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.
Jarnail Singh and Another Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Transmissi ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-03-2015
S.B. Shukre, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated 13.5.2011 passed by the District Magistrate, Nagpur in Case No.9/MRC-11/2009-10 thereby granting permission to respondent No.1 to continue with the work of the electricity transmission line from Koradi to Wardha Power Grid, which passes through the land of the petitioner. In doing so, the petitioners have also challenged the entire action of respondent No.1 in laying the transmission line as being arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. The petitioners have also challenged the validity of Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as EA, 2003? for the sake of convenience), the Govt. Resolution dated 24.8.2006, first proviso to Rule 3(1) and Rule 3(4) of the Works of Licenses Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as Rules, 2006? for the sake of convenience) framed under the EA, 2003 as according to the petitioners these provisions violate their fundam...
Shree Changdeo Sugar Mills Ltd. and Others Vs. Rama Bahurao Gangule an ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-01-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. On 16.7.2015, I had passed the following order: 1. Shri Shahane, learned Advocate submits that he was appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 34 in Writ Petition No. 2965 of 1998 and for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.2403 of 1998. Shri K.B.Borde, learned Advocate now appears for the said respondents / petitioners respectively.. He, therefore, prays for discharge. Shri Borde confirms his appearance. As such, the appearance of Shri Shahane is discharged. 2. Both these petitions have been admitted. 3. Shri Patil, learned Advocate along with Shri Navandar has commenced his submissions. During the course of his submissions, he has indicated that the dispute as regards distribution of monetary dues is concerned, the Apex Court by its order dated 21.3.1988 and subsequent orders delivered in Writ Petition No.575 of 1986 with Special Leave Petition No.4712 of 1986 has observed and directed as under:- In the writ petition there were two prayers: One was for a direction...
Atul Nathuram Naiknawade Vs. The Secretary, Smt. Bhagiratibai Late Hig ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-01-2015
Oral Judgment:- 1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective sides. 2. Rule. 3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal. 4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dated 24.7.2012, delivered by the School Tribunal in Appeal No. 8 of 2012, by which the petitioner's challenge to the alleged termination dated 3.11.2010 has been rejected. 5. The petitioner submits that though the resignation dated 3.11.2010 has been written in his own handwriting, no sanctity needs to be attached to the same as the relevant provisions under Section 7 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Act, 1977 (the MEPS Act? for short) and Rule 40 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (MEPS Rules? for short) make it mandatory for the employer to accept a resignation only after the lapse of three months, which is the notice period. He further adds that a non-perma...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›