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 Indian Express Limited Vs. P.P. Kothari and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-15-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. By the present writ petition the Award dated 28.02.1996 passed by the learned Judge of the Labour Court, Akola in reference proceedings under Section 17(2) of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (for short the said Act) is under challenge by the petitioner. During pendency of the writ petition the original applicant “ claimant expired and his legal representatives have been brought on record. 2. According to the original applicant, he was initially working as a Part Time Correspondent with Indian Express Newspaper (Bombay) Private Limited. According to the applicant, he was supplying news item for being published in daily Indian Express? and daily Loksatta?. This arrangement between the parties however, came to be terminated on 31.07.1980. Thereafter, on 21.08.1980 the predecessor of the petitioners engaged the original applicant as a stringer on linage basis. Accordingly, agreement...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Abdul Gafar and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-15-2015
1. The appeal is filed against the judgment and order of WCA No.5 of 1994 which was pending before the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Jalgaon. In the proceeding filed by present Respondent Nos.1 to 3, for compensation in respect of death of son of Respondent Nos.1 and 2, the Commissioner has given direction to pay Rs.60,278/- with interest. Only the insurance company has challenged the decision. Both the sides are heard. 2. This Court had admitted the appeal on 15th March, 2000 but the substantial questions of law involved in the matter were not formulated. On the basis of submissions made, this Court expressed that the following points will be considered and decided. (i) Whether there is material to prove that the deceased was in the employment of Respondent No.4 Pramod Ghodke and he died while discharging his duties, during the course of the employment? (ii) Whether there was material to hold that the deceased was earning monthly Rs.700/-? 3. It is the case of ...
Yeshwant Laxman Pai Raikar and Another Vs. Laxman V. Singbal and Other ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-12-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri A. Nachinolkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri V.P. Thali, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith, with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waives service. 3. The above petition takes exception to an order dated 11th December, 2014 whereby an application filed by the petitioners to lead secondary evidence came to be dismissed. 4. Shri Nachinolkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has pointed out that the suit filed by the respondents is for specific performance of an agreement and the case of the petitioners, inter alia, is that the agreement which is sought to be relied upon by the respondents is a sham agreement and that such an agreement was executed for a specific purpose. The learned Counsel further points out that in support of their defence, the petitioners have also relied upon a document which is styled as Addendum to the Agreement da...
Felix Agnel Rodrigues and Others Vs. State of Goa, through the Chief S ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-11-2015
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Mr. J. Lobo, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Amogh Prabhudessai, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 and 4, Mr. Anthony D'Silva, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.2, Mr. Ashwin D. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.3, Mr. N. Pai, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.6 and Mr. S.S. Kantak, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.288/2015. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. The learned Counsel for the respondents waive notice. 3. The petition was heard at length. Mr. J. Lobo, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has raised three main contentions. The learned Counsel has pointed out that on the garb of an order passed by this Court whilst disposing of Writ Petition No.288/2015, the respondents have colluded themselves to drain the water from the...
The State of Maharashtra and Others Vs. Namdeo
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-11-2015
Oral Judgment: (Vasanti A Naik, J.) 1. Since the issues involved in First Appeal No.651 of 1994 and Cross Objection No.2 of 2015 are identical and the correctness of the judgment of the reference Court is questioned in both, they are heard together and are decided by this common judgment. 2. The land of the claimant was situated on the outskirts of village Mandwa i.e. Mandwa Shivar or Gaothan. Out of the 10 Hectares of land belonging to the claimant, 5 Hectares was acquired by the State of Maharashtra for rehabilitation of the landholders of Laighwan, by the Section 4 notification, dated 12.04.1987. The Award was passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 31.01.1990. The Special Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation to the claimant at the rate of Rs.14,500/- per Hectare. For the seven mango trees that were standing on the acquired land, the Special Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation of Rs.15,140/-. Being aggrieved by the grant of meager compensation, the claim...
Mahadeo Nivrutti Pawar Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-11-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction, dated 30.6.2000, passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Beed, in Sessions Case No. 185 of 1999, whereby the appellant is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, and consequently, sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/and in default of payment of fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months on account of his conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code; and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months on account of his conviction under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant is before this court. 2. The prosecution case is as under: On 25.6.1999, the appellant informed to police station, Beed that his wife Sangita committed suicide by hangin...
Shree Hanuman Vyayam Prasarak Mandal, through its Honorary General Sec ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-11-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 29.11.2005 passed by the respondent no.1, thereby imposing damages under provisions of Section 14B and also levying interest under provisions of Section 7Q of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, (for short the said Act). 2. The facts relevant for considering the challenge as raised in the writ petition is that the petitioner no.2 is duly covered under provisions of said Act and it was liable to pay provident fund contribution in terms of said Act. For the period from June 1992 till February 2001 there was a failure on the part of the petitioners to pay the provident fund contribution within the stipulated time. Hence. On 28.06.2005 a show cause notice came to be issued by the respondent no.1 calling upon the petitioner no.2 to appear before the said authority and to show cause as to why the damages should not be imposed...
Pandhari and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-11-2015
1. By the present Appeal, appellants are questioning the correctness of the Judgment and Order of conviction passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Latur dated 26/04/2000 in Sessions Case No. 56/1998. By the said, appellant No. 1 Pandhari S/o Bhaguram Waghmare is convicted for the offence punishable u/s 326 of the Indian Penal Code and was directed to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- [Rupees One Thousand] and in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two months. Learned trial Court also convicted appellant No. 2 Pushpa D/o Pandhari Waghmare for the said offence, however, directed that she should suffer Simple Imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- [Rupees One Thousand] and in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month. It is directed in the said order that if the fine amount is recovered from the accused, complainant Vilas Waghmare be paid the compensation of Rs. 1,000/- [Rupees One Thousand]. 2. Appellants we...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Devidas Kishanrao More and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-11-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Appeal is filed by the State, challenging the Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 20.01.1996 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani in Sessions Case No.136/1995, thereby acquitting the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 [Original Accused Nos. 1 to 3] for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code, and also acquitting the respondent No.3 [original accused no. 3] namely Shivaji for the offence punishable under section 177 of I.P. Code. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under: 2. It is the case of the prosecution that, accused “ Shivaji and accused Devidas had forcibly administered poison to the father of the complainant namely Narayan and as a result of it, Narayan died. Accordingly, offence was registered bearing Crime No.78/1995 for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w. 34 of I.P. Code. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed, and after full-fledged trial, the trial Court acquitted the respondents. Hence, ...
United India Insurance Company Limited and Another Vs. Abdul Khalil an ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-11-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. By this appeal, the Insurance Company has challenged validity and legality of the impugned Judgment and Award delivered by the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Claim Petition No.691 of 1997 decided on 8.3.2002. 2. Briefly stated, it is the case of the appellants that the motor vehicle accident in question had occurred on 9.3.1995 when the claimant was traveling by Luxury Bus No.MH-27/A-9084 from Nagpur to Amravati. According to the claimant, the driver of the bus drove it in a rash and negligent manner endangering human life and dashed against the goods Truck No.CJ-3/@-221. The accident occurred near village Sarwadi, Tq.Karanja, District Wardha. In the result, left limb of the claimant sustained compound fracture resulting into permanent disability to the extent of 45 % affecting his efficiency to perform routine work. Compensation was claimed to the extent of Rs.93,137/-. The learned Member of the Tribunal held in the affirmative that, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »