Mumbai Court January 2016 Judgments
Sisupalan K. Vallikalayil and Another Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-27-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. In Claim Application No.28/OAII/RCT/NGP/2001, the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bench at Nagpur, by its judgment and order dated 13.03.2003, has directed the respondent-Railway Authorities to pay to the appellants a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation on account of death of one Siju S. Vallikalayil, caused due to falling down from Train No.2615 (G.T. Express) while travelling on 17.06.2000. This appeal is by the claimants, who are seeking further enhancement of compensation in this appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. 2. The appellants/claimants have paid the court fee of Rs.25/-, as required by Article 13 under Schedule II of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959. It is the preliminary objection raised, based upon the decision of this Court in the case of Betel Stores by Proprietor Krishna Bonde v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 1991(1) Mh.L.J. 823, urging that this is an order passed under Section 16(1) of the Railways Claims Tribunal...
Tag this Judgment!Yog Advertising and Marketing Services and Others Vs. Municipal Corpor ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-2016
G.S. Patel, J. 1.Writ Petition No. 1968 of 2013 ( Yog Advertising ) and Writ Petition No. 1068 of 2010 ( Indian Outdoor ) challenge Circular No. 999 dated 11th December 2009 issued by the 1st Respondent relating to an increase or revision in the license fees charged to owners of advertising hoardings. The prayers in these wo Writ Petitions are, first, to quash the impugned resolution and to direct its withdrawal, and, second, to direct the 1st Respondent Municipal Corporation to accept payment of licence fees for such advertisements and hoardings at the previous rates. 2.Writ Petition No. 735 of 1997 ( Sheen Ads ) was previously dismissed for default on 17th October 2011. It was restored to file on 31st March 2012 and ultimately directed to be placed along with the Yog Advertising and Indian Outdoor writ petitions. The challenge in Sheen Ads and in Writ Petition No. 1407 of 1997 ( Atul Ashar ) is to the resolution of the 1st Respondent passed on 12th December 1996 increasing the applic...
Tag this Judgment!Amardeep Tarshem Singh Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-2016
1. Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.329 of 2014 and Appellant Nos.1 and 2 in Criminal Appeal No.249 of 2014 are convicted for offence punishable under section 395 of Indian Penal Code and they are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.286 of 2014, Appellant Nos.1 and 2 in Criminal Appeal No.230 of 2014 and Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.397 of 2014 are convicted for offence punishable under section 412 r/w section 34 of Indian Penal Code and they are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months by Addl. Sessions Judge, Gr. Bombay vide Judgment and Order dated 06/03/2014 in Sessions Case No.499 of 2010. Hence, these appeals. 2. Such of the facts necessary for the decision of these appeals are as follows : (i) That one Deepak Lalwani approached Dindo...
Tag this Judgment!Shalikram Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-27-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30.11.2002 in Sessions Case No. 90/1996 passed by the learned 1st Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli, convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, the present Appeal was filed by the appellant. 2. In support of the Appeal, Shri N.R. Saboo, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the evidence of PW 1- Laxman, the complainant, is totally unbelievable and untrustworthy and should have been rejected at the threshold by the learned Sessions Court. According to him, the solitary testimony of PW 1-Laxman could not have been relied on for basing the conviction for offence punishable u/s. 307 of the Indian Penal Code. He then submitted that the medical evidence is contrary to the ocular testimony of PW 1-Laxman and, therefore, an order of acquittal should have been reco...
Tag this Judgment!Santoshkumar Ghisulal Jaju Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-25-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the Petition is taken up for final disposal at admissions stage. 2. Petitioner original complainant (hereafter referred as 'Complainant') in Misc. Application No.253 of 2008, has filed this Petition challenging the impugned order dated 24th November 2010 whereby his complaint came to be dismissed. It is stated that the Complainant went through a civil litigation against one Lahoti which was fought till the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Complainant succeeded. At the time of execution of Darkhast for possession, Respondent No.2 original accused objected, relying on electricity bill to claim that he was in adverse possession. Consequently the Complainant collected information and came to know that Respondent No.2 got forged "Hami Patra" (i.e. consent letter) purporting it to be from his mother (though dead) consenting to pay charges for reconnection of electricity which had ...
Tag this Judgment!Pawan Vs. The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary, Conservator ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-25-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Petition takes exception to the Judgment and Order dated 12th December, 2014, passed by the aharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad in Original Application No.693/2012, and also seeks directions to the respondent No.2 to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the father of the petitioner died, during the course of employment of the respondent No.2, on 24th March, 1995. He invited our attention to the provisions of the Government Resolution dated 8th March, 1985, and submits that, the legal heirs of the deceased, who are willing to apply on compassionate ground, can apply within 5 years from death for appointment on compassionate ground. He further invited our attention to the provisions of the Government Resolution dated 11th September, 1996, and submits that, if the legal heirs of the deceased employee are minor at the time of death o...
Tag this Judgment!Santoshkumar Ghisulal Jaju Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-25-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the Petition is taken up for final disposal at admissions stage. 2. Petitioner original complainant (hereafter referred as 'Complainant') in Misc. Application No.253 of 2008, has filed this Petition challenging the impugned order dated 24th November 2010 whereby his complaint came to be dismissed. It is stated that the Complainant went through a civil litigation against one Lahoti which was fought till the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Complainant succeeded. At the time of execution of Darkhast for possession, Respondent No.2 original accused objected, relying on electricity bill to claim that he was in adverse possession. Consequently the Complainant collected information and came to know that Respondent No.2 got forged "Hami Patra" (i.e. consent letter) purporting it to be from his mother (though dead) consenting to pay charges for reconnection of electricity which had ...
Tag this Judgment!Pawan Vs. The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary, Conservator ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-25-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Petition takes exception to the Judgment and Order dated 12th December, 2014, passed by the aharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad in Original Application No.693/2012, and also seeks directions to the respondent No.2 to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the father of the petitioner died, during the course of employment of the respondent No.2, on 24th March, 1995. He invited our attention to the provisions of the Government Resolution dated 8th March, 1985, and submits that, the legal heirs of the deceased, who are willing to apply on compassionate ground, can apply within 5 years from death for appointment on compassionate ground. He further invited our attention to the provisions of the Government Resolution dated 11th September, 1996, and submits that, if the legal heirs of the deceased employee are minor at the time of death o...
Tag this Judgment!Vinvin Enterprises (P) Limited Vs. Indage Vintners Limited (Formerly C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-2016
Oral Judgment: (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) 1. The present Second Appeal is filed by the Appellant under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act), who was the Petitioner in the Arbitration Petition, whereby Section 37 of the Act was invoked and challenged the refusal of interim order passed by the learned Arbitrator, pending the arbitration proceedings, in an Application under Section 17 of the Act. The District Judge has rejected the basic appeal. 2. In view of Section 37(3) of the Act of 1996, which is reproduced as under, no second Appeal lies before this Court, at the instance of one of the parties. "37. Appealable orders:- (1) An appeal shall lie from the following orders (and from no others) to the Court authorised by law to hear appeals from original decrees of the Court passing the order, namely:.......... (b) granting or refusing to grant an interim measure under section 17. (3) No second appeal shall lie from an order passed in appeal under this section, but...
Tag this Judgment!JSW Steel Limited and Others Vs. Union of India, through the Secretary ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-2016
G.S. Patel, J. 1. In all four Writ Petitions, a common issue is raised as regards Notification No. 27(RE-12)/2009-2014 dated 28th December 2012, a subsequent Notification No. 44(RE-2013)/2009-2014 dated 25th September 2013, and a so-called Clarification dated 23rd September 2014 dated 23rd September 2014. Although the facts in each of these four Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are somewhat different, since they raise a common issue we have taken up them together. 2. In all four Writ Petitions, Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith and the Petitions taken up for hearing and final disposal. 3. We have heard learned Counsel for both sides. We propose to refer to the facts and the documents in Writ Petition Nos. 2122 of 2015, and, where necessary those in Writ Petition No. 1750 of 2015. 4. Briefly stated, the Petitioners case is that in order to give a fillip to exports, the Government introduced an Incremental Expor...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »