Mumbai Court July 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.
Glorio Rosario Furtado, (Deceased) Through Legal Heirs: and Others Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-10-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri D. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Shri R. G. Ramani, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent nos. 3(c), (i) and (j). 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, waives service. 3. I have extensively heard Mr. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Shri R. G. Ramani, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent nos. 3(c), (i) and (j). 4. The main grievance of Shri Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, is that the learned Executing Court whilst passing the impugned Order has proceeded to examine the veracity of the Decree passed by the learned Judge whilst disposing of the suit filed by the Petitioners whereby, inter alia, the learned Judge directed the removal of the encroachment in an area of 765 square metres of the disputed property. 5. It is the contention of Shri R. G. Ramani, learned Counsel appearing for the respectiv...
Hanumant and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-09-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Accused Hanumant s/o Yadavrao Pund was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Jalna on 21.11.2000 in Special Case No. 21 of 1994. By the said judgment and order of conviction, accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.250/-, in default of payment of fine further to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. He was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.250/-, in default of payment of fine further to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. Hence, this appeal. 2. The present appeal was admitted on 20.12.2000 and the appellant was released on bail. During the pendency of the present appeal, accused Hanumant Yadavrao Pund exp...
Abdul Chapparban Vs. State
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-09-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. Shri Amonkar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service on behalf of the respondent. 3. Heard finally with consent. 4. By this petition, the petitioner/ accused is challenging the order dated 30/04/2015, passed by the President, Children's Court at Panaji, whereby the President, Children's Court has refused to recall the prosecution witnesses PW1 and PW2. 5. The brief facts are that the petitioner is facing prosecution for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (I.P.C., for short) read with Section 8 of the Goa Children's Act, 2003 and Section 5(n) of Protection of Children from Sexual offence Act, 2012, before the Children's Court at Panjim. 6. According to the prosecution, the petitioner was staying along with the mother of the victim. The victim girl is said to be 11 years old. As per the complaint dated 26/02/2013, lodged by the complainant PW1 Roshan, who is the mother of the ...
Dinesh Vs. The State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary, Home ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-09-2015
A.I.S. Cheema, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of counsel for both sides. 2. This matter relates to externment order passed against the petitioner. 3. According to the petitioner, respondent No.2 Police Inspector, Amalner Police Station submitted proposal (Exhibit A), dated 12.3.2014 to respondent No.3 Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Amalner Division under Section 156(1)(b) of the Bombay Police Act (now “ The Maharashtra Police act). The respondent N.3 Sub-Divisional Police Officer was appointed as Enquiry Officer, who recorded evidence and submitted the enquiry report. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Amalner passed the impugned order of externment. Petitioner claims that, the petitioner runs a pan stall and soda water shop near Dagadi Darwaja vicinity at Amalner and has a family to maintain. There are no complaints from the residents of the locality. It is averred that, respondent No.3 had issued notice under section 56(1) (Exhibit C) ...
The Executive Engineer, Medium Project Division Jalgaon and Another Vs ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-09-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. All these petitions have been admitted by order dated 06/12/1995. An ad-interim stay was granted to the back wages. The statement of the petitioners was recorded that the respondents were already reinstated in service by the petitioners. 3. Since the petitioner is the same in these 4 petitions and an identical question has been raised by the petitioners, I have heard these 4 petitions together. 4. Mr.D.R.Shelke, learned Advocate initially sought an adjournment which I have declined in the light of the order dated 13/3/2015 passed in C.A.Nos.2904/2015, 2911/2015, 2912/2015 and 2924/2015. 5. The petitioners have strenuously criticized the impugned judgment dated 02/11/1993 delivered by the Labour Court in Ref. (IDA) No. 30/1991, 19/1989, 44/1989 and 16/1989 respectively. 6. He submits that the burden of proving 240 days in continuous employment is cast upon the workmen. They have fa...
The Ahmednagar Municipal Council Ahmednagar Vs. Pandit Rambhau Ausarka ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-09-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. All these petitions have been Admitted by an order passed by this Court on 18/02/2003 which reads as under: Heard Shri S.B.Deshmukh, learned Advocate for the petitioners and Shri Shelke, for respondents 1, 2 and 5. 2. The only point which is raised in these petitions is, whether the Industrial Court can review its final order, by exercising powers under section 30 sub-section (2) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. 3. The Industrial Court, on December 30, 1994 disposed of five complaints filed by the employees working with the petitioner-Municipal Council. After dismissal of the complaints i.e. after lapse of two years i.e. on July 10, 1996, the respondents filed Review Application, seeking review of the orders dated 30th December, 1994 on the ground that while passing of the order, the Industrial Court has not considered the effect of the Standing Orders and the settlement arrived at between the employee...
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Through Its Divisional C ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-09-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. This petition was admitted by this Court on 26/06/1997 and the payment of back wages as granted by the Industrial Court by judgment dated 16/08/1996 in Revision (ULP) No.499/1992 filed by the respondent / employee, was stayed. 2. Having heard the learned Advocates for quite some time, a short point is raised for the consideration of this Court. It is noteworthy that the respondent/employee has been reinstated in service, has retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation and has been paid all the retiral benefits inclusive of provident fund, gratuity etc. 3. The respondent had questioned his dismissal from service dated 20/09/1984 on account of proved misconduct. His first appeal and second appeal were rejected. During the pendency of the Complaint (ULP) No.27/1987, the respondent / original complainant filed a purshis containing a condition that if he is reinstated in employment with continuity of service, he was ready to give up all back wages. Vide ...
Avinash Cabral and Others Vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Bombay ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-09-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. Mr. Rivakar, learned Public Prosecutor waives service on behalf of respondents no.1 and 2.and Mr. Shet waives service on behalf of respondent nos. 3 and 4. 3. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 4. By this petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioners who are the accused in Session Case No. 22/2015 pending on the file of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, North Goa at Panaji are seeking quashing of the charge sheet/proceedings. 5. The prosecution case as per the complaint filed by the respondent no.3, who is the wife of the respondent no.4/victim on 16/10/2014, is that on 16/10/2014 at about 17.00 hours when the respondent no.4 was standing near the truck at the fish market, he was assaulted by the petitioner no.1 by a hockey stick/iron rod on his leg and other parts of his body. It is stated that the petitioners no. 2 and 3 had caught hold of the shirt of respondent no.4. On the basis of complaint lodged by r...
Bhimrao Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through C.B.I. Nagpur
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-09-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Being dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction, passed by the learned Special Judge, Jalna, dated 17.10.2000, in Special Case No. 15 of 1996, by which the appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and consequent sentence to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month for the conviction under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act; and rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month for the conviction under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the appellant is before this court. 2. The prosecution case in nut shell is as under : At the relevant time, appellant was Senior Telecom Assistant in the office of Sub-Divisional Engineer (Rural), Jalna. Shaikh Ilahi Khaja Miya (PW 3), a student...
Jyoti Purushhottam Tembhurne Vs. Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur and O ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-09-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners herein take exception to the order dated 22-4-2014 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division Nagpur in proceedings under Section 145(1“A) of the Maharashtra Gram Panchayat Act, 1958 (in short the said Act). By said order, Gram Panchayat Kholmara has been dissolved as more than half of the total posts of member of the Gram Panchayat have become vacant. 3. In the General Elections for electing the members of the Gram Panchayat that were held on 21-10-2012, seven members were duly elected. Subsequently, the present petitioner No.1 was elected as the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. The post of Sarpanch was reserved for woman belonging to the Scheduled Caste category. On 28-10-2013, five out of seven members tendered their resignation from the post of member and thereafter in the monthly meeting of the Gram Panchayat, the resignations were accepted on 22-11-20...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »