Mumbai Court December 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.
Koyla Shramik Sabha and Another Vs. Deputy Registrar of Trade Unions N ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-17-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. In view of notice for final disposal, the learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by issuance of consent certificate dated 27.08.2015 by the Deputy Registrar of Trade Unions, Nagpur. Said Consent Certificate has been issued by making corrections in the earlier consent certificate dated 23.07.2015. 3. According to the petitioners, the petitioner No. 2 came to be elected as President of the petitioner no. 1 Union on 03.03.2014. This fact was informed to the Management on 12.05.2015 and according to petitioners same was duly accepted y the Management. The respondent nos. 2 and 3 made an application to the respondent no.1 under provisions of Trade Unions Act, 1926 (for short, the said Act) and Rules framed thereunder for making necessary enquiry and issuing a consent certificate alleging that as per the elections held, the office bearers and committee members as shown in Annexure A to the said application were entitled t...
Nagesh H. Akkalkote Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. With the consent of and at the request of learned counsel for the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith. Even otherwise, in the order dated 3 December 2015, the parties were put to notice that an endeavour shall be made to dispose of this petition, finally. 2. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 29 September 2015 made by the Additional Secretary, State of Maharashtra, purporting to exercise appellate jurisdiction under Section 44(4) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (said Act) and in pursuance thereof to stay the orders dated 14 September 2015 made by the Additional Commissioner, Pune, by which the disqualification order made against the Petitioner under Section 44 of the said Act, had been set aside. In effect, the impugned order purports to revive the disqualification, in so far as the Petitioner is concerned. 3. Mr. Vineet Naik, learned senior advocate for the Petitioner, has made ...
Futarmal Kapurji Borana and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-2015
Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J. 1. These three Criminal Appeals are arising out of the one and same Judgment and Order dated 23rd November 2004 in Sessions Case No.270 of 2002 of Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay; hence, they are being decided by this common Judgment. These Appeals are preferred by Original Accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 and, for the sake of convenience, in these Appeals also, the Appellants are referred by their original nomenclature as Accused Nos.2, 3 and 4?. By the impugned Judgment, they have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 396 of IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to suffer further R.I. for four months; for the offence punishable under Section 395 of IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to suffer further R.I. for four months; for the offence punishable under Section 449 of IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay f...
Arun Ramchandra Hublikar Vs. Cummins Diesel Sales and Service (I) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Respondent waives service. 2. The Petitioner challenges the order passed by the Labour Court, Pune, dated 16 August 2011, disposing of the Reference (IDA) No.363 of 2003 filed by the Petitioner holding that the Petitioner is not a Workman. 3. The Petitioner was appointed on 2 May 1985 in the services of M/s.Cummins India Ltd. as a Trainee Service Engineer. The Petitioner holds a diploma in Mechanical and Automobile Engineering. On 2 May 1986, the Petitioner was confirmed in service as a Service Engineer. On 10 December 1987, the Respondent issued a policy guideline restructuring the employees of the Respondent. The Service Engineers, Senior Service Engineers, were redesigned as a Manager. The Petitioner was placed in Category B-110. A letter was issued to the Petitioner on 28 November 1987 stating that the Respondent was considering rationalization and streamlining of service conditions and all the managers operating in management...
Dr. Gulab Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-17-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule heard forthwith, with the consent of the learned counsel for the rival parties. 2. This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail in respect of Crime No.3012/2015 for offence punishable under section 294, 507 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1)(x) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 registered at Police Station: Dighori, Dist. Bhandara. 3. Perused the F.I.R. dated 11.9.2015 lodged by complainant-Dr. Savita Bhaurao Maldongre, caste Gond? Scheduled Tribe. The course of the alleged incriminating material in the FIR, is roughly translated as under : On the second day, dated 10.09.2015, in the morning at about 8.45, I had been on my duty, at Primary Health Centre, Barvha. At about 4.30 p.m., Smt. Sonwane, Health Assistant (Arogya Sevika), Barvha, had played the recording of the abuses given by Dr. Kapgate, the present applicant through Mobile Phone No 9764476745, which was given on 9.9.2015 at about 7.54 p.m. In the recording playe...
Sudha Rajesh Halmare and Another Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Lt ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-17-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Admit. The learned counsel waives service of notices. Heard the matter finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. This application seeks review of the judgment and order dated 8th September, 2014, passed by this Court in First Appeal No. 485 of 2013. 3. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had held in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 88 of 2009, the owner of the truck, the driver and the Insurance Company jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.15,02,496/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization. The Insurance Company preferred First Appeal No. 485 of 2013 before this Court which was allowed on 8th September, 2014. 4. When the matter was heard and decided, none appeared in for the respondents. 5. The claimants have moved this application for review of the judgment dated 8th September, 2014. 6. The matter was initially listed before this Court on 13th Octo...
Govind B. Prabhugaonkar Vs. Romaldina Barreto E Carneiro and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-17-2015
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Mr. Lobo, learned Counsel waives service for the respondent no. 1. Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 2. All these petitions involve common and connected questions of law and fact. They are between the same parties. As such, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The petitioner is a complainant in three different cases filed against the respondent no. 1 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the N.I. Act, for short). It is contended that three cheques were issued by the respondent no. 1, towards legally enforceable liability, which were dishonoured on account of insufficient funds, which led the petitioner to proceed against the respondent no. 1, under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 4. According to the respondent no. 1, he had obtained a hand loan of Rs.25,000/- from the petitioner and had agreed to repay the said amount with interest at the rate of 10% per month. It is contended that by way of security, ...
United India Insurance Co., Through its Assistant Manager Vs. Mulla Ch ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-17-2015
1. All the appeals are heard together on the request made by learned counsel for the appellant, insurance company, as he wants to argue the same point, "the tenability of the appeals filed by the insurance company under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923 when compensation amount is not deposited by the insurance company". Both the sides are heard. 2. First Appeal No.204 of 1999 is filed against the judgment and award of W.C.A. No.59/1996 which was pending before the Commissioner of Workmen's' Compensation appointed under the Workmen's Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") Latur. The Commissioner has granted compensation of Rs2,33,568/- in favour of respondent No.1 of this appeal, who is injured employee. Interest at the rate of 12% per annum is granted on this amount and penalty of Rs.10,000/- is separately imposed on the employer. The insurance company is directed to pay compensation and the interest. 3. First Appeal No.291/2001 is filed against the ju...
Trajano D'Mello Vs. State of Goa, through its Chief Secretary and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-17-2015
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Mr. Rohit Bras de Sa, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General and Mr. D. Lawande, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents No.1, 2 and 4, Mr. S. S. Kantak, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.3, Mr. A. D. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.5, Mr. Vibhav Amonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.6, Mr. Pankaj Vernekar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.7 and Mr. Amey Kakodkar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.8. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith, with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waive service. 3. We have extensively heard Mr. Rohit Bras de Sa, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General along with Mr. D. Lawande, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents No.1, 2 and 4, Mr. S. S. Kantak, ...
Kanchan Vishwanath Jagtap and Another Vs. Maharashtra Administrative T ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-16-2015
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. The petitioners have approached this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 3.4.2014 passed by the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur to the extent it sets aside the order dated 17.02.2011 vide which the petitioners in the present petitions are selected to the posts of Deputy Director of Health Services and the G.R. dated 5.12.2012 vide which the State Government has appointed these petitioners and further directing respondent- Maharashtra Public Service Commission to prepare fresh list of candidates to be called for interview from the category of Open (Female). 2. The facts in brief giving rise to the present writ petitions are as under:- The State of Maharashtra had invited applications for the posts of Deputy Director of Health Services, Maharashtra Medical and Health Services Group A. In the advertisement , one post was shown reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Castes converted to Buddhisim, one was reserved for Nomadic ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »