Mumbai Court June 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.
Vishram Krishna Kantak, Through Power of attorney Shri Shantanand V. K ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-26-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri S.D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Ms. R. Pereira, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1, Mr. R.G. Ramani, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents no.4 to 12 and Mr. P.A. Kamat, learned Counsel appearing for respondents no.13 to 22/petitioners in Writ Petition No.487 of 2014. 2. At the request of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.487/2014, leave to delete respondents no.2 and 3 is granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 3. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waive service. 4. Upon extensively hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties, the main grievance of Shri Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the learned Judge by the impugned order whilst exercising jurisdiction under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code varied the order...
Nabhakumar Vs. Abhishek Krishna Collector and Competent Authority and ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-25-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. By the present proceedings the petitioner seeks appropriate action being taken against the respondents for passing contradictory orders thereby disobeying the order dated 25.02.2014 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.216/2014. By said order dated 25.02.2014 this Court had permitted the present petitioner to operate the licence in question by keeping accounts of the business and by making payment of revenue to the government on regular basis till the decision of the dispute or the appeal or as the case may be by the Competent Authority. 2. Shri S.S. Voditel, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that by order dated 25.02.2014 passed in Writ Petition No.216/2014 this Court had found that after the death of the original licencee, the present petitioner had been running the shop in question. There was a dispute amongst the legal heirs of the original grantee and the licence in question came to be suspended by relying upon Clause 10 of Circular d...
The Executive Engineer Vs. Mohandas Chintaman Somkunwar
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-25-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. By this writ petition the petitioner challenges the award dated 19.04.2005 passed by the Labour Court answering the reference in affirmative and declaring that the petitioner had terminated the services of the respondent illegally. A direction for reinstatement without back wages was given. 2. It is the case of the respondent that he was in service with the Public Works Department, Wardha as a labourer from 22.01.1984. His services were dispensed with on 21.04.1986 without any valid reason. In the year 1997 after giving approach notice a reference was made by the appropriate government to the Labour Court under Section 10 read with Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the said Act). In the statement of claim it was stated that there was violation of provisions of Section 25F of the said Act and that two juniors had been retained in service, after services of the respondent had been dispensed with. 3. The petitioner filed its reply and denied that...
Navalji Cotspin Limited Vs. Amravati Growers Co-operative Spinning Ltd ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-25-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. By the present writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner “ plaintiff has challenged the order passed below Exhibit-25 whereby the trial Court referred the dispute arising between the parties to the Arbitrator. Similarly, the petitioner also challenges the order passed by the trial Court below Exhibit-41 rejecting the application for amendment moved by the plaintiff. 2. The relevant facts are that defendant No.1 was running a Spinning Mill, which subsequently went under liquidation. In said proceedings, the Liquidator took possession of the assets of defendant No.1. The State Government took steps to dispose of the assets of defendant No.1 and on 17.07.1997, the petitioner entered into an agreement with the Liquidator for purchase of said Mill. Various terms and conditions were agreed upon between the parties. There were some disputes between the parties in the matter of possession being handed over, which ultimat...
Vivekanand Rugnalaya, Latur through its Administrative Officer, Latur ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-25-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner/Management is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 13/11/2013 delivered by the Industrial Court, Latur by which Complaint (ULP) No.130/2011, filed by the respondent, has been allowed. 3. The petitioner has set out his prayers in this petition in clauses A to D below paragraph No.17. The relevant prayer clause 'B' reads as under: B. Rule may kindly made absolute and judgment and order dtd.13/11/2013 passed by the learned Member, Industrial court, Latur in Complaint (ULP) No.130/2011 may kindly be quashed and set aside.? 4. While allowing the complaint, the Industrial Court has issued the following directions in Clause Nos.1 to 6 as under: 1. Com/ULP/No.130/2011 is partly allowed. 2. It is hereby declared that the respondent has engaged in unfair labour practice within the scope of Item Nos.9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 and respondent is ...
Mangalbai Jaspalsinh Bayas Vs. The State of Maharashtra Through its Se ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-25-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Rule. 3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal. 4. The issue raised by the petitioner is as regards termination of her services as, Anganwadi Karyakarti, without compliance of the principles of natural justice and by way of punishment. 5. Shri Rodge, learned Advocate straight away points out at the show cause notice issued to the petitioner. Allegations have been set out in the said notice against the petitioner and she has been called upon to explain within 24 hours, as to why her services should not be terminated. 6. Shri Rodge then points out the order of termination dated 2.7.2013 which sets out a list of mis-conducts alleged to have been committed by the petitioner and for which she has been terminated with immediate effect. 7. The petitioner raised a grievance before the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Latur by preferring an appeal, contending therein that the petitioner has been terminat...
Barkunbai Dadarao Shinde Vs. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secr ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-25-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Rule. 3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal. 4. The issue raised by the petitioner is as regards termination of her services without compliance of the principles of natural justice and by way of punishment. 5. Shri Rodge, learned Advocate straight away points out at the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, dated 8.7.2013. Allegations have been set out in the said notice against the petitioner and she has been called upon to explain within 24 hours, as to why her services should not be terminated. 6. Shri Rodge then points out the order of termination dated 10.7.2013 which sets out a list of mis-conducts alleged to have been committed by the petitioner and for which she has been terminated with immediate effect. 7. The petitioner raised a grievance before the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Latur by preferring an appeal, contending therein that the petitioner has been terminated after ...
Prabhudayal Vs. Shantabai and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-25-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Admit. By the consent of learned Counsel for the respective parties, the appeal is heard finally. 3. Considering the impugned order and submissions on behalf of the appellant that this appeal can be disposed of finally at the stage of admission, this Court had directed the parties to note that this appeal may be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. Thus, today, submissions are heard at the bar. 4. This appeal is directed against the order dt.14.8.2014 below Exh. Nos. 1 and 83 in Special Civil Suit No.524 of 2007 passed by 8th Joint Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Nagpur. On behalf of the appellant, it is submitted that the Special Civil Suit was instituted with prayers for declaration and permanent injunction as well as compensation against the respondents (original defendants) in the trial Court. The litigation between the parties has long past history since the year 1985. Regular Civil Suit No.492 of 1985 was instituted by one Ramrao Mane against Ramkhilaw...
Rajan Banawali Vs. Dinesh Shirodkar and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-25-2015
1. The present appeal is preferred by the appellant dissatisfied with the amount of the compensation granted by the judgment and order dated 22.12.2009 passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for the Taluka of Salcete, at Margao(Presiding Officer? for short) in Claim Petition no.163/2008. 2. Parties shall hereinafter referred to as per their original status in the claim petition. 3. The brief facts of the case may be stated as follows:- Claimant filed the petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation based on structure formula. On 29.8.2007, at about 03.30 hours, the claimant was proceeding from Mumbai to Margao. He was driving the vehicle namely Swaraj Mazda bearing no.GA-02-U-8686, owned by Shri Nooruddin Shaikh/respondent no.3. When he reached at Old Goa bypass road, all of a sudden the front right side tyre of the vehicle burst, as a result of which, the claimant lost control over the vehicle and met with an accident with anoth...
Lalankumar Singh and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-25-2015
1. The petition is filed by accused Nos.5 to 8 of R.C.C. No.233/2009 which is pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beed. The order of issue process made in this matter was challenged by the petitioners by filing Criminal Revision No.115 of 2013 in the Sessions Court and this revision is dismissed. Both the sides are heard. 2. In view of the nature of challenge to the order of issue process, not only the facts in brief of the case but the conduct of the petitioners and developments in the matter also need to be stated in brief. A Drugs Inspector, public servant, has filed the aforesaid complaint and order of issue process has been made for offences punishable under sections 18(a)(1) read with sections 16 and 34 punishable under section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to the Act?) against the manufacturer, accused Nos.4 to 10 and also authorised dealer appointed by the manufacturer, accused Nos.1 to 3. M/s Cachet Pharmaceuticals is a pri...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »