Mumbai Court August 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.
Sadashiv Govind Nadgire and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-2015
1. The appellants were prosecuted on the allegation of having committed offences punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 498A of the IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC. The learned Sessions Judge, Solapur, after holding a trial, held them guilty of the said offences. He sentenced each of the appellants to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, with respect to the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC, and to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, with respect to the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC. The appellants, being aggrieved by the said order of conviction and the sentences imposed upon them, have approached this court by filing the present appeal. 2. The prosecution of the appellants had occasioned by the unnatural death of Ujwala, wife of appellant no.1 Sadashiv Nadgire. Appellant no.2 Vatsa...
M/s. Nestle India Limited Vs. The Food Safety and Standards Authority ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-2015
V.M. Kanade, J. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent of parties, Petition is taken up for final hearing. CHALLENGE: 3. Petitioner “ Company is seeking an appropriate writ, order and direction for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer “ Respondent No.2 herein dated 05/06/2015 whereby Petitioner was directed to stop manufacture, sale and distribution etc of nine types of variants of noodles manufactured by them and also gave other directions by the impugned order which is at Exhibit-A to the Petition. Petitioner is also challenging the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Food Safety, State of Maharashtra “ Respondent No. 4 which is at Exhibit-B. 4. Petitioner has challenged these two impugned orders principally on the following five grounds:- (i) Firstly, it was contended that the said two impugned orders have been passed in complete violation of principles of natural ju...
M/s. P.N. Writer and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Mesuka Engineering Co. Pvt ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-2015
1. By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short Arbitration Act?), the petitioner has impugned part of the arbitral award dated 13th February, 2012 read with corrigendum dated 3rd March, 2012, allowing some of the claims made by the respondent and rejecting the counter claims made by the petitioner. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under: 2. The petitioner was the original respondent and the respondent herein was the original claimant in the arbitral proceedings. 3. The petitioner through its architect M/s.Belliappa and Associates invited tenders for the work of extension of the warehouse of the petitioner at Vandalur, Tamil Nadu. The respondent submitted its tender for the said work and subsequently revised its offer for the value of Rs.2,12,45,500/-. The petitioner by its letter dated 3rd July, 2006 accepted the said offer of the respondent for Rs.2,12,45,500/-. The stipulated date of comme...
Asha Sanjay Padhye and Another Vs. Sanjay Muralidhar Padhye and Anothe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-2015
P.C. 1. Rule. By consent of the parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. The Writ Petitions are directed against one and the same impugned order dated 25.3.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur, enhancing the amount of maintenance of the petitioner/wife and the son. These are the two Writ Petitions filed by the wife and the husband and hence, hereafter for the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their marital status i.e., husband and wife. 3. The marriage of the parties was dissolved by order dated 5.10.2012 passed by the C.J.S.D, Kolhapur. Thereafter, the wife and the minor son filed application for maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code in Miscellaneous Application No.892 of 2014 which was decided by order dated 29.1.2013 by learned JMFC, Kolhapur, by which the learned JMFC had directed the husband to pay Rs.1,000/- to wife and Rs.1,500/- to the son as maintenance per month from 24.12.2004. Being aggr...
Punj Lloyd Ltd. Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-2015
1. By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner has impugned the arbitral award 28th April, 2011 passed by the learned arbitrator rejecting part of the claims made by the petitioner towards reimbursement of the service tax w.e.f. 16th June, 2005 with interest. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:- 2. The petitioner herein was the original claimant whereas the respondent herein was the original respondent in the arbitral proceedings. Sometimes in the month of January 2005 M/s. Engineers India Ltd. who had been appointed as Project Management Consultant for implementation of the project of the respondent, invited sealed bids for laying of pipeline and associated works under Single Stage II Envelope system from competent agencies with sound technical and financial capabilities and meeting the qualification criteria. 3. On 28th February, 2005 in the Finance Bill 2005, the Finance Minister...
Prashant Raj Vs. Arunabh Kumar and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-2015
1. The plaintiff and defendant No.1 were friends and became business associates initially in the sole proprietary concern of defendant No.1 who was later to incorporate and has incorporated defendant No.3 for the purpose of carrying on what is stated to be a technology startup?. The sole proprietor of defendant No.1 (defendant) is essentially the contesting party. The defendant creates media content in various platforms like Internet, You Tube, T.V., Radio, Films etc. The plaintiff claims to have been initially appointed to provide various services to the defendant for creation of media content and related activities for which the defendant was to compensate the plaintiff as per certain oral agreement which came to be accepted and incorporated in certain emails between the parties and in terms of which the plaintiff seeks to be paid/compensated. 2. The plaintiff sought declaration that the oral agreement between the parties dated 20.09.2012 is valid and subsisting, for specific perform...
New Bombay Advocates Welfare Association, through its President and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-2015
Oral Judgment : (Per A.S. Oka,J) INTRODUCTION 1. These three Petitions have been filed inviting the attention of this Court to the gross delay on the part of the State Government in commencing and completing the construction of Court buildings. The Public Interest Litigation No.239 of 2009 concerns construction of a Court building and Judicial Quarters at Navi Mumbai in Taluka and District Thane. The Public Interest Litigation No.10 of 2008 concerns the grievance about the gross delay involved in the commencement of construction and completion of a Court building as well as judicial quarters at Panvel in District Raigad. The Writ Petition No.1501 of 2012 contains a grievance regarding failure of the State Government to commence and complete the construction of District Court Building at Ahamednagar within a reasonable time. In these three Petitions, from court-infrastructure time to time, various directions have been issued by this Court. It is really unfortunate that the Members of th...
Dr. Anil Vs. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Health Depar ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-13-2015
A.B. Chaudhari, J. 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner Dr. Anil Dhage, a Dentist, has put to challenge judgment and order dated 24.12.2001 in Original Application No.558/2000, inter alia, by which the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) held that the ad hoc employee-petitioner was replaced by a bonded candidate namely; respondent no.5-Dr.Sandip Gujar on 09.04.2001 and, therefore, the Original Application did not survive and was disposed of. FACTS: 2. The petitioner, being a qualified Dental Surgeon, was appointed by Dean, Medical College, Nagpur on 12.06.1998, pursuant to his selection on 19.08.1997 as Dental Surgeon in the pay scale of Rs.2200-4000/-. But before that he had worked and the total period of his service till 29.08.2000 is as shown below, which is supported by the appointment orders produced by the petitioner from Annexures E to E11. Date of appointmentPeriodWorking days15/10/199615/10/1996 to 12/11/962927/11/199615/11/1996 to 14/12/1996296/1/199716/12/19...
Amanulla Khan Vs. State of Maharashtra, Department of Law and Judiciar ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-13-2015
S.V. Gangapurwala, J. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. The petitioner assails the letter dated 30.10.2014, so also Government Resolution dated 8.3.2013, to the extent it excludes the employee i.e. Assistant Superintendent of Civil Court (S.D.) from benefits of recommendation of Justice Shetty Commission, so also the order directing refixation of the pay of the petitioner and the recovery claimed. 4. Mr.Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was earlier working as Senior Clerk, thereafter he was promoted to the post of Assistant Superintendent with effect from 10.2.2001. On 1.6.2003, the petitioner was transferred to Civil Judge (J.D.), Ahmedpur. Thereafter on 1.8.2003, the petitioner was transferred as Assistant Superintendent to the Civil Judge (S.D.), Ahmedpur. The benefits of Justice Shetty Commission were extended to the petitioner and the petitioner was ...
The State of Maharashtra, Through Executive Engineer, Ghatghar Pumped ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-13-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. These petitions were admitted by order dated 25.8.2005 and this Court granted interim relief to the petitioner in terms of prayer clause (C), which reads as under:- (C) Pending hearing and final disposal of the Writ Petition, the impugned judgment and order dated 12.4.2005 passed by the learned Judge, II Labour Court, Ahmednagar in Reference (IDA) No.16 of 2001, may kindly be stayed.? This relief has been identically sought in all the above mentioned petitions. The said relief was, therefore, granted to the petitioners in all these petitions. 2. The petitioners are the same in all these petitions. The respondents are identically placed workmen. Since a common issue and common point of law is involved, I have taken up all these petitions together for hearing. 3. By a common order, dated 10.7.2009, delivered by this Court in Civil Application No.452 of 2008 and connected Civil Applications, in which all these respondents were applicants, this Court has granted the benef...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »