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.
The Chief Executive Officer Vs. Maharu Kautik Patil (deceased, through ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-25-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. By this petitioner, the petitioner challenges the judgment and award dated 2.8.1993, delivered by the Labour Court, Jalgaon in Reference (IDA) No. 3 of 1985. 2. The petitioner has, primarily, prayed for the following relief in this petition:- (A) That the record and proceedings of the judgment and award dated 2.8.1993 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jalgaon in Reference (IDA) No. 3/85 be called for and after examining the legality, validity and propriety thereof, the judgment and order dated 2.8.1993 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jalgaon in Reference (IDA) No. 3/85 and annexed to the petition at Exh.A hereto be quashed and set aside and the claim statement made under reference to the Labour Court, Jalgaon by the respondent be dismissed with cost;? 3. The Labour Court, by the impugned award has ordered in Clause (i), (ii) and (iii) as under:- (i) The Ist party employer by name the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon, District Jalgao...
Shirish Pandharinath Joshi and Others Vs. The General Manager, Bosch C ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-24-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. I have heard Mr.Yawalkar, learned Advocate for the Petitioners, Mr.Patil, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 5 and the learned AGP on behalf of Respondent No.3. Respondent Nos.2 and 4, though served, have chosen not to cause an appearance either through the Advocate or any person. 3. The Petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 10.02.2011 delivered by the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No.45/2009 filed by the Petitioners herein. 4. The grievance of the Petitioners is two fold. Firstly that the age of retirement needs to be enhanced from 55 years to 58 years in the light of the settlement dated 14.07.2009 signed by Respondent No.1 with Respondent No.2 Union. The Petitioners were members of Respondent No.2 Union. Secondly, the arrears, in view of the settlement having been signed on 14.07.2009 and having been given effect to from 01.07.2008, are payable ...
Jai Durga Bhavani Krida Mandal and Another Vs. The North Maharashtra U ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-23-2015
Per Court: 1. I have heard Mr.Barlinge and Mr.Girase, learned Advocates for the petitioners and respondent No.1 University, respectively. 2. Respondent Nos. 2 to 5, despite having been served by Court Notice, have not chosen to cause an appearance either through an Advocate or in person. This petition is pending from 08/04/2013 and therefore I do not intend to keep it pending in the hope of respondent Nos. 2 to 5 causing an appearance of their own volition. It is, in this backdrop, that I have heard the learned Advocates. 3. The impugned order dated 05/03/2013 is delivered by the Grievance Redressal Committee (For short, G.R.C.) of the Respondent University u/s 57 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. The issue of termination of respondent Nos. 2 to 5 at the hands of the petitioners in March 2012 has been considered by the G.R.C. 4. Mr.Barlinge raises a serious grievance as regards the G.R.C. having overstepped its jurisdiction and usurped jurisdiction vested in the University and...
The State of Maharashtra and Another Vs. Surekha Umakant Kasale and An ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-23-2015
Indira K. Jain, J. 1. The State of Maharashtra has preferred Criminal Appeal No.659/2002 against the judgment and order dated 31.07.2002 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Latur in Sessions Case No.25/2001. By the said judgment and order, the learned Additional Sessions judge acquitted the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.). 2. The complainant being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order preferred Criminal Revision No. 269/2002. For the sake of convenience, respondent is referred in her original status as an accused? as referred in the Sessions case. 3. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as under: Accused-Surekha Umakant Kasale, was the wife of complainant-Umakant Kasale. Deceased-Parvatibai was the mother of complainant and mother-in-law of accused. The couple had one male and one female child. They were residing at Latur from 1995 till June, 2000. 4. According to prosecution, accused used t...
Umanath Naik and Another Vs. Vinayak Shrinivas Naik, (since deceased) ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-23-2015
1. Heard. Admit. 2. Ms. Palyekar, the learned Counsel waives service for the respondent nos.1(i) to (iii). Shri Ramani, the learned Counsel waives service for the respondent no.2. 3. Second Appeal is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the parties. 4. The appellants are the original plaintiffs. Respondent nos.1(i) to (iii) are the legal representatives of Vinayak Naik, original defendant no.1 who is the brother of the appellant no.1. The second respondent is an Urban Cooperative Bank. 5. According to the appellants, the appellant no.1 had obtained a loan of Rs.45,000/- from the second respondent. It is contended that the loan was obtained in the name of original defendant no.1 Vinayak Naik (since deceased). The appellants had pledged their gold ornaments as a security for the loan with the Bank. It is undisputed that the entire loan amount has been repaid on 07/06/2002 and the loan account is closed. The amount has been repaid by the appellants. 6. Some time towards the end...
Deepak Dilip Khivasara Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-23-2015
Oral Judgment: (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 application is filed praying therein for quashing and setting aside the F.I.R. bearing C.R. No. 188/2013 registered with Pachora Police Station against the applicant. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that, the applicant was appointed as Auditor on 19th May, 2012 and as a matter of fact, on 29th May, 2012 he has accepted the appointment. It is submitted that, even if the allegations made in the First Information Report are taken at its face value and read in its entirety, no offence is disclosed as against the applicant. It is submitted that, so far allegation of preparation of forged record of service of Agenda on the complainant is concerned, the said allegations may be attributed against the co-accused, since those relates to period prior to the meeting dated 17th February, 2012 and 31st March, 2012. ...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Arun Gopalrao Verulka
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-23-2015
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 377(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed by the State Government for enhancement of punishment imposed upon the respondent under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent “ Arun Gopalrao Verulkar has been found guilty of offence punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to suffer Simple Imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- or in default to undergo S.I. for one year. He is also convicted of an offence punishable under Section 506 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer S.I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- or in default suffer S.I. for three months. He is also punished under Section 342 of Indian Penal Code with similar imprisonment and fine. Fine of Rs.21,000/- received from him is made payable to the victim under Section 357(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The accused was in jail since 25.11.2009 till the da...
Jagannath and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-23-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the appellants, aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 7th February, 2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shahada in Sessions Case No. 46/2005, thereby convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w section 34 of I.P. Code. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under: (a) One Shantaram Shidya Patil (deceased), was resident of Ganesh-Budhawal, Tahsil Taloda. Said Shantaram was having house and landed property at Ganesh-Budhawal, Tahsil Taloda. Jagannath Shidya Patil (accused no.1) is brother of said Shantaram. Jagannath is also having house and landed property at Ganesh-Budhawal. Umesh (accused no.2) and Kisan (accused No.3) are sons of Jagannath. Parvatabai (accused no.4) is sister of Jagannath and Shantaram. Bebibai (PW-5) is daughter of Parvatabai. Vasubai (PW-1) is wife of deceased Shantaram. Dharamdas (another deceased) was son of Shantaram. Sabribai (PW-4) and Sushilabai (PW-5) are daughte...
Shrikant Shankarrao Daulatkar and Others Vs. State of Mah., Thru. its ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-22-2015
Heard. 1. By this petition, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioners in accordance with the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2013' for the sake of brevity). The petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to re-determine and grant the compensation to the petitioners under the Act of 2013. The petitioners also seek a direction to the respondents to ensure the rehabilitation and resettlement of the petitioners under the Act of 2013. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the petition are stated thus:- The land in survey Nos.44 and 403 of mouza Kinhi was owned by Shankarrao Daulatkar. It is the case of the petitioners that there was a partition in the family and land survey No.44 was partitioned between the petitioner no.1 and his two brothers Jaikant and Prashant and land survey no.403 was partitioned between the ...
Shaikh Jabbar Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-22-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant [original accused], challenging the judgment and order dated 07.05.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Beed in Sessions Case No. 1/2011, thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer one month rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution case, in brief, is as under: 2. Mr. Pathan Rahimkhan Sherkhan, resident of Mominpura, Beed, lodged a report to the P.S.O. of Peth Beed Police Station orally that, he is having business of brick kiln. There is one small well near brick kiln. He has gone near well and saw dead body of Sk. Raju son of his labourer Sk. Jabbar Sk. Sattar, floating in well water. Accordingly, his report was reduced into writing and thereupon case of accidental death bearing No. 23/2010, under Section 174 of Criminal Procedure Code was registered by P.S.O. of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »