Mumbai Court October 2015 Judgments
Manguesh Rajaram Wagle and Another Vs. Suresh D. Naik and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-30-2015
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waives service. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioners who are original plaintiff nos.2(a) and 2(b) are challenging the order dated 31/08/2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Panaji, in Regular Civil Suit No.279/2000/D. By the impugned order, application at Exhibit 193 filed by the petitioners to produce additional documents has been rejected. 3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the petition may be stated thus: That the petitioners along with respondent nos.3 to 12 are the co-plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No.279/2000/D (old Special Civil Suit No.5/1992/A). The case made out in the plaint is that the plaintiffs are tenants in possession of a portion forming part of building known as Yasin Manzil? situated at St. Inez, Panaji, which is surveyed under chalta no.126 of PT sheet no.66. It is contended that the original defendant...
Tag this Judgment!Abhijit Kishor Patil and Others Vs. The Union of India, through Secret ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-30-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, heard finally at the admission stage. 2. By way of filing writ petitions No.452/2015, 5794/2015, 3811/2015 and 3813/2015 the petitioners have challenged the communication / instructions dated 7.7.2015 issued by respondent No.1 to respondent No.2. The petitioners have further sought directions to the respondents to include the names of the petitioners in the eligible or qualified list of special teachers maintained by respondents 2 to 5, to award all service benefits, benefits of permanency to the petitioners and regularization of services. Petitioners further prayed for directions to pay their monthly salary. The petitioners have also prayed for directions to the respondents to absorb them in any other school receiving grants-in-aid. 3. The facts in brief, as narrated in Writ Petition No.452 of 2015, are as under: The petitioners herein were appointed as special teachers in the respondent No.6 to 9 schools, they ...
Tag this Judgment!Badalsingh and Others Vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Commit ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-30-2015
P.N. Deshmukh, J. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the parties. 2. All these petitions are disposed of by this common judgment as substantial question involved therein to a large extent is common. 3. In Writ Petition No.6889/2014, petitioner has challenged order dated 17/1/2014 passed by respondent no.1 Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidating his caste claim of belonging to `Mahar' (Scheduled Caste) and prayed for quashing of the same. In Writ Petition No.2591/2014, petitioner has challenged order dated 1/8/2013 passed by respondent no.2 Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidating her caste claim of belonging to `Mahar' (Scheduled Caste) and prayed for quashing of the same. In Writ Petition No.6586/2014, petitioner has challenged order dated 4/7/2013 passed by respondent no.1 invalidating her caste claim of belonging to `Korku' (Scheduled Tribe) and prayed for quashing of the same. 4. In nutshell, it is the case of petitioner Badalsingh s/o Bharosa ...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjay Vasant Kadam Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-29-2015
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties matter is taken up for hearing. 2. The petitioner herein who is an accused in C.C.No. 107 of 2005, has challenged-(i) the order dated 14.8.2015 allowing the application at Exhibit 142 filed by the prosecution for recall of the Investigating Officer for further examination and (ii) the order dated 14.8.2015 allowing Exhibit 143, filed by the prosecution, and thereby directing the Investigating Officer to record the statement of Dyaneshwar Khutwad, and further permitting the prosecution to examine the said witness. 3. Mr. Prakash Naik, the learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the prosecution has sought to examine the Investigating Officer for adducing evidence in respect of the photographs produced by PW9 even though such photographs have not been referred to by any witness other than PW9. Learned Sr.Counsel Shri Naik submits that this is nothing but an attempt to fill up the lacuna. 4. Learned Sr. ...
Tag this Judgment!Kamlakar Motiram Satve and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-29-2015
1. The applicants are stated to be amongst the Hiranandani Group of Companies and hence claim under respondent Nos.9 and 10 in PIL No.131 of 2008, respondent Nos.6, 6A to 6C in PIL No.91 of 2008 and respondent No.6 in PIL No.21 of 2010 (applicants). The aforesaid petitions were filed essentially for writs of mandamus in respect of certain tripartite agreements / contract entered into by and between the State of Maharashtra, the applicants and the MMRDA. The applicants breached various terms of the contract. The petitioners in the petitions sought to right the wrong. An interim order came to be passed in PIL Nos.131 and 91 of 2008 by the Division Bench of this Court dated 4th October, 2008 under which applicants were restrained from selling flats which were amalgamated to one individual or to various individuals together. It was clarified that the applicants could sell flats only of 80 and 40 Sq.mtrs. without amalgamation. The order was subject to orders which may be passed in the above...
Tag this Judgment!Gulmali Amrullah Babul and Others Vs. Shabbir Salebhai Mahimwala and O ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-29-2015
1. By Arbitration Petition No.410 of 2015 filed under Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Arbitration Act?), the petitioners (original respondents) have impugned the order dated 11th October 2014 passed by the learned arbitrator under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act passed in favour of the respondent to the said arbitration petition. ByArbitration Petition (L) No.1435 of 2015 filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, the petitioner/original claimant has prayed for an order and direction against the respondents to the said arbitration petition to forthwith hand over possession and management of the 'King of Iran Restaurant' as per and in implementation/compliance of the orders dated 10th March 2015 and 23rd March 2015 passed by the learned arbitrator under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act in favour of the petitioner to the said arbitration petition and for various other reliefs. By consent of the parties, both the arbitration petitions we...
Tag this Judgment!Mallika Sherawat @ Reema Lamba Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-29-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. This application is ordered to be converted in Criminal revision. Counsel for the applicant to carry out amendment forthwith. 2. Following is the prayer in this revision application: (i) To quash and proceeding vide Criminal Complaint No.27/2009, as well as the order taking cognizance dated 13.04.2009 and subsequent orders issuing processes pending before the JMFC at Pandharkawda (Kelapur) against the applicant/accused under Section 292 of IPC. 3. When this application was called out for hearing on 27.10.2010, learned counsel for the applicant Mr.Chakotkar, prayed for adjournment and counsel for non applicant no.2 was absent. It was, therefore, adjourned for today in order to give opportunity to both the sides. Today, again counsel for the applicant seeks adjournment while counsel for non applicant no.2 is absent. The present revision application relates to the year 2010. It is not possible to adjourn the proceedings in the manner sought by counsel for the applicant, ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Ramdas Laxmanrao Khesar and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra, T ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-29-2015
V.K. Jadhav, J. 1. The petitioners are retired Livestock Development Officers, (hereinafter, for the sake of brevity, referred to as the LDO?) holding in service diploma and all of them have registered themselves in Part I Register maintained by Veterinary Council of Maharashtra. All the petitioners stood retired from the post of LDO during the period from 1997 to 2006. They were appointed as Assistant LDO. They were promoted subsequently to the post of LDO. Since the formation of the cadre of LDO in the year 1991, both the graduates and diploma holder LDOs were being treated alike and were given same pay scale. In the year 1986, and also in the year 1996, the diploma holders were given same treatment in 4th and 5th pay Commissions, respectively. However, the Government of Maharashtra, by promulgating a notification issued in its Finance department, dated 20.3.1999, granted higher pay scale to the graduate counter parts in the cadre of LDO. Although the cadre of LDO was given pay scale...
Tag this Judgment!The New India Assurance Company Limited and Others Vs. Sunil Parsharam ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-29-2015
Revati Mohite Dere, J. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable with the consent of the parties forthwith and is taken up for final hearing. 2. The appellant - insurance company (Original opponent No. 2) has taken exception to the Judgment and Award dated 9th May, 2014, passed by the Learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Islampur, Sangli, by which the respondent “ claimants were granted compensation of Rs.49,02,216/- with Interest @ of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. 3. The appellant is the Insurance Company of the vehicle, which was involved in the accident, in which the deceased “ Ujwala died. Respondent No.1 is the husband of the deceased, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the sons of the deceased ; Respondent No.4 is the owner of the vehicle, in which the deceased was traveling when it met with an accident ; and Respondent No.5 was the driver of the said vehicle. The impugned Award has been challenged by the appellant &l...
Tag this Judgment!Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. M.S. Srinivasan and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-29-2015
1. There are 22 accused facing trial in this case. 3 of them have been discharged. 3 of them have expired. 14 out of the 22 are public servants from banks and financial institutions. 8 are brokers who are private individuals. The main banks involved in this case are State Bank of Saurashtra (SBS), State Bank of India (SBI). The other banks and other financial institutions involved in a smaller part of the case are Canara Bank Financial Services and National Housing Bank (Canfina), (NHB), UCO Bank, Indian Bank (IB) and Small Industrial Development Bank of India (SIDBI). Accused No.1 (A1) who was at the material time Chief Manager of the Funds Management Cell (FMC) of SBS is the prime accused. Accused No.8 (A8) who was bank officer in the securities division of SBI is his counter part. Both these accused have entered into various transactions by and between SBS and SBI in which the broker A2 (since deceased) was involved. Large funds extending hundreds of crores of rupees have been paid ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »