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.
Sanjay Suryakant Mhaske and Others Vs. Zilla Parishad, Jalna Through i ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-11-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned counsel for the parties finally with consent. 2. The present petition has been moved questioning propriety, legality and validity of order dated 15-01-2015, passed by the Principal District Judge, Jalna, in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 144 of 2014, whereunder request of petitioners to transfer Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 98 of 2013 and other similar applications assigned by him to the courts of District Judge-2, Jalna and Ad-hoc District Judge-2, Jalna, to his court has been turned down. 3. While taking up the issue, succinct reference to facts giving rise to the present petition would be worthwhile. After following due process about acceptance of tenders, the petitioners were allotted works as had been referred to in the tender notices. As disputes arose amongst parties giving rise to claims by the present petitioners against Jalna Zilla Parishad, pursuant to the terms of contract, the matter went...
Pravin and Others Vs. The Vasantrao Naik Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth, ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-11-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. These Petitions have been filed with following main prayer:- C. Rule may kindly be made absolute by quashing and setting aside the impugned orders of cancellation of promotions of petitioners (Annex. L Collectively) issued by Respondent No.1 with further directions to the Respondent No.1 to reinstate all the petitioners on the posts of and in the cadre of Assistant Professors.? There are other prayers as well in the Petitions. (I) The facts leading for filing the Writ Petitions in nutshell are as under :- 3. It is the case of the petitioners that, all the Petitioners are the Members of Academic Staff of the University referred under Chapter VII of the Maharashtra Agricultural Universities (Krishi Vidyapeeths) Statutes, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the Statutes of 1990? for short), which deals with the duties of teaching, research and e...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Ram Sheshrao Pawar and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-11-2015
A.I.S. Cheema, J. 1. This is an Appeal by the State against acquittal of Respondents “ original Accused (hereafter referred as Accused No.s 1 to 5), as arrayed in the cause title). The Accused along with one Govind Vishwanath Shinde were charged with offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(g), 302, 457 read with Section 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (I.P.C.? in brief). The Accused No.6 Govind Vishwanath Shinde came to be discharged and trial was held before the Additional Sessions Judge, Latur against the Respondents “ Accused Nos. 1 to 5. 2. The case of prosecution, in brief, can be stated to be as follows: (A). Incident occurred in the night between 22nd 23rd October 1991 at Aurad Shahajani, TqNilanga, Dist-Latur. The victim (hereafter referred as S" or "Victim?), college going daughter of complainant “ Shivajirao Jadhav (hereafter referred as Jadhav?) was gangraped and murdered by pouring kerosene and setting her on fire in her kitchen situated on the...
Arjun Gopa Rathod and Another Vs. Vasant Shivramji Shinde
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-10-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Since the challenge in both these writ petitions is to the judgment dated 18.06.2014 passed by the School Tribunal, Nagpur, these writ petitions are being decided by common judgment. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. While filling the post of Head on a reserved vacancy whether an Assistant Teacher who belongs to a reserved category that is higher in the order of categories as specified in Rule 9(10)(a) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Rules, 1981 is entitled to be promoted as per the roster point despite being junior in service to an Assistant Teacher who belongs to another reserved category which is lower in the order of categories mentioned in Rule 9 (10)(a) of the Rules of 1981 is the issue that arises for consideration. 4. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner “ management in Writ Petition No.3852/2014 is running three school...
Ranjana Vishwanath Shahane Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-10-2015
Per Court: 1. Heard. 2. The contentions of Shri Totala, learned Advocate for the petitioner are as follows:- (a) The petitioner had applied for appointment of Anganwadi Sevika / Madatnis with respect to village Solnapur, Taluka Paithan, District Aurangabad. (b) She was issued with a call letter, dated 19.3.2011, by which, she was called upon to participate in the interviews scheduled on 24.3.2011. (c) By appointment order dated 28.3.2011, the petitioner was appointed as Anganwadi Madatnis on temporary basis. An objection was raised by respondent No.6, who was an unsuccessful candidate, thereby, challenging the appointment of the petitioner. (d) By order dated 6.7.2011, the Chief Executive Officer - respondent No.4 cancelled the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that she has three children, prior to her appointment. (e) The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad, praying for the quashing of the order dated 6.7.2011 passed by the fourth re...
M/s. Hotel Paras Garden and Another Vs. Central Bank of India, Balapur ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-10-2015
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. This Court has issued notice for final disposal on 29/08/2012. Accordingly, we have heard Shri Sadavarte, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Almelkar, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ghate, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 finally, by issuing Rule and making it returnable forthwith. We have also perused the orders dated 14/02/2013 and 27/06/2013 passed by us in this matter. 2. Petitioner No. 1 “ a Hotel establishment and Petitioner No. 2, its proprietor, question before this Court, recovery of loan by Respondent No. 1 “ Secured creditor in Recovery Proceedings No. 9 of 2006. The prayer is, as Bank and Recovery Officer failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Rules 48, 49, 50 and 52 of Second Schedule appended with the Income Tax Act, 1961, and did not adopt fair and proper procedure, the sale of subject property by auction, be quashed and set aside and property should be restored back to the petitioners. In ...
Lata Mohanlal Gandhi Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through its Princip ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-09-2015
R.M. Borde, J. 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Member of the Child Welfare Committee, Ahmednagar, during the period 2008 to 2011. Her tenure was extended up to April 2015. Since performance of the petitioner was found to be satisfactory, she came to be appointed as Chairperson during the next tenure i.e. for the period till April 2016. There were two members of the Committee. One Dr.Rajendra Pawar and another Mr.Preetam Bedarkar came to be appointed as Members of the Committee along with the petitioner. 3. The petitioner contends that she performed her duties honestly and to the best of her ability. She received a communication dated 30.01.2014 issued by Respondent No.5 directing her to remain present for a meeting which was convened on 31.01.2014. It is the contention of the petitioner that she caused appearance before the Assistant Commissioner, Pune on 31.01.2014...
Fayyaz Vs. The State of Maharashtra Through its Chief Secretary, Home ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-09-2015
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard both the sides for final disposal. 2. The petition is filed for issuing directions to the District Superintendent of Police to take action against respondent No. 5 - Shri. D.S. Harne (Assistant Police Inspector of Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Beed) for illegal detention of the petitioner from morning of 23.7.2013 to the evening of 24.7.2013. The relief of compensation of Rs. ten lakh is claimed in respect of this so called illegal detention. Another relief for issuing directions to take action against respondent No. 2 for illegal detention of petitioner is also claimed. It is claimed that the District Superintendent of Police also did not comply the order made by this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 900/2012 and so action needs to be taken against him. 3. It is the case of petitioner that he had some dispute of matrimonial nature with his wife - Monika alias Muskan. After about 10 years of marriage, when two issues were bo...
Manik and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-09-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. By the present appeal, the appellants are challenging their conviction and sentence as imposed upon them by the learned Special Judge (Anti Corruption), Aurangabad, dated 1.2.2000 in Special Case No. 12 of 1994. The appellants in this judgment will be referred to by their original position. Appellant no.1 Manik s/o Dajibaji Bhatkar is accused no.1 and appellant no.2 Shrimant s/o Dharma Bansode is accused no.2. By the impugned judgment and order of conviction, accused no.1 was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 12 r/w 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and he was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. Accused no.2 was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and he was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.300/-, in default to suffer rigorous...
M/s Star Scale Repairing Centre, through its Proprietor â€&ldquo ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-09-2015
R.M. Borde, J. 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. 2. Petitioners are the proprietary firms doing business of repairing of weights, measures and scales and do possess repairing licences issued by the Legal Metrology Department under the provisions of Legal Metrology Act, 2009. Petitioners are objecting to the circulars issued by the Controller of Legal Metrology, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, dated 22.10.2014 and 27.10.2014. 3 It is recorded in the circular dated 22.10.2014, that the Department issued licences under Section 28 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, in favour of repairers authorising them to repair the weights, measures and scales. The repairers are not entitled to collect fees prescribed for verification of the weights, measures and scales and deposit the amount with the Inspector. The licences issued in favour of the repairers do not contain any clause authorising them to recover verification f...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »