Mumbai Court September 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.
The Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. Willi ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-28-2015
1. By this appeal, under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (the Act, for short), the Employees State Insurance Corporation (Corporation), is challenging the judgment and order dated 18.12.2008 passed by the Employees State Insurance Court (E.S.I. Court) in E.I.C. No. 4/2005. By the impugned judgment, the application under Section 75 read with Section 77 of the Act filed by the respondent has been allowed, thereby holding that the respondent/original appellant is not liable to pay the contribution on the expenses incurred during the relevant period and further declaring that the order dated 05.01.2004 passed by the Corporation under Section 45-A of the Act is bad and void and further holding that the respondent is entitled to a refund of the amount as claimed in the application. 2. The brief facts are that the respondent is a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and owns and manages a Beach Resort. The Inspector of the Corporation had visited the ...
National Spot Exchange Limited and Another Vs. P.D. Agro Processors Pv ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-2015
1. Notice of Motion No. 765 of 2014 is filed by the Applicant -- Mr. Sankaran Balasubramanian, original Defendant No. 15 in Suit No. 781 of 2014 and Notice of Motion No. 1388 of 2014 is filed by Gopal Srinivasan, Original Defendant No. 14 in Suit No. 781 of 2014. 2. Notice of Motion No. 765 of 2014 is filed by the Applicant -- Mr. Sankaran Balasubramanian, original Defendant No. 15 in Suit No. 781 of 2014 and Notice of Motion No. 1388 of 2014 is filed by Gopal Srinivasan, Original Defendant No. 14 in Suit No. 781 of 2014. Both the above Notices of Motion are filed by the above named Applicants who are party Defendant Nos. 14 and 15 to the captioned Suit, under Order 7 Rule 11 and Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC?) for rejection of the Plaint qua them and / or deleting their names from the cause title. 3. Both the above Notices of Motion have been heard together. Mr. R.A. Kapadia, Senior Advocate, has advanced submissions on behalf of the Applicant -- Defendant ...
Uttam K. Pal Vs. The State of Goa through the Chief Secretary and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-23-2015
K.L. Wadane, J. 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash and set aside the order dated 8.10.2004 by which the petitioner is terminated and discharged from his services as Block Development Officer (BDO for short) with immediate effect. 2. Brief facts of the case may be summarised as follows:- On 4.1.1982, the petitioner joined the services of State, Government of Goa as Assistant Teacher. With the permission of Directorate of Education, he applied for the post of BDO on 12.9.1996. The respondent no. 4 selected the petitioner for the post of BDO on 3.1.1997, he was appointed initially on the probation for a period of two years. The ACRs from 1.4.1997 to 2002 were recorded as good, very good and satisfactorily. The petitioner has never been intimated about any adverse remark in the petitioner's ACR. On 8.10.2004, the petitioner was terminated from services and such order is passed by the authority based upon the adverse remarks passed somewhere after 31.3.2002 which w...
Nusli Wadia Vs. S.Phiroze J. Dastur and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. The appellant is the original complainant. He had filed a complaint against respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 herein. Respondent nos.1 and 2 were summoned to appear and to answer to the charge of an offence punishable under Section 500 of the IPC read with Sections 34 and 109 of the IPC. Respondent no.3 was summoned to appear and to answer to the charge of the offences punishable under Sections 500 and 501 of the IPC read with Section 34 and/or Section 109 of the IPC. By an order dated 10th February 2000, the Metropolitan Magistrate, 23rd Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, acquitted the respondents under the provisions of Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code). The complainant has, after obtaining special leave of this Court, filed the present Appeal challenging the said order of acquittal. 2. The Appeal was listed for final hearing yesterday. When it was called out, none appeared for the appellant. The matter was kept back for some time, and again called out, but at tha...
Vidarbha Bottlers Private Limited and Others Vs. Devilal Hardeolal Jai ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-23-2015
Oral Judgment : 1. This appeal filed under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short the said Act) takes exception to the order dated 7-8-2012 passed by the learned Member, Company Law Board Mumbai (for short the Board). By said order, the parties to the proceedings were directed to make sealed bids to buy/sell their shareholdings. 2. A brief reference to the relevant facts would be necessary. The appellant No.1 is a Company registered under provisions of the said Act. One group of shareholders comprises of appellant Nos.2 to 11 while the other group comprises respondent Nos.1 to 5. Both the groups had filed proceedings before the Board under provisions of Sections 397 and 398 of the Act. The appellants™ group had filed Company Petition No.46 of 2005 while respondents™ group had filed Company Petition No.46 of 2005. Both these petitions were heard together and by judgment dated 7-5-2008, the Board dismissed Company Petition No.76/2007 and allowed Company Petition No...
Vilas @ Bandu Punjabrao Misal Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-23-2015
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. The appeal challenges the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Case No.354 of 2011 thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 year. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that deceased Kalpana is wife of the accused. They were married prior to 15 years of the incident. They were blessed with son Sanket and daughter Prajakta out of the said wedlock. It is the prosecution case that Kalpana was working as Peon in St. Paul School, Nagpur whereas the appellant was without any work and addicted to liquor. The matrimonial relations between the accused and the deceased were strained because of the vices of the accused. The accused used to demand money to deceased Kalpana for his vices and on refusal, the ...
Akola Gujrati Samaj Vs. Akola Municipal Corporation
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-23-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Admit. 2. Heard finally with the consent of the Counsel for the parties. 3. The question that arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether the Civil Court after holding that it has no jurisdiction to try the suit can direct return of the plaint for presenting the same before the proper forum. 4. This appeal filed under provisions of Order XLIII Rule 1(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the Code) takes exception to the order passed by the trial Court whereby it has held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit as filed and then directed the plaint to be returned to the plaintiff for being presented before the proper forum. 5. The facts relevant for adjudication of the appeal are that it is the case of the appellant that it is a society registered under provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and is also a public trust under provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. It is running an educational institu...
Nilesh @ Nilikrao Ukarda Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-22-2015
Oral Judgment: (Prasanna B. Varale, J.) 1. By the present appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, dated 17.12.2012 in Sessions Trial No. 107/2010, thereby convicting the appellant/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing to suffer life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years along with fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC. The appellant/accused has been acquitted of the other offences viz. Sections 376 read with section 511, 379, 403, 507 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present a...
Rashtriya Shikshan Sanstha and Others Vs. Sheela and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-22-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri M.P. Lala, advocate for the petitioners, Shri A.D. Mohgaonkar, advocate for respondent no.1 and Shri S.M. Bagde, A.G.P. for respondent no.2 Education Officer. 2. The respondent no.1 was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Nutan Vidyalaya, Gondia administered by the petitioner no.1 Society on 7th December, 1999. It is undisputed that the appointment of the respondent no.1 was made after following the prescribed procedure. The appointment of the respondent no.1 was approved by the Education Officer by the communication dated 8th March, 2000. The services of the respondent no.1 were terminated by the order dated 5th December, 2001 w.e.f. 7th December, 2001 on the ground that the performance and behaviour of the respondent no.1 during the probation period was not satisfactory. The respondent no.1 filed appeal before the School Tribunal challenging the termination order. The School Tribunal, by the impugned order, has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent ...
Ahmed Pyarmohammad Atar and Another Vs. Digambar Kalidas Salunke and A ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-22-2015
Per Court: 1. The appeal is filed to challenge the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Appeal No.362 of 2004 which was pending in the Court of Adhoc District Judge, Ahmednagar. The learned Adhoc District Judge has set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court delivered in Regular Civil Suit No.20 of 1998 which was pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Shrigonda. The suit was filed by present Respondent for relief of possession of some open space on which there is a construction of defendant Nos.1 and 2. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court but the relief is given by the first Appellate Court. Both the sides are heard. This Court has gone through the record. 2. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is owner of house property bearing CTS No.1842 situated at Shrigonda, district Ahmednagar and it is his ancestral property. It is contended that the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have made construction of a stall of the size of 10'x10' on this property when they have no...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »