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.
M/s. Saklecha Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Jalna Labour U ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-19-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. The learned Advocates for all the sides submit that they have no objection if this Court hears these petitions. Respondent No.2/ MIDC in Writ Petition No.1630/2015 is a formal party. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 3. These four petitions arise out of the following impugned orders passed by the Industrial Court: Sr.No.Writ Petition No.Complaint (ULP) No.Exhibit and Order dateExhibit and Order dateExhibit and Order date11558/201581/2007U/26,14.11.2014U/37,14.11.2014C/37,20.12.201421626/2015247/2009U/16,20.11.2014“C/14,20.12.201431630/2015103/2007U/25,14.11.2014U/37,14.11.2014C/24,20.12.201441631/2015246/2009U/17,20.11.2014“C/13,20.12.2014 4. The Respondent/ Union espousing the cause of the workers mentioned in Annexure-A to the respective complaints is the same. All these Petitioners are party to the settlement dated 22.05.1990 signed between these Petitioners and the Respondent/ Union. Considering th...
Maharashtra Rajya Prathamik Shikshak Sangh Vs. The State of Maharashtr ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-19-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. This Petition takes exception to the impugned Government Circulars dated 05.07.2008 and 03.11.2008 issued by the Rural Development and Water Conservation Department, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai i.e. Respondent No.2, and also the impugned report dated 13th June, 2014, submitted by the Respondent No.5, in furtherance of the impugned communication dated 14th March, 2014 of the Respondent No.4 and further impugned communication dated 6th March, 2014 issued by the respondent no.3. 3. The petitioner claims to be the association of the primary teachers. The members of the said association are discharging their official duties under the control and supervision of Respondent Nos. 2 to 5. As per the Government policy, all of them are entitled and are drawing the house rent. According to the petitioner, in view of the Government Resolution dat...
Messrs Eminent Agencies and Another Vs. Bank of Baroda and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-2015
B.P. Colabawalla, J. 1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 28th June, 2013 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (for short, the DRAT?) in Miscellaneous Appeal No.184 of 2010. By the impugned order, the Appeal filed by the Petitioners was dismissed by the DRAT. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present controversy are that, Respondent No.1 “ Bank granted various facilities to Petitioner No.1 in the year 1999. The credit facilities availed by the Petitioners were secured by an equitable mortgage of three properties situated at Andheri(E) and Vasai, District Thane. These properties were owned by Mr. Jujee A. Poonawala, Mr. Moiz A. Poonawala and Fatima M. Baxamusa, the guarantors of Petitioner No.1. 3. In view of the fact that Petitioner No.1 failed to pay its dues, the Respondent Bank filed an Original Application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (for short, the DRT?) being Original Application No.389 of 2002....
Smita and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, Tribal Development Departme ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-2015
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. In all these matters, the Assistant Teachers who joined the employment between the years 2004-2007, as Untrained candidates on the post of Shikshan Sevak, claim the pay-scale prescribed for an Untrained teacher, after they completed initial period of three years as Untrained candidates i.e. as Untrained Shikshan Sevaks. In Contempt Petitions, prayer is to direct the respective employer to abide by the judgments/directions issued by this Court in favour of the petitioner employees (Assistant Teachers) and punish their employers for not obeying the same. 2. In matters decided by this Court earlier, or even in matters presently under consideration, the respective learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners rely upon the judgment dated 24.04.2012 in Writ Petition No.7116/2011 delivered by the Aurangabad Bench. That judgment has been followed by this Bench in Writ Petition No. 629/2013 decided on 27.06.2013; in Writ Petition No. 2077/2013 decided on 03.07.2013 an...
M/s. National Insurance Company Limited Vs. M/s. S.A. Enterprises
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-2015
1. By this review petition filed under Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the petitioner seeks recall of the order dated 11th September 2015 passed by this Court in arbitration petition which was filed by the respondent herein under Sections 27(1) and 27(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, inter alia, praying for an order and direction against the review petitioner to provide access and inspection to the entire claim file of the respondent herein from the claim intimation letter till the claim discharge voucher on the records of the review petitioner along with all its proceedings therein and sought permission to have the photocopies certified by the review petitioner. The respondent herein had also applied for issuance of witness summons to three persons including the two of the Surveyors appointed by the review petitioner. The respondent herein was the original claimant whereas, the review petitioner was the original respondent in the arbitral proceedings. 2...
Sherwood Resorts Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-2015
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 Petitioners challenge the legality and validity of the attachment order dated 29th April, 2013 but signed on 2nd May, 2013 (for short, the impugned attachment order?) (Exh ˜Q™ to the Petition), passed by the Sale Tax Authorities. The attachment was levied on an immovable property purchased by the Petitioners pursuant to an auction conducted by Respondent No.2 “ SICOM under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, the SARFAESI Act?). Petitioner No.1 is a Company incorporated and registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and Petitioner No.2 is its shareholder. It is the case of the Petitioners that the impugned attachment order was passed by Respondent No.5 (Sale...
Dnyaneshwar Chintaram Kadam Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-2015
1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12th August 2010 passed by Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Malegaon, convicting the appellant of offences punishable under Section 451 IPC and 307 IPC. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge sentenced the appellant to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for 10(ten) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer RI for 1(one) year with respect to the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and RI for 2(two) years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- in default to suffer RI for 3(three) months with respect to the offence punishable under Section 451 of the IPC. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant has approached this Court by filing the present Appeal, praying that his conviction and the sentences imposed upon him, be set aside, and that he be acquitted. 2. The prosecution case, as put forth before the trial Court may, in brief, be stated thus: Sunita (PW 4) at the material time was residing with her husband in their house sit...
Pravin Arjun Shetkar Vs. State of Goa, through its Chief Secretary, ha ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-16-2015
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Mr. D. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Vivek Rodrigues, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are as follows: Pursuant to a duly conducted selection process, the petitioner was selected to the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the Office of the Collectorate of North Goa District, Panaji on 3rd June, 2010. The petitioner, accordingly, accepted the said post on 8th June, 2010, and joined the services on 29th June, 2010. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had also filled up an attestation form on 9th June, 2010, wherein in one of the clauses in such form, the petitioner did not disclose that when he was 14 years old, he was produced before the Juvenile Justice Board on account of a petty offence. Thereafter, on 26th November, 2010, the Additional Collector issued a Memo to the petitioner stating that the petitioner should submit an explanation in connection with th...
Smita and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, Tribal Development Departme ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-16-2015
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. In all these matters, the Assistant Teachers who joined the employment between the years 2004-2007, as Untrained candidates on the post of Shikshan Sevak, claim the pay-scale prescribed for an Untrained teacher, after they completed initial period of three years as Untrained candidates i.e. as Untrained Shikshan Sevaks. In Contempt Petitions, prayer is to direct the respective employer to abide by the judgments/directions issued by this Court in favour of the petitioner employees (Assistant Teachers) and punish their employers for not obeying the same. 2. In matters decided by this Court earlier, or even in matters presently under consideration, the respective learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners rely upon the judgment dated 24.04.2012 in Writ Petition No.7116/2011 delivered by the Aurangabad Bench. That judgment has been followed by this Bench in Writ Petition No. 629/2013 decided on 27.06.2013; in Writ Petition No. 2077/2013 decided on 03.07.2013 an...
Bonny Fernandes Vs. Umesh L. Naik and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-15-2015
Heard Mr. Aldrin Monteiro, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, Mr. V. P. Thali, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent no.1 and Mr. S. R. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent no.4. 2. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. Heard by consent of learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. Mr. V. P. Thali, learned Advocate waives notice on behalf of the respondent no.1 and Mr. S. R. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor waives notice on behalf of the respondent no.4. 4. This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. challenging the order dated 4.4.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panaji as well as the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji in Criminal Revision Application No. 64/2014. 5. Complainant/respondent no.1 herein filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against accused nos.1, 2 and 3/petitioner and the respondent nos. 2,3 herein. 6. Aft...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »