Mumbai Court April 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.
Sudhir Sambhaji Maldode Vs. South Central Railway and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-15-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith heard with the consent of the parties. 3. By way of filing present Petition, the petitioner is seeking directions to the respondents to pay an amount of travelling allowance, conveyance allowance and holiday encashment to the petitioner of the period of 09.02.2010 to 03.02.2013. Brief facts disclosed in the memo of the Petition are as under: 4. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner came to be appointed on 17.04.1984 as a Constable in Railway Protection Force. The petitioner came to be promoted to the post of Head Constable. Petitioner met with an accident and has undergone operation of total hip replacement. The Medical Authority of the respondents declared the petitioner unfit for armed force duty and recommended for alternative employment of sedentary type of job by Certificate dated 06.02.2010. It is the further case of the petitioner that, on 08.02.2010, the petitioner resumed his duty at RPF Outpost,...
Bramhanand M. Dessai Vs. State of Goa, through, The Chief Secretary, G ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-15-2015
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Mr. A. F. Diniz, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. V. Rodrigues, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. The above petition inter alia prays for a direction to quash and set aside the decision conveyed by order dated 6.9.2013 to notionally fix the pay of the petitioner in the pay scale of 10,000-325-13,200(pre-revised) w.e.f. 11.2.2005 and to release actual monetary benefits w.e.f.7.3.2013. The petitioner has also prayed inter alia to direct the respondents to grant to the petitioner promotion on actual basis w.e.f. 11.2.2005 with full monetary benefits. 3. Mr. A. F. Diniz, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has pointed out that this is the second time the petitioner has approached this Court, as according to him, on the earlier DPC meeting, the petitioner was unlawfully excluded to be promoted. The learned counsel further points out that in view of the direction issued by this Court i...
Subhaschandra Balchandra Badjate Vs. The Director General, Central Exc ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-15-2015
1. The petition is filed for relief of declaration that the arrest of the petitioner was illegal, the seizure of amount of Rs. 45 lakh from possession of the petitioner was illegal and the proceeding like adjudication under the Central Excise Act cannot be held against the petitioner. Relief of return of the aforesaid amount seized by the officers of the Central Excise is also claimed. Both the sides are heard. 2. The petitioner is share holder of majority shares of one private company by name M/s Rutuja Ispat Private Limited Company situated at Jalna, Maharashtra". Shri. Shailesh Badjate and Shri. Sushil Badjate, two sons of the present petitioner, are the Directors of the company and on the record they are conducting the business of this company. The petitioner and his two sons are living in the same premises situated in Jalna where the office of the company is also situated. 3. There was specific information to the officers of the Directorate General of Central Excise (Intelligence)...
Ganesh Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through its Principal Secretary, ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-15-2015
Shinde, J. 1. The learned Counsel for the petitioner makes an oral prayer to substitute the words Assistant Teacher by words Shikshan Sevak. Oral prayer granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2. Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, taken up for final hearing. 3. The petitioner herein possesses B.Sc.B.Ed. Qualification. He came to be appointed as Assistant Teacher by respondent No.3, which runs four aided schools by order dated 31st July, 2014. On 2nd September, 2014, respondent No.2 granted approval to the appointment of the petitioner on no grant basis. In Mangaleshwar Vidyalaya run by respondent No.3, there was a workload of Mathematics subject and no teacher of this subject was available. On 20.6.2014 Respondent No.3 proposed to transfer the petitioner to the said school however, the petitioner sought guidance of respondent No.2, who advised that if the said teacher is granted approval, the transfer can be effected as a Shikshan Sevak. On 1.9.2014 the peti...
Gulf Petrochem Energy Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. M.T. VALORand Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-15-2015
1. These two Motions are taken out by the Defendants in two admiralty suits for vacating the respective arrests of the Defendant vessels. The Motions involve common questions of law and are heard together. 2. The Defendant Vessel in Admiralty Suit No. 94 of 2015 is under arrest for a maritime claim of USD 67,458.87 towards supply of bunkers by the Plaintiff, whereas the vessel in Admiralty Suit No. 240 of 2015 is under arrest for a claim of USD 243,239.36 also in respect of supply of bunkers. Whereas the order of arrest was executed in the former case and a security for the claim was furnished and the vessel released against such security, in the latter case the arrest warrant was yet to be served on the vessel at the time the matter was argued, though the vessel was within the territorial waters of India. In both cases, the owners of the vessels contest the maritime claims on the ground of lack of privity between the respective Plaintiffs and the owners concerning the supply of bunker...
Lokmanya Tilak Smarak Mandal and Another Vs. Ravindra Rameshrao Sambar ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-15-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. The challenge in this petition is to the judgment and order dated 10.04.2007 passed by the School Tribunal, allowing Appeal No. STC/42/2006 filed under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Condition of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (in short MEPS Act), challenging the termination of services with effect from 09.11.2006 on the basis of the charges proved against the respondent no.1 in the enquiry. The School Tribunal has directed reinstatement of the respondent no.1 in service to the original post of Assistant Teacher with continuity in service and full backwages. The matter was admitted on 28.04.2008 and during the pendency of the petition, there was stay to the effect and operation of the judgment and order passed by the School Tribunal. As a result, the respondent No.1 is out of employment. 2. It is not in dispute that the respondent no.1 was terminated from service by an order dated 04.10.2006 on the ground that the charges of misconduct level...
Vikram Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-15-2015
1. The present appellant is convicted by the learned Special Judge (Anti Corruption), Aurangabad on 22.8.2000 in Special Case No. 2 of 1995. The appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default he is directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. The appellant is further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 13 (1)(d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default he is directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. The prosecution case is as under: On 18.1.1994, PW 1 Limbaji Sonawane lodged his complaint (Exh.24) with Anti Corruption Bureau, Aurangabad. Sum and substance of the said complaint is that, at village Chinchwan he and his brother Kisan are having one agricultural fi...
Jagannath R. Beloshe Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-15-2015
Oral Judgment: (V.K. Tahilramani J.) 1. The Appellant original Accused No.1 has preferred this Appeal against the judgment and order dated 27th June 2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Satara in Sessions Case No.107 of 1993. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the Appellant under section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.100/-, in default, SI for four months. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated is as under. The Appellant was the husband of deceased Sunanda. The marriage of the Appellant and Sunanda took place in the year 1988. Sunanda was earlier residing at Bamnewadi with her parents. After the marriage, Sunanda started residing at Shindewadi with the Appellant and his mother. The distance between Shindewadi and Bamnewadi was 7 to 8 kms. Some time after the marriage, the Appellant went to Mumbai in relation to his job. He used to come to Shindewadi once in a month. Thereafter, Sunanda developed relations with H...
Shanker Basu Vs. KBC Bank N V
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-15-2015
1. The service of the plaintiff who was an employee of the defendant bank, as the head of its corporate division, has been terminated and the plaintiff has sued for declaration that the termination of his contract of employment is wrongful, illegal and malafide. The plaintiff has claimed Rs.23.63 Crores with interest @ 16.5% thereon for delay in payment of the amounts payable under the plaintiff's contract of employment. 2. The plaintiff was employed under the contract dated 19th June, 2000, Exh.P2 in evidence. The plaintiff's contract was terminable under clause 10 thereof either upon retirement or upon sooner determination by a termination notice upon the conditions mentioned in the said clause. 3. The plaintiff's contract was terminated after certain correspondence between the parties by e-mails on 12th February, 2001. The plaintiff was offered severance package. The plaintiff accepted the said package and confirmed having received and accepted the terms and conditions in the letter...
Nitin Satish Naik Vs. Nilu Sundar Naik and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-15-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. By this revision application, the original complainant is taking exception to the judgment and order dated 05/07/2012 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge at Margao in Criminal Appeal No. 100/2011. By the impugned judgment, the Criminal Appeal filed by the first respondent has been allowed, thereby setting aside the order dated 17/08/2011 passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, Canacona in Proceedings under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code, for short). 2. The brief facts, necessary for the disposal of the Criminal Revision, may be stated thus: That on the basis of a complaint filed by the petitioner, proceedings were initiated on the file of the learned Executive Magistrate, Canacona, under Section 133 of the Code. According to the petitioner/ complainant, he is residing in house no.186/A situated in property known as 'Gharbhat', bearing Survey No. 135/5 of village Nagorcem, Palolem, belonging to Bhatkar Ramesh Bhat. The said ho...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »