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.
M/s. NRB Bearings Limited Vs. Alisab Bapusab Shaikh and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-29-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Rule. 3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal. 4. I have considered the submissions of Shri Dankh, Shri Sarvadnya and Shri Waikos. Issue involved is as regards the order of transfer issued to respondent No.1 workman which is challenged in Complaint (ULP) No. 56 of 2015. Application Exhibit U-2 has already been rejected by the Industrial Court, Jalna. 5. Shri Dankh makes a statement that the first respondent has already been allotted work in the factory premises of the petitioner and is working pursuant to the impugned order dated 8.7.2015, passed by the Industrial Court below Exhibit U-10, which was filed by the workman for seeking urgent orders under Section 30(2) of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971. 6. While issuing notice to the respondents, I have considered the facts of this case, which are as under:- (a) The petitioner assails the order dated 08/07/2015 delivered by the Industrial Court, Jalna below a...
Rajbahaddur Jiyaram Yadav Vs. Prakash @ Pappu Jiyaram Yadav and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-29-2015
Per Court: 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 5.5.2015, delivered by the trial Court, below Exhibit 89 in Special Civil Suit No.24 of 2011, which has resulted in the rejection of an application seeking amendment to the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC?). 2. The petitioner contends that Special Civil Suit No.24 of 2011 has been filed for seeking declaration, partition, separate possession and perpetual injunction. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the original defendants, who are real brothers of the petitioner / plaintiff. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are the real sisters of the petitioner. 3. The father of the petitioner, who originally hails from Jaunpur, in Uttar Pradesh has migrated to Shrirampur in 1972, where he has started his business. 4. In the suit preferred by the petitioner, defendant Nos.3 and 6 have not caused an appearance despite service and hence the suit has proceeded ex parte against these two defendants by order dated 11.10.2011. D...
Balasaheb Ramchandra Burke and Others Vs. The President, Bahujan Samaj ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-29-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Rule. 3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal. 4. These matters were heard on 15.7.2015 and thereafter on 29.7.2015. 5. All the petitioners claim to be the employees of the same respondent / management. All of them have been orally terminated on 15.7.2008. They are identically situated and the issue involved is identical. Respondent / management is the same. It is in these circumstances that I have heard these petitions together. 6. The contentions of the petitioners can be summarized as follows:- (a) In 1991, the respondent Management has started the Secondary School at Padalane, Tq. Akole, Dist. Ahmednagar. The school was recognized on non grant basis. (b) In 1995, the respondent Management had transferred respondent No. 3 School from village Padalane to village Kotul without prior permission of respondent No.4. (c) Respondent No.4 had cancelled the recognition of the School since the Management had ...
Pallavi Shriram Disle Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-29-2015
1. Heard. 2. Rule. 3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal. 4. Shri Gude, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that a false charge was levelled upon the petitioner and based on the same, the charges set out in the charge sheet dated 10.6.2010 are held to be proved. A second show cause notice, along with the Enquiry Officer's report, proposing the punishment of dismissal from service was served upon the petitioner. 5. The petitioner, therefore, filed Complaint (ULP) No. 58 of 2010 before the Labour Court, Latur under Section 28(1) read with items 1(a), (b), (d) and (f) of Schedule IV of the the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (the said Act?). An application for interim relief under Section 30(2) of the said Act was filed. By the order dated 11.1.2012, the Labour Court allowed the interim application Exhibit U-2 and stayed the second show cause notice, dated 29.11.2...
Selvaraj Johnson Rodrigo Vs. C.B.I (ACB), Mumbai and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-2015
1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22nd January 2010 passed by the Special Judge, Mumbai in Special case No.17 of 2003, convicting the appellant, who was the accused in the said case, of offences punishable under sections 7 and section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the P.C.Act'). 2. By the said judgment and order, the learned Special Judge sentenced the appellant to suffer RI for 6(six) months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/- in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 1(one) month with respect to the offence punishable under section 7 of the P.C. Act and to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 1(one) year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/- in default to suffer RI for 1(one) year with respect to the offence punishable under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act. The learned Judge directed that the substantive sentences would run concurrently. 3. The allegation against the appellant, as l...
Jency Leocadia Costa e Pereira and Others Vs. Aleixinho Fernandes (dec ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-28-2015
1. By this appeal, the appellants- original plaintiffs are challenging the judgment and order dated 20/12/2014 passed by the learned District Judge, South Goa, in Regular Civil Appeal No.68/2003, thereby confirming the dismissal of the Regular Civil Suit No.31/01/III by the learned Adhoc Senior Civil Judge, Margao. 2. On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I find that the following substantial questions of law arise in the appeal: (i) Whether the Civil Court would have jurisdiction to entertain a suit for declaring the orders passed by the Mamlatdar under the Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkar (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975 (the said Act) as null and void? (ii) Whether Section 31(2) of the said Act would bar jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain any suit, seeking a declaration that the orders passed by the Mamlatdar (or other authorities under the said Act) be declared as null and void? 3. The parties were put to notice about the aforesaid substantial questions of law. Th...
M/s. Pernod Ricard India P. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-2015
B.P. Colabawalla J. 1. Rule. By consent of parties, rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. The Petitioner Company is in the business of manufacturing, selling and importing various types of alcoholic beverages including established international brands such as Jacob's Creek?. It is a Private Limited Company and is an ultimate subsidiary of Pernod Ricard S.A. of France, the world's co-leader in wines and spirits. 3. The Petitioner, by way of the present Petition, seeks an issuance of an appropriate writ for release of its wine products by the brand name of Jacob's Creek, and more particularly described in Exh. ˜E™ to the Petition. These wine products are currently withheld by the Port Authorities - Respondent No.3 (Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva Port, Mumbai) on the ground that Respondent No.2 (Food Safety and Standards Authority of India) (FSSAI) has refused to issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) with respect to these wine products that are imported b...
Bharamgouda Adgouda Patil, since deceased through his legal heirs and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-2015
P.C. : 1. The appeal challenges an order passed by Company Law Board ('CLB') rejecting a petition of the Appellants under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 (˜the Act™). 2. The Appellants between them claim to hold about 46.71% share of the first Respondent company. The first Respondent company is claimed to be in the nature of a quasipartner-ship. The grievance of the Appellants in the petition is this: The predecessor of Appellant Nos.3 to 7, late Shankarrao Mahadeo Bidkar, was a member of the first Respondent company during his lifetime, holding 671 shares in the company, and also the Chairman of its Board of Directors. The late Shankarrao Bidkar was ill since December 2002 and could not effectively contribute to the business activities of the company and as a result, Appellant No.3 was appointed as a director on or about 15 June 2003. Shankarrao expired on 20 January 2005. After the death of Shankarrao, when his legal heirs started making inquiries about th...
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs. M/s. Offshore Infrastructu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-2015
1. By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Arbitration Act?), the petitioner has impugned the arbitral award dated 21st February, 2012, thereby allowing claim nos.1 to 4 and interest thereon made by the respondent. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under: 2. The respondent herein was the original claimant, whereas the petitioner herein was the original respondent to the arbitral proceedings. 3. The petitioner had undertaken the Mundra Delhi Pipeline Project, at the estimated cost of Rs.1623.00 crores. The petitioner appointed M/s.Engineers India Limited as the project consultant, who invited single public tender for composite works (mechanical, electrical and instrumentation) for terminals and stations at Awa, Ajmer and Jaipur vide bidding document No.654/T-159/05-06/VKG/07 under two bid system. The respondent emerged as the lowest bidder. 4. On 7th July, 2006, the petitioner issued a...
Niwas Keshav Raut Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-2015
1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 2. By this petition, the petitioner, who is an accused facing prosecution for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of Indian Penal Code, prays for quashing and setting aside of the order dated 17.10.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Satara, allowing the application vide Ex.27 of the prosecution for filing of one document, a chit, alleged to be under the hand writing of deceased Savita, during the course of evidence of prosecution witness P.W.1 Ramesh Shinde. 3. It so happened that on 22.9.2014, P.W.1 Ramesh Shinde was being examined as a prosecution witness by the prosecution, when at the close of his examination-in-chief, P.W.1 Ramesh Shinde deposed before the Court that on last Saturday, i.e. on or about 20.9.2014, he discovered one chit from the case of spectacles of deceased Savita and on reading its contents, he found that the contents furnished some proof in support of the prosecutio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »