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.
Rohidas A. Naik Vs. Central Information Commission and Others
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. The grievance of the petitioner is that the application filed by the petitioner seeking certified copies of the Trust Deed dated 29/01/1993 has been wrongly and illegally rejected by the Public Information Officer i.e. the respondent no.3 and the order of the rejection has been upheld by the Appellate Authorities i.e. the respondent nos.1 and 2, without considering the settled principles of law. 4. It is seen from the first impugned order passed by the respondent no.3 (page 15 of the paper book) that the information has been rejected on the ground that the information is held by the LIC in a fiduciary capacity and also on the ground that the information relates to personal information, having no connection whatsoever with any public activity or interest. 5. The learned Counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that LIC indeed holds the information in a f...
M/s. Cyrus Marine Services Vs. K.A. Shivaraman
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-13-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. This revision application challenges the order passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vasco on 02.11.2015 in Regular Civil Suit No. 56/2014/A, thereby rejecting the application of the petitioner filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. seeking rejection of the plaint. A suit has been filed by the respondent against the petitioner, claiming that under the contract given by the petitioner to the respondent for carrying out repairs to vessels, different bills were raised upon the petitioner claiming various amounts from the petitioner. These bills have been given in details in paragraph 4 of the plaint. According to the respondent, the total amount of these bills is Rs.22,08,196/- against which, the respondent admits that he has received the payment of Rs.9,94,619/- from the petitioner. The respondent claims that as the remaining amount is still outstanding, the respondent has fi...
Dinkar Murlidhar Anap Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-13-2016
Oral Order: 1. The issue before this Court is as to the source of power of the MSRTC to impose punishment on an errant employee and whether, the MSRTC can be restrained from awarding punishment to an employee? 2. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 25.11.2015 delivered by the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar by which Complaint (ULP) No.39/2014 filed by the Petitioner has been dismissed and the interim relief granted has been vacated. 3. Shri Barde, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, has strenuously criticized the impugned judgment based on certain facts and circumstances which have occurred prior to the filing of the said complaint, in the earlier rounds of litigation. 4. The submissions of Shri Barde can be summarized as follows: (a) The Petitioner joined the Respondent-Corporation as a Bus Conductor in 1993. (b) He was issued with a charge sheet with reference to ticketless passengers travelling in his bus on 02.08.1997, which is just four years after he joined ...
Ganesh N. Salunkhe Vs. Nizampur Vibhag Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-2016
1. The civil application, which seeks condonation of delay in instituting the review petition is hereby allowed and the delay is condoned. The review petition is taken up for hearing on merits. 2. The review petition has been instituted by Ganesh N. Salunkhe, who has claimed that he was not a party to writ petition no. 174 of 2015, in which the order dated 4 February 2015, of which review is applied for came to be made. 3. Mr. Joshi, the learned counsel for the review petitioner has basically made two submissions in support of the review petition: (a) That the Review Petitioner was not even a party to writ petition No. 174 of 2015. Therefore, no direction to implead him as the respondent in appeal No. 29 of 2008 pending before the Charity Commissioner, could ever have been made in the writ petition; (b) Even otherwise such a direction is contrary to the provisions contained in Order XLI Rule 20 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) as interpreted by this Court in case of Sheikh Yusuf ...
Mohan Khemlo Bandekar Vs. The Additional Collector-II and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-12-2016
Oral Judgment : 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent. 3. This Writ Petition is preferred against the impugned order dated 16/10/2014, passed by the Additional Collector-II, North Goa District, Panaji, Goa, thereby rejecting the application for condonation of delay, filed by the petitioner. 4. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order passed by the Mamlatdar under Section 4 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Mamlatdar's Court Act, 1966 (Mamlatdar's Court Act, for short), directing the petitioner to remove obstructions from the right of way claimed by the respondent no.2, preferred a Revision Application in terms of Section 22 of the Mamlatdar's Court Act. The Revision Application, in terms of subsection (1) and sub-section (2) of Section 22, ordinarily, has to be preferred before the Collector, who has been invested with revisional powers. However, under subsection (3), a power has been conferred upon the Government to authorise, by notification in off...
P.M. Ruikar Trust Yavatmal, through its President H.N. Tatwavadi and A ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-11-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.). 1. These two appeals are filed by the employer as well as the employee. L.P.A. No. 107/07 is filed by the employer Trust being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 21.12.2006 in Writ Petition No. 2616/96, thereby allowing the appeal filed by the employee, setting aside the termination and granting reinstatement with continuity and 25% of the back wages from the date of his termination. 2. The employee has filed L.P.A. No. 115/07 being aggrieved by the denial of 75% of the back wages and also some of the findings as recorded by the learned Single Judge which according to him, are against him. For the convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as the employer? and the employee?. 3. The employee came to be appointed as Headmaster on 9.7.1983. He was confirmed on the said post from 1987. The appointment of the employee as Headmaster was approved by the Education Officer. The School was initially run on no-gr...
M/s. BGC International Pvt. Ltd., represented herein through K. Mohan ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-11-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 3. This petition challenges the order dated 7/7/2015 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge "A' Court, Ponda in Special Civil Suit no.22/2007/A thereby rejecting the application of the petitioners, who are the defendants in the original suit for grant of permission to produce the additional documents on record. 4. The suit that has been filed by the respondents against the petitioners, claims refund of advance of Rs.30.00 lakhs together with interest and other sums of money from the petitioners. The petitioners have resisted the suit by filing a written statement. The petitioner no.1 is a company and on its behalf one Shri K. Mohan, son of Kala Bhairava entered the witness box as the first witness of the petitioners. During the cross examination of this witness, it transpired that he had not produced on record ...
Prakash D. Kate Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-2016
1. The appellant and five others were prosecuted on the allegation of having committed offences punishable under Section 306 of the IPC r/w Section 34 of the IPC and 498A of the IPC r/w section 34 of the IPC. After holding a trial, the Addl. Sessions, Sangli acquitted all the other accused. He acquitted even the appellant so far as the charge of an offence punishable under Section 306 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC was concerned. He, however, convicted the appellant of an offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC and sentenced him to suffer RI for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. Being aggrieved by his conviction and the sentence imposed upon him, the appellant has approached this Court by the present Appeal. 2. The State has not challenged the order of acquittal of the appellant in respect of the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC r/w section 34 thereof. 3. I have heard Mr.Ranjit Bhonsale, learned counsel for the appellant. I have heard Mrs.M.R.Tidke, learned APP f...
Teodorico Ludovico Camilo Fernandes and Another Vs. Walter Antonio Ota ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-11-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. 3. Heard finally by consent. 4. This writ petition challenges the order dated 4/9/2015 passed by the First Appellate Court, Court of the District Judge-1, Panaji, which is a common order rendered in Misc. Civil Appeal No.92/2014 and Misc. Civil Appeal No.93/2014. 5. By this common order, the first Appellate Court dismissed Misc. Civil Appeal being Misc. Civil Appeal No.92/2014 and allowed another appeal being Misc. Civil Appeal No.93/2014. These appeals were filed against the common order dated 31/7/2014, passed in Regular Civil Suit No.56/2014/C by the Civil Judge Junior Division, Panaji Goa, thereby rejecting the application of the respondents no.1 and 2 for grant of temporary injunction and also their application for appointment of Court receiver. 6. The respondents no.1 and 2, who are the original plaintiffs have filed a civil suit for partition against the petitioners, the original defendants no.1 and 2 and several other...
Ramesh Raosaheb Gaikwad Vs. The Senior Inspector of Police and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-2016
Oral Judgment: (Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J.) 1. The Appellant-Original Accused, who stands convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302 of IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer R.I. for one year, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad-Alibag vide Judgment and Order dated 30th January 2009 in Sessions Case No.191 of 2008, by this Appeal challenges his conviction and sentence. 2. Facts, as are necessary, for deciding this Appeal may be stated thus:- The marriage of Manisha, daughter of PW-2 Sakhubai Mane, was solemnized with the Appellant about five years prior to the incident. However, as Manisha could not conceive, the Appellant used to abuse and ill-treat her. Manisha has informed about this ill-treatment to her mother. Just eight months prior to the incident, the Appellant has assaulted Manisha and threatened to kill her. She was also driven out of the house. Hence, she came to reside in the house of he...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »