Mumbai Court January 2016 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.
Rohan Satish Timblo Vs. Village Panchayat of Siriado-Palem and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-15-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. Heard finally by consent. 3. By this petition, the legality and correctness of the order dated 13/8/2014 passed by the District Judge-I, Mapusa, in Civil Revision Application No.14/2013 is challenged. 4. By the impugned order, the learned District Judge has quashed and set aside the order dated 20/8/2010 passed by the Additional Director of Panchayat -II, Panaji-Goa, whereby the learned Additional Director of Panchayats ordered the Village Panchayat, that is, respondent no.1 to forward the application dated 10/2/2009 submitted by the petitioner for appropriate consideration and submission of report. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2. 6. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 has strongly opposed this petition contending that the impugned order has been passed by considering the illegal extension made by the petitioner while constructing his bungalow an...
Satish Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Edu ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-15-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and heard finally with the consent of the parties. 3. By way of filing this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, exception is taken to the decision / order dated 13th May, 2015, passed by the respondent No.2 “ Education Officer, thereby refusing to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner as Shikshan Sevak in respondent No.3 School. It is further prayed that, the respondent No.2 Education Officer may be directed to grant approval to the appointment of petitioner as Shikshan Sevak in respondent No.3 School forthwith and release arrears of salary of the petitioner. Background facts leading for filing the present Writ Petition, in nutshell are as under: 4. It is the case of the petitioner that, he is a trained teacher having qualification of B.A. D.Ed. The petitioner has passed D.Ed. examination held in September, 2011. The respondent No.3 is a Primary School, receiving 100% grant-...
State of Maharashtra by its Secretary (Ori. Res.) in the Ministry of F ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-14-2016
Oral Judgment: (Vasanti A. Naik, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. Whether the Member of the District Consumer Forum is entitled to medical reimbursement from the State Government is the question that arises for consideration in this writ petition. 2. Few facts giving rise to the writ petition are stated thus: The respondent was appointed as a President of the District Consumer Forum in the year 2002 by the State Government under the provisions of Section 10 (1A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity). After completing the term of five years, in terms of Section 10 (2) of the Act, the State Government reappointed the respondent as the President of the District Consumer Forum for a period of five years from 02.10.2007. The respondent retired as the President of the District Consumer Forum in June 2012. During his services as the Pre...
Birla International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Karvy Financial Services Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-2016
G.S. Kulkarni, J. 1. This appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 (for short 'the Act'), arises from the decision of the learned Single Judge dated 6th April,2015 in Arbitration Petition No.1643 of 2014, filed by the Appellants under Section 34 of the Act, whereby the challenge to the Arbitral Award has failed before the learned Single Judge. 2. Dr.Saraf, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants in assailing the impugned order submits that in respect of the Appellants property which was mortgaged with the Respondent, Court Receiver was appointed by an order passed under Section 9 of the Act. The submission is that the Respondents could not have made a monetory claim for the entire amount in the Arbitration Proceedings inasmuch as the Respondent was required to file an independent suit for foreclosure of mortgage under Section 67 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 read with Order XXXIV of the Civil Procedure Code. 3. The second contention as urged by ...
M/s. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. and Another Vs. Essar Oil Li ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-2016
1. By these two petitions filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (for short the said Arbitration Act), both the parties have impugned the arbitral award dated 30th September, 2010. M/s.Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. the petitioner in the Arbitration Petition NO.267 of 2011 was the original respondent in the arbitral proceedings and have impugned the arbitral award dated 30th September, 2010 in toto. M/s.Essar Oil Limited the petitioner in the Arbitration Petition No.630 of 2011 was the original claimant in the arbitral proceedings and have challenged the arbitral award dated 30th September, 2010 to the extent that the claims of the claimant having been rejected viz. Claim nos. 1(a), 2(2), 2(4), 2(5), 2(6), 2(7), 2(9), 2(10), claim no.5 and also thereby allowing part of the counter claims for liquidated damages in favour of M/s.Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. The parties to the present proceedings are referred in the later part of the judgment a...
Gopalrao Punjaji Gayki and Another Vs. Gopal and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-14-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. On 28.09.2015, this Court issued notice for final disposal of the matter. The Respondents are served. None appeared for Respondent No.1. Shri D.N.Kukday, the learned counsel appears for respondent No.2 and Shri R.D.Bhuibhar, the learned counsel appears for respondent No.3. In view of the fact that the notice for final disposal of the matter was issued, it is not necessary to issue fresh notice to the Respondent No. 1 who is not present before this Court. Hence, Admit. The learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 waives service of notice. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. In M.A.C.P. No. 142 of 2008, decided on 11.12.2012, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Buldhana, has held that the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- inclusive of the amount of Rs.50,000/- towards interim compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short "the M.V. Act") along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the...
The Commissioner of Incometax-I, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil lines, Nagpur V ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-13-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. The questions which arise for adjudication in these matters as formulated are common. It is not in dispute that the contribution by the assessee as the employer and the provisions made to honour the commitment in terms of the National Coal Wage Agreement [NCWA] has been already accepted by this Court and the challenge of Revenue thereto is rejected. We find that after expiry of the earlier NCWA when the negotiations were going on, the assessee made the provision for increments on estimate basis. It was certain that as per the NCWA under negotiations, the wage rise was inevitable. Hence, in corresponding previous year, the provision has been made for the incremental arrears. Thus, the liability was certain and to crystallize after the NCWA was finalized. 2. In this situation, we find that the provision was made for known liability and therefore the approach by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur [ITAT] cannot be said to be u...
P. Bandopadhya and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-2016
G.S. Kulkarni, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners who were the employees of the erstwhile Department of Overseas Communication Services (OCS) of the Government of India absorbed in the services of the Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited (for short 'VSNL') now known as 'Tata Telecommunications Ltd-Respondent no.4, are seeking pensionary benefits under the Office Memorandum dated 5 July 1989 issued by the Government of India, Department of Pension and Pension Welfare. 2. This writ petition was initially dismissed by an order dated 26 April 2006. The Petitioners had approached the Supreme Court in a Civil Appeal No.3059 of 2007. The Supreme Court by an order dated 14 July 2011 allowed the appeal setting aside the orders passed by this Court thereby remanding the writ petition to be decided afresh, on merits and in accordance with law, leaving open all questions of fact and law on the ground that the writ petition was not examined by this Court o...
Chhaya Vs. The State of Maharashtra. Through it's Secretary, Departmen ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-13-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 07.01.2015 delivered by Respondent No.2-Divisional Commissioner. 3. The Petitioner as well as Respondent No.5 applied for appointment as Anganwadi Sevika? pursuant to the proclamation issued by Respondent No.4-Child Development Project Officer dated 09.12.2013. Their applications were in relation to the post of Anganwadi Sevika? for village Mategaon, Taluka Purna, District Parbhani. Respondent No.5 was subsequently selected in the interviews held on 27.01.2014 as she had secured 63.60 marks in the first round and 8.50 marks in the interviews, whereby, her total tally was 72.10. The Petitioner secured 65.33 in the first round and scored 4.50 in the interviews and her total was 69.83. 4. The Petitioner challenged the appointment of Respondent No.5 within the limitation period and in the light of the provisions set out in th...
Ashok Govind Naik and Others Vs. Village Panchayat at Marcaim, through ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-13-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. These writ petitions are being disposed of by a common order. These writ petitions challenge three orders dated 12/02/2015 separately passed in Civil Miscellaneous Application Nos.82, 80 and 81 of 2014 by the Adhoc District Judge-I (FTC), North Goa, Panaji, Goa, thereby rejecting the applications filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay occurred in filing of the Revision Applications under Section 201-B of Goa Panchayat Raj Act. 4. The Revisions were sought to be filed by the petitioner as the petitioner in all these three Writ Petitions felt aggrieved by allowing of the Appeals of the respondent no.2, by the Additional Director of Panchayats-II, Panaji, Goa, by orders dated 23/01/2014. By these orders, the Additional Director has issued a direction to the petitioner in all these petitions, to demolish the illegal structures constructed by him ...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »