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.
Radhabai and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretar ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-23-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and heard with the consent of the parties. 3. Both these Writ Petitions take exception to the order / Government Resolution dated 30th May, 2013 issued by the Social Justice and Special Assistance Department, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai, thereby granting permission in favour of respondent No.4 for shifting the residential school for Handicapped, Dumb, Deaf and Mentally affected students from Badnapur, District Jalna to village Ghoti, Taluka Kinwat, District Nanded. 4. Writ Petition No.9458/2013, is filed by the parents of those students, who are taking education in the residential school for Handicapped, Dumb, Deaf and Mentally affected. It appears that, the said Writ Petition was listed for hearing on 8th April, 2014, when the learned counsel Mr.N.P.Patil Jamalpurkar, appearing for the petitioners informed this Court that, the petitioners are not willing to continue with the Petition, since according ...
Baliram Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-23-2015
A.B. Chaudhari, J. 1. Criminal Appeal No.620/2015 has been filed by Baliram Gurling Palapure “ the complainant against the judgment and order dated 1.6.2015 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, in Sessions Case No.388/2010, by which he acquitted all the accused persons, who were charged for various offences punishable u/ss.498A, 323, 504, 506, 304B, 306, 201, 202 and 195A of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Criminal Appeal No.726/2015 has been filed by the State of Maharashtra against the same judgment and order of acquittal of all the accused persons. 3. Both these appeals were taken up for final hearing with the consent of learned counsel for the rival parties. Pursuant to the order dated 15.9.2015 made by this Court while granting bail, the learned counsel for the parties agreed to have final hearing in these appeals instead of seeking adjournment. FACTS: The prosecution case in brief is as under: 4. On 2.5.2010 at about 00-30 hours, Police Station, CIDCO,...
Shivaji Vs. Jijabai Prabhakar Alwane and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-21-2015
1. The appeal is filed to challenge the judgment and order of Regular Civil Appeal No.17/2015 which was pending in the Court of the District Judge-1 Vaijapur and also to challenge the order made on Exhibit 42 in Special Darkhast No.30/2013 which was pending in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vaijpur. The execution proceeding is filed by the present respondent, original plaintiff of Special Civil Suit No.401 of 2007 which was filed for relief of specific performance of contract of sale of immovable property. The decree is given in favour of the plaintiff and the decision has become final. By filing application at Exhibit 42 in execution proceeding, present appellant, objection petitioner, contended that he has purchased the suit property for valuable consideration and without notice and so he is entitled to keep the possession. The executing Court has rejected the application by holding that in view of Rule 99 of Order 21 of Civil Procedure Code and Rule 101 of the same O...
In the matter of M/s. Magnasound India Ltd. and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-21-2015
1. By the above reports, the Official Liquidator is seeking a declaration that a Deed of Assignment dated 14.03.2012 executed by Mr. Shashi Gopal, an ex-director of Magnasound India Ltd. (MSIL?), the Company (In Liqn.), in favour of one Magnasound Media Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter MMPL?) is illegal and void. The Official Liquidator is also seeking other consequential directions including, inter-alia, a direction to MMPL and Sony Music Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter Sony Music?) to hand over the documents and assets which were the subject matter of the purported Deed of Assignment and also for directions to restrain MMPL and Sony Music from dealing with these assets. 2. It is the Official Liquidator™s case that Shashi Gopal, in purported exercise of his rights as a Subrogee, has after the winding up order sold assets belonging to the Company (In Liqn.) without the leave of this Court, without valuation and without inviting public offers to a related party at a price randomly fixe...
Sardar Shikshan Sanstha Deopur Dhule, Taluka and Dist. Dhule, through ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-21-2015
Oral Judgment: (Shinde, J.) 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. These petitions take exception to the direction of the respondent “ 3 Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Dhule to absorb the surplus teachers in the petitioners “ institutions. It is submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that since the petitioner No.1 is a minority institution, and in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Canossa Society and anr vs. Commissioner and ors. (2014(3) Bom.C.R. 556), the respondent “ Education Officer should not have asked the petitioner No.1 to absorb the surplus teachers. 3. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that the surplus teachers are also from minority institutions and keeping in view the said fact, respondent No.3 “ Education Officer directed the petitioner No.1 to absorb those surplus teachers in the schools run...
Nagpur Mahila Nagri Sahakari Bank Limited, through its Administrator/L ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-21-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the matter finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. The challenge in this petition is to the judgment and order dated 29.10.2014 passed by the Industrial Court in Complaint ULP No. 238 of 2005. The complaint filed by the respondent-complainant invoking Item 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U and P.U.L.P Act has been allowed directing the petitioner-employer to make the respondent-complainant permanent in service with effect from the date of her appointment and pay all monetary benefits applicable to the permanent employee of the petitioner Bank. 3. The Industrial Court has held that the provisions of Model Standing Orders are applicable to the establishment by virtue of sub-section (5) of section 35 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act and there is no provision under the Model Standing Orders to make any clerical or supervisory appointment on contract basis. The finding is also recorded that...
Ramanand P. Raicar and Others Vs. State of Goa, through Water Resource ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-21-2015
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Shri Shivan Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith, with the consent of the learned Counsel. Mr. D. Lawande, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents waives notice. 3. We have heard Shri Shivan Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents. It was pointed out by Mr. Shivan Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners had filed an application for conversion of their land bearing Survey No.67/11 of Revenue Village Navelim, Salcete, Goa, admeasuring an area of 10,450 sq. metres. But, however, by communications dated 9th June, 2014 and 7th May, 2015, the respondent No.2 refused to examine their applications stating that the conversion could not be considered as there was a piece of land admeasuring...
Avinash and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-21-2015
A.B. Chaudhari, J. 1. The question that falls for consideration before this Court is as under: Whether the order made by the Magistrate u/s 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, directing Police to make investigation would be an interlocutory order If no, whether remedy of revision u/s 397 or Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, would lie ? 2. The question has arisen for consideration as challenge to the order made by the Magistrate u/s 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code' for brevity), has been raised in these matters either by way of Criminal Writ Petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India or u/s 482 of the Code with the submission that there is no remedy of filing revision either before the Sessions Court or this Court since the order u/s 156(3) would be an interlocutory order. 3. The learned counsel for the applicants / petitioners relied on the decision in the case of Dr.Shriram Mukun...
Dr. Ramchandra Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-21-2015
P.R. Bora, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable and heard forthwith with the consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. 2. The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashment of the FIR bearing Crime No.25/2015, registered against him at Bhokar Police Station for the offenses under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. The petitioner is presently working as Vice Principal of Digambarrao Bindu Arts and Commerce College at Bhokar, Taluka Bhokar, District Nanded (hereinafter referred to as `the college'). On 30th of June, 2015, one student viz. Sunil Bhaurao Madilwad approached the Anti Corruption Bureau, Nanded, and informed that he is pursuing his education as a student of Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University, Nashik (hereinafter referred to as `the Open University') center of which is being run at the College at Bhokar. The said student complained that, for admission to the third year of the Bachelore of Art...
M. Ashraf Nagarwala Vs. The Chief Officer, Margao Municipal Council an ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-20-2015
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The respective Counsel appearing for the respondents waive service. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 29/06/2014 passed in the Second Municipal Appeal No.MIN/UD/44/2014 by the appellate authority thereby granting ex-parte stay to the judgment and order dated 3/09/2014 passed by the Goa Municipalities Appellate Tribunal in Municipal Appeal No.67/2014. 3. The brief facts are that the appellant is a lessee of the respondents no.2 and 3 in respect of a shop in the new market at Margao and is carrying on business of sale of sarees, textiles, etc. therein. It appears that the appellant had approached the first respondent on 7/04/2014 seeking permission to carry out certain work in the shop premises which according to the appellant was confined to carrying out some anti termite treatment and repairs and furnishing and white wash. It appears that on 22/04/2014, the appellant was s...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »