2. Challenge is to an order of externment dated 29/4/2014 passed by respondent no.3 Deputy Commissioner of Police and appellate order dated 4/8/2015 passed by respondent no.2 Divisional Commissioner. 3. Facts show that initially a notice for proposed externment was issued on 4/9/2013 under Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. That notice while mentioning criminal background of petitioner takes note of six offences registered at Nagpuri Gate and Kotwali Police Stations at Amravati and one offence registered at Police Station, Pandharkawda District Yavatmal. It also points out preventive action under Section 110 of Criminal Procedure Code taken against him on 1/5/2012 and 7/11/2012. It is mentioned that because of fear and his conduct, witne...
Vishal Shkishan Prasarak Mandal Dhule Vs. The State of Maharashtra Thr ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-12-2015
Oral Judgment: (R.M. Borde, J.) 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 2. The petitioner is a public trust, duly registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act and is also registered as a society, under the Societies Registration Act. The petitioner is praying for issuance of directions to Respondent No. 1 “ State Government and its authorities to issue a letter of approval to the petitioner/institution for opening of Arts, Commerce and Science college at Dhule for the academic year 2015-2016 and to permit the petitioner to admit the students in the college. The petitioner contends that North Maharashtra University, Jalgaon has prepared a perspective Plan in accordance with the provisions of Section 82(1) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, for ensuring equitable distribution of the facilities for Higher Education having due re...
Arun Rambhau Phatak and Another Vs. Mahatma Phule Krushi Vidyapeeth
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-12-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. In the light of the order that I propose to pass, I am not required to refer to the extensive submissions of the learned Advocates in their entirety since it is likely to lead to certain observations which would affect the respective rights of the litigating sides. 3. The facts relevant for deciding these two petitions are as under: (a) Both the Petitioners were working as Helpers to the Cooks on daily-wage basis from 1984 to 2001. (b) In 2001, the Agricultural Universities in the State of Maharashtra resorted to mass retrenchment. (c) Several of such employees are litigating against such Agricultural Universities. (d) By an advertisement dated 21.07.2004 issued under the signature of the Registrar of the Respondent/ University, all the retrenched daily-wagers were informed about the recruitment of four posts as Cooks. (e) The advertisement was locally circulated in the University...
The State of Maharashtra and Another Vs. Shatrughna Baban Meshram and ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-12-2015
Prasanna B. Varale, J.) 1. The Confirmation Case No. 01 of 2015 arises out of the reference by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal in Special Case (POCSO Act) No. 11 of 2013 for confirmation of the death sentence awarded to original accused. 2. The appellant/original accused has also preferred the Criminal Appeal No. 321 of 2015 challenging the judgment and order dated 14th August, 2015 thereby convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing to death, also convicting for the offence punishable under Section 376A of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing to death, convicting for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) and sentencing to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to suffer further Rigorous Imprisonment for three months. 3. On perusal of the material placed on record, the prosecution case emerges ...
Bharmpal Panchal and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-2015
B.P. Colabawalla, J. 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the final orders passed by the Settlement Commission dated 29th January, 2014 and 31st January, 2014 respectively (Exhs. ˜A™ and ˜B™ to the Petition), and to direct the Settlement Commission to de novo consider the Settlement Applications of the Petitioners, by affording them a reasonable opportunity of hearing. 3. The order dated 29th January, 2014 (Exh. ˜A™ to the Petition) arises out of Show Cause Notice dated 7th December, 2012 and the order dated 31st January, 2014 (Exh. ˜B™ to the Petition) arises out of Show Cause Notice dated 29th / 31st January, 2013. In a nutshell, it is the case of the Petitioners that after common investigation in the matter, three Show Cause Notices dated 15th October 2012, 7th December, 2012 and 29th /...
Marathwada Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Vs. The State of Maharashtra Throu ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-09-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and heard with the consent of the parties. 3. This Petition is filed with following prayers: A) By issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari, call for record and proceedings of the decision of the B.C.Cell, Commissioner Office, Aurangabad and the Joint Director (respondent No.2) and quash and set aside the same holding that the post of Principal being isolated post, reservation does not apply. B) By issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature f mandamus, hold and declare that the post of Principal being isolated post, reservation does not apply and the petitioner may be permitted to fill the post of Principal at Majalgaon College, Majalgaon accordingly by publishing the advertisement to fill up the same from open category. The background facts for filing the Writ Petition are as under: 4. It is the ca...
M/s. National Laminate Corporation and Another Vs. Euro Merchandise (I ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-2015
Oral Judgment: (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule mad returnable forthwith. 2. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners are challenging an order under section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short the SARFAESI Act?) dated 18th June, 2015, copy of which is at Annexure 'A' to the Petition. 3. By this order, passed under section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Mumbai has, on an application made by the Cosmos Co-operative Bank Limited, directed as under: ORDER Application is allowed. Judicial Clerk, who is in-charge of Assistant Registrar of Bandra Center of Courts, Mumbai is appointed as the Court Commissioner to take possession of the secured assets viz 1)village Mohili, Tah. Kurla, and situated within registration district of Mumbai and sub-district of Mumbai suburban district beari...
Ravindra Mahadeo Kothamkar Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-2015
1. The appellant, a Tax Recovery Clerk, serving with the Municipal Corporation at Thane, was prosecuted on the allegation of having committed offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (P.C.Act). The learned Special Judge (appointed under Section 3 of the P.C.Act) after holding a trial found him guilty of the aforesaid offences. The learned Special Judge sentenced the appellant to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.1500/- on each of the said two counts, with default sentences of Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months. The learned Special Judge directed that the substantive sentences would run concurrently. Being aggrieved by his conviction and the sentences imposed upon him, the appellant has approached this court by filing the present appeal. 2. I have heard Shri M.J.Bandgar, the learned counsel for the appellant. I have heard Smt.S.V.Gajare-Dhumal, the learned APP for the State. I...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »