Mumbai Court February 2015 Judgments
Gajanan Shivram Lele and Others Vs. Dena Bank and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-2015
1. Rule in each of these petitions. With the consent of and at the request of the learned counsels for the parties, Rule is being disposed of finally. 2. In each of these cases, proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (said Act) are pending before Mr. E. Rajshekhar, Estate Officer, the respondent no.2 herein. The petitioners have however invoked the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court, mainly urging the following:- a) That the petitioners being pre-nationalisation tenants / occupants of the suit premises, cannot be proceeded against under the provisions of the said Act in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Suhas H. Pophale vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and its Estate Officer (AIR 2014 SC 1509); b) That Mr. E. Rajshekhar, the Estate Manager had himself recommended the action of eviction against the petitioners and even proposed a line of action to secure the same. Therefore, there is a reasonable apprehensi...
Tag this Judgment!Shivaji Kadaji Pawar and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-23-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Accused No.1 Shivaji Kadaji Pawar and accused No.13 Namdeo Shivaji Pawar, and accused No.11 Vilas Kadaji Pawar, being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction, preferred the Criminal Appeal No.414 of 2011. The trial Court convicted the appellants accused No.1 Shivaji s/o. Kadaji Pawar and accused No.13 Namdeo s/o. Shivaji Pawar for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P. Code, and they are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for Life and to pay a fine of Rs. Five Thousand each, in default, to undergo further R.I. for the period of two years. The appellants original accused No.1 Shivaji Kadaji Pawar, original accused No.11 Vilas Kadaji Pawar, and original accused No.13 Namdeo Shivaji Pawar are also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 452 of I.P. Code and they are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. Two Thousand each, in default, to undergo further R.I. for the period of six months, and the ...
Tag this Judgment!Pacina D' Cruz, Vs. Andre Alexo D' Cruz and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-20-2015
1. Heard Shri S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Appellants and Shri D. D. Zaveri, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no. 1. 2. The above Appeal came to be admitted by an Order dated 02.02.2006 on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the first appellate Court being final Court of facts, could have proceeded to decide the First Appeal, without formulating the points which arose for its determination, and without appreciating the evidence on record? (ii) Whether the first appellate Court was right in concluding that the suit house was a common house, jointly owned by the respondent No.1 along with the appellant and respondent No.2 when such was not the plea raised by respondent No.1 nor any proof was produced by the respondent No.1 in support of such a plea? (iii) Whether the respondent No.1 having approached the Court with the claim that the common wall had been already demolished by the Defendants, could get a relief against the paral...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Jitendra Kumar Pandye and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-20-2015
1. The present appeal is preferred by the original respondent no.3 against the judgment and award passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Margao, in Claim Petition No. 102/2004 dated 03.01.2009. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal may be summarised as follows : 3. The parties are referred to their original status. 4. The claimant Jitender filed the petition under the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and has claimed compensation on the ground that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the car of respondent no.1 as well as the rider of the motor cycle of respondent no.4 on which the claimant was a pillion rider. According to the claimant, the accident occurred on 28.06.2003 at about 9.00 p.m. near Sadekar house Pajifond, Margao. At the relevant time of the accident, the claimant was the pillion rider of Taxi Hero Honda motor cycle No. GA-02-T-0506 driven by respondent no.4 and owned by respo...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra Through the Executive Engineer, P.W.D.(North) ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-20-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. This petition was admitted on 3.3.1995. By order dated 23.2.2000, passed below Civil Application No. 949 of 1999, the petitioner was directed to pay the last drawn wages to the respondent / employee (as on date of his termination on 8.6.1987), under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act). 2. The petitioner contends that the respondent was engaged as a Daily-Wager for performing duties as a Watchman from 22.1.1986 till 7.6.1987. The respondent claims that he was appointed as a Watchman on 1.11.1984 and terminated on 8.7.1987. He preferred Reference (IDA) No.19 of 1988 for challenging his termination which was allowed by the impugned Award dated 5.4.1994. 3. Having heard the learned Advocates, I have gone through the petition paper book with their assistance. Apparently, there was no documentary evidence on record to establish that the respondent had worked as a Watchman with the petitioner from 1.11.1984 to 7.6.1987. One month's notice of termination...
Tag this Judgment!Ravindra Yadav Vs. Rashtriya Raksha Karmachari Sangh and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Admit, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The revisionary jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order dated 23/12/2014 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Greater Bombay by which order the learned Judge has ruled that the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court is not barred in view of Section 28(1-A) of the Trade Unions Act, 1926. 3. The facts necessary to be cited for adjudication of the above Civil Revision Application can in brief be stated thus: The Respondent No.1 herein is a Trade Union registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926 (Hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and the object of the Union is to organize and unite the civilian employees of the naval establishment in Mumbai and regulate their relation with the employer i.e. the naval establishment in Mumbai. The Respondent No.2 is a person who claims to be the President of the Respondent No.1 Union. The Respondent N...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Goodearth Agro Chem Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. The Container Corpo ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-20-2015
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Both these writ petitions arise out of the same order passed by the Inquiry Officer Shri Srinivas Mudgerikar, who is Respondent No. 2 in both these petitions. The facts briefly stated are: M/s. Goodearth Agro Chem Private Limited imported manganese ore from Indonesia. The cargo was handled by Shipping line M/s. Trans Asian Shipping Services Private Limited. According to the carrier which transported cargo i.e. the Container Corporation of India Limited, there was mis-description. Instead of declaring cargo to be manganese ore, it was stated to be general cargo. It, therefore, imposed penalty. There was a previous petition before this Court and because of directions therein, Respondent No. 2 Srinivas Mudgerikar was appointed as Inquiry Officer. He found M/s. Trans Asian Shipping Services Private Limited as also M/s. Goodearth Agro Chem Private Limited, jointly and severally liable to pay penalty. His reports/ order dated 10.09.2012 is questioned in both these...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Dattatraya Kulkarni and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-2015
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. This Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenges the order of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 7th October, 2014 in Notice of Motion No. 1352 of 2013 in Suit No. 730 of 2013. By this order, the learned Single Judge of this Court has proceeded to dismiss this Notice of Motion with costs. 2. The Appeal is admitted. The contesting Respondents waive service. By consent, the Appeal is heard finally. 3. The original Plaintiffs are in Appeal before us. The Appellants instituted the above Suit in this Court claiming the following reliefs:- a. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that the Plaintiffs and Defendant Nos. 61 and 62 are entitled to allotment and possession of all those pieces of parcels of land or ground bearing (i) Survey No. 120 (part) bearing C.T.S. No. 1374/A/8/1 to 5 admeasuring 39,790.80 sq. mtrs; (ii) Survey No. 120 (part) bearing C.T.S. No. 1374/A/4 admeasuring 41,570.10 sq. meters; (iii) Survey No. 120 (part) bearing C.T...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra Vs. Baban Kerba Jondhale and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-20-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Appeal is filed by the State, challenging the Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 31.08.1995 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani in Sessions Case No.132/1994, thereby acquitting the respondent accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 r.w. 34 of I.P. Code and Section 498-A r.w. 34 of I.P. Code. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under: The deceased Sarubai, was the daughter of complainant Jayabai [PW-3]. About 4 Years before the death of Sarubai, the marriage of Sarubai had taken place with accused No.1 Baban. As per the prosecution case before about one year of incident, the accused No.1 Baban demanded the amount of Rs.10,000/- and watch from the parental house of deceased Sarubai, but the complainant Jayabai, widow lady, was not able to give the amount of Rs. 10,000/-, but fulfilled the demand of watch. It is further the case of the prosecution that, the accused persons were used to beat and ill-treat deceased Sarubai, as t...
Tag this Judgment!Balwas Realty and Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. Vs. Central Board of Direct ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-2015
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges: (i) order dated 22.12.2014 of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) rejecting the petitioner's application for issue of Notification under Section 80-IA4(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act); and (ii) order dated 30.9.2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax rejecting the petitioner's application for stay consequent to the Assessment Order dated 28.3.2014 passed for the Assessment Year 2011-12 pending disposal of its appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 2. The petitioner on 22.2.2011 applied to the CBDT for approval of its Industrial Park - Techniplex - II (project) under Section 80-IA(4) of the Act for Assessment Year 2011-12. However, the CBDT did not dispose of the petitioner's application and in the meantime the Assessing Officer passed the Assessment Order dated 28.3.2014 under Section 143(3) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2011-12 without extending benefit under Sect...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »