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 Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. and Another Vs. Satish Dattatraya Gosav ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-28-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. At the very outset, the learned Advocates submit that they have no objection if this Court hears these petitions. 2. Both these petitions were admitted by the orders dated 15.09.1994 and 20.10.1994. Interim relief in terms of prayer clause (F) was granted in the first petition which was preferred by the Management. As a consequence, the impugned judgment of the Industrial Court dated 10.08.1994 in Revision (ULP) No.11/1992 has been stayed. Consequentially, the Workman has not been reinstated. 3. Both these petitions are in relation to the same litigating sides. For clarity, they shall be referred to as the Management and the Workman in this judgment. 4. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective sides at length, I am not adverting to all of their submissions and contentions, since I am remanding Complaint (ULP) No.71/1990 to the Second Labour Court at Ahmednagar. 5. It is undisputed that the Workman was charged for having assaulted an officer with...
Rajendra A. Haldankar Vs. State of Goa, through Chief Secretary, Secre ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-28-2015
K.L. Wadane, J. 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard forthwith by consent. Learned Counsel for the respondents waive service. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the entire selection/recruitment process and selection of the respondent no.5 to the post of Deputy Director(Fire Services). 2. On 14.6.2013, the Goa Public Service Commission had issued an advertisement for the post of Deputy Director (Fire Service). Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner and the respondent no. 5 applied for the post. Petitioner's service conditions are governed by Goa General Services, Directorate of Fire and Emergency Services, Group A? Gazetted Post Recruitment Rules, 2006. 3. On 18.12.2013 the Selection Committee/Interview Committee of the Goa Public Service Commission held the interview of the petitioner as also of the respondent no. 5 namely Nitin Raikar. From the official website of the Goa Public Service Commission, it was revealed that the respondent...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Annasaheb Mahadev Bhandare
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-2015
1. The respondent was prosecuted on the allegation of having committed the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'P.C.Act'). After holding a trial, the learned Special Judge, Kolhapur, by his judgment and order dated 29th September 1999 held the respondent not guilty and acquitted him. The State of Maharashtra is aggrieved by the said order of acquittal, and has therefore, after obtaining the leave of this court, filed the present appeal challenging the same. 2. I have heard Mr.Deepak Thakre, the learned APP for the State. I have heard Mr.Niranjan Mundargi, the learned counsel for the respondent. With their assistance, I have gone through the evidence adduced during the trial and the impugned judgment. 3. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the respondent shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the accused.' 4. The prosecution case, as put forth before the trial court, in brie...
Chandrakant Bapu Nawale Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-2015
A.S. Gadkari, J. 1. The Appellant, original accused has impugned the judgment and order dated 4th March, 1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri in Sessions Case No.33 of 1995 thereby convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing to suffer life imprisonment. The Appellant was further directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to Smt. Kalpana Kashinath Nawale, widow of the deceased (Kashinath Keshav Nawale) and her children. 2. The facts which can be enumerated from the record and are necessary to decide the present Appeal can briefly be stated thus:- i) That the deceased Kashinath Keshav Nawale was the resident of Kalakawadi, Taluka Rajapar, District Ratnagiri. He used to reside with his wife Kalpana, two sons and a daughter. Few days prior to Ganesh immersion of the year 1994, the Appellant had come from Mumbai to Kalakawadi. The Appellant was working in a tailoring shop of Mr. Vasant Nawale, the real broth...
Union of India Vs. M/s. Indusind Bank Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-2015
1. The plaintiff has sued for recovery of Rs.11.02 Cr with interest thereon @ 24% p.a. as per Exhibit K to the plaint. The suit is filed upon invocation of a bank guarantee. The bank guarantee has been given to the plaintiff by defendant No.1 in respect of custom duty payable by defendant No.4. Certain custom duty was levied. The bank guarantee was invoked. That amount was paid. Later there was a second invocation of the same bank guarantee. The defendants obtained an attorney's opinion based upon the invocation and refused to honour that invocation. 2. The real issue between the parties is only whether in a continuing bank guarantee a second or subsequent invocations can be legally made or whether upon the first invocation being honoured the bank guarantee would come to an end. 3. The execution of the bank guarantee and the invocations have been admitted. Hence the parties wisely did not desire to lead oral evidence. There was none to lead. The documentary evidence between the parties...
The Official Liquidator of M/s. Sumeet Machines Ltd. Vs. M/s. Navdeep ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-2015
1. The suit is filed for specific performance of an agreement between the parties dated 27.02.1987 and for other incidental reliefs under the said agreement. The original plaintiff had to pay the defendants Rs.41 lacs, Rs.69 lacs and Rs.25 lacs aggregating Rs.1.35 Cr. The original plaintiff has averred in para 5 of the plaint and the original plaintiff paid the defendants Rs.41 lacs and Rs.69 lacs which the defendants received and accepted as a part of the consideration payable under the agreement. 2. It is the original plaintiff's case that certain further amounts were payable to the defendants under the agreement in respect of construction on the suit plot of land. In para 11 of the plaint it is averred that the parties agreed that the plaintiff must make payment on behalf of the defendants to the defendants' contractor including the supplier of cement and materials and which payment would be treated as the payment made by the original plaintiff to the defendants in respect of the ba...
United India Insurance Co. Vs. Bhimrao Visahvanath Kanse and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-27-2015
1. Since both the appeals are arising out of the judgment and award dated 27th November, 2000, rendered by the Judge, 2nd Labour Court, Ahmednagar and ex officio Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, in Application (W.C.) No.23 of 1994, in favour of the respondents-claimants, they are heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. First Appeal No.93 of 2001 is preferred by the United India Insurance company - original respondent No.2, whereas First Appeal No.284 of 2001 is preferred by the vehicle owner. 2. Facts, as are necessary for the decision of these appeals, are stated thus :- Tractor bearing registration No.MH-16-A-9263 and its trolley bearing registration No.MH-16-B-8120 were owned by Uttamrao Bhaurao Kanse - present respondent No.2. The said vehicle was insured with non applicant no.2 before the Labour Court, namely, United India Insurance company. On 22nd March, 1992, one Ravan, who was working as a labour on the said vehicle and was doing the work of loadi...
Balasaheb Vs. The Rayat Sevak Co-operative Bank Ltd.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-27-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. As I advert to the contentions of the litigating sides, the undisputed aspects emerging from this case are as follows: a. The petitioner was working as a Peon? with the respondent / Bank from 2001. b. He was charged with committing a misconduct by charge sheet dated 25/03/2008. c. He submitted a detailed reply and while admitting the charges levelled upon him, tendered an apology and also deposited the amount said to have been misappropriated. d. A departmental enquiry was conducted and finally the petitioner was awarded the punishment of dismissal from service w.e.f. 03/10/2008. e. He preferred Complaint (ULP) No.14/2010 before the Labour Court for challenging his dismissal. f. By Part-I order dated 19/10/2012, the enquiry was held to be fair and proper and the findings of the Enquiry Officer were sustained. g. The Part-I order dated 19/10/2012 has not been challenged by the peti...
Taralakshmi Maneklal Thanawalla (since deceased) and Others Vs. Shanti ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-2015
1. This petition is directed against the orders 17 March 1989 and 7 October 1995 dismissing petitioners suit seeking eviction of the respondents from the suit premises i.e. gala admeasuring 37' x 10' at Station Road, Thane. 2. The petitioners are the owners of municipal house no. 17381 at Station Road, Thane. On the ground floor, there are, in all, four galas, out of which one of the galas was let out by the petitioners to Shri Shantilal Dave ('Dave') for monthly rent of Rs.22.79. On each side of the suit premises, are the galas owned and possessed by the petitioners. In the year 1974, Shantilal Makanji Dave assigned tenancy rights in respect of the suit premises to Prabhulal Khimji Thakkar ('Thakkar'). This led to the petitioner instituting a suit against Dave and Thakkar alleging unlawful assignment. The suit was however dismissed. On the basis of evidence led in the present proceedings as well as the statement made by the petitioner before the appeal Court, it is safe to proceed upo...
Bhagwan Chintaman Thakre Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard rival arguments on this application, in this appeal challenging the acquittal of appellant-original accused no.1. Earlier the appellant had preferred the appeal through jail as through out he was in custody since the day of his arrest i.e. from 13th December 2010. Learned appointed counsel was engaged to represent him in the present appeal. On the earlier date the appointed counsel submitted that she has instructions to withdraw from the matter as the appellant wanted to argue himself before the Court. On this appellant was directed to be brought before the court from concerned jail. On earlier date he was brought before the Court. Today he again changed his mind and stated that the earlier appointed counsel will continue to define his case and as such the matter is taken for final hearing. 2. The appellant accused no.1 is convicted for the offences punishable under sections 376,306,342,323,504 and 506 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. For the major off...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »