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.
Anil Vaijnath Arbad Vs. The Divisional Traffic Superintendent M.S.R.T. ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-21-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. This petition was admitted by this Court on 20.02.2009. Interim relief was not granted. 2. The issue to be decided in this petition is as to whether, the order of fresh appointment issued by the Employer would presuppose imposition of the punishment of dismissal or as to whether, it would tantamount to a punishment in itself? 3. The contention of the Petitioner who was Class-C employee working with the Respondent/ MSRTC is that he joined service on 07.03.1979. He was charge sheeted on 09.03.1999 for having submitted the bills of the medicines from Omkar Medical Store, without purchasing the medicines and claimed reimbursement. He was charged with having deceived the MSRTC. After conducting a departmental enquiry, he was dismissed from service on 12.08.2000. 4. It is further contended that the Petitioner preferred the first departmental appeal, which was dismissed on 02.10.2000. He preferred the second departmental appeal which was partly allowed on 26.12.2000 and the ...
Sonabai Harchand Gurav Vs. Zilla Parishad, Nandurbar and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-21-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. This petition was admitted on 24.06.2003. Considering the fact that the issue was with regard to the retirement of an employee and correction of date of birth, there was no question of interim relief involved at the time of admission of the petition since the Petitioner had already retired. 2. Shri Suryawanshi, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, has strenuously criticized the judgment of the Industrial Court dated 13.02.2003 by which Revision (ULP) No.264/2001 filed by the Respondent/ Zilla Parishad was allowed and the impugned judgment of the Labour Court dated 26.09.2001 thereby, allowing Complaint (ULP) No.63/1999, was quashed and set aside. 3. Shri Suryawanshi has canvassed the Petitioner™s case at length. His submissions can be summarized as follows: (a) The School Leaving Certificate of the Petitioner indicates her date of birth as 15.10.1941. (b) On 22.11.1976, the maternal uncle of the Petitioner swore an affidavit whereby, it is stated that though the...
Dr. Ajay Devidasrao Sambare Vs. Dr. Vaishali Ajay Sambare
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-21-2016
A.I.S. Cheema, J. 1. This Appeal is filed by the Appellant husband an Ophthalmologist (hereafter referred as "Petitioner"), whose Petition for divorce against the Respondent wife B.H.M.S. practicing Homeopathy (hereafter referred as "Respondent") has been dismissed by the Family Court, Aurangabad in Petition No.A.263 of 2006. Keeping in view the nature of dispute, we have blocked the names of the parties in the cause title. 2. Succinctly put, the marriage between the parties took place on 29th November 2002. They lived together happily for some time and then due to disputes, the Petitioner claims that the Respondent deserted him on 30th December 2003. The Respondent claims that she was beaten and left at the place of her parents on 4th December 2003. Petitioner husband earlier filed Divorce Petition No.A.46 of 2004 on 3rd February 2004. The Respondent received summons in that matter on 9th February 2004. Thereafter few incidents took place and the Respondent filed F.I.R. leading to cri...
Sharma Realty Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Vinod Muktinath Sharma
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-2016
P.C.: 1. This appeal is filed against an interim order dated 29th October, 2015 passed by the Company Law Board. It is a short order and it will be useful to reproduce the order. The order dated 29th October, 2015 reads as under: The petition mentioned. Reply on behalf of respondent no.2 has been filed and time has been sought for filing reply on behalf of the other respondents. Let the reply be filed within four weeks with a copy in advance to the counsel opposite. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter. Heard learned counsel for the parties on interim relief. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, inter alia, argued that the petitioner's shareholding was reduced. However, it has been restored which is evident from gift deed and transfer deeds. Even income tax return 20-09-2010 shows that his shareholding was restored to 33.3%. The documents gift deed and share transfer deed are duly signed by the father of the petitioner namely respondent no.2. These documents show ...
Dr. Ajay Devidasrao Sambare Vs. Dr. Vaishali Ajay Sambare
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-21-2016
A.I.S. Cheema, J. 1. This Appeal is filed by the Appellant husband an Ophthalmologist (hereafter referred as "Petitioner"), whose Petition for divorce against the Respondent wife B.H.M.S. practicing Homeopathy (hereafter referred as "Respondent") has been dismissed by the Family Court, Aurangabad in Petition No.A.263 of 2006. Keeping in view the nature of dispute, we have blocked the names of the parties in the cause title. 2. Succinctly put, the marriage between the parties took place on 29th November 2002. They lived together happily for some time and then due to disputes, the Petitioner claims that the Respondent deserted him on 30th December 2003. The Respondent claims that she was beaten and left at the place of her parents on 4th December 2003. Petitioner husband earlier filed Divorce Petition No.A.46 of 2004 on 3rd February 2004. The Respondent received summons in that matter on 9th February 2004. Thereafter few incidents took place and the Respondent filed F.I.R. leading to cri...
X Wife Vs. Y - Husband
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-2016
A.S. Oka, J. 1. Considering the nature of the dispute, the names of the parties are not mentioned in the cause title. 2. By this appeal, the appellant-wife has taken an exception to the judgment and decree dated 11th February 2008 passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court at Bombay. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 9th June 1989 according to the Hindu Vedic rites. Admittedly, the parties are residing separately from the year 2004. The petition for divorce was filed by the respondent-husband on the grounds set out in clauses (i)(a) and (i)(b) of sub-section (1) of section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ("the said Act" for short). Various other prayers were made for recovery of movable and immovable properties. The petition was contested by the appellant by filing a written statement. Apart from refuting various allegations made against her, in paragraph11 of the written statement, the appellant has stated thus: "(11) The contents in the para 8 of the petition...
Sonabai Harchand Gurav Vs. Zilla Parishad, Nandurbar and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-21-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. This petition was admitted on 24.06.2003. Considering the fact that the issue was with regard to the retirement of an employee and correction of date of birth, there was no question of interim relief involved at the time of admission of the petition since the Petitioner had already retired. 2. Shri Suryawanshi, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, has strenuously criticized the judgment of the Industrial Court dated 13.02.2003 by which Revision (ULP) No.264/2001 filed by the Respondent/ Zilla Parishad was allowed and the impugned judgment of the Labour Court dated 26.09.2001 thereby, allowing Complaint (ULP) No.63/1999, was quashed and set aside. 3. Shri Suryawanshi has canvassed the Petitioner s case at length. His submissions can be summarized as follows: (a) The School Leaving Certificate of the Petitioner indicates her date of birth as 15.10.1941. (b) On 22.11.1976, the maternal uncle of the Petitioner swore an affidavit whereby, it is stated that though the Schoo...
Narayan Anant Dalvi and Another Vs. Shivdas Bhartu, (deceased) and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-21-2016
1. The present Appeal is directed against the impugned Judgment and Award passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Mapusa in Claim Petition no. 25 of 2008 dated 14.05.2009, by which the claim of the claimants, the Respondents herein, for compensation under the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, has been allowed. The Respondents who are the Appellants herein, came in Appeal. 2. The parties are herein referred to as they appear in the cause title of the impugned Judgment and Award. 3. The brief facts of the case may be stated as follows: That the claimant no. 1, husband of deceased Ujwala and the Respondent nos. 2 and 3 are the sons. It is the case of the claimants that on the date of the accident i.e. on 23.02.2007, the deceased Ujwala was riding on her Activa Scooter bearing no. GA-03/D-6553; when she reached near Ankur Hospital, Mapusa, at that time, Respondent no. 1 was driving the Water tanker bearing no. GA-01/Z-0621 in a ra...
Hirabai and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Ur ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-21-2016
Oral Judgment: (Vasanti A Naik, J.) 1.RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioners seek a declaration that the reservation of the agricultural field of the petitioners bearing No.115/1 (Old) and New Gat No.87/1 of Mouza Digras for D.P. Road and Social Welfare Department has lapsed in view of the provisions of Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 and the petitioners are entitled to use the land for the purpose of development, permissible in the case of adjacent land under the development plan. 3. The aforesaid land of the petitioners was reserved for the D.P. Road and Social Development Department by the final Development plan published on 01.08.1987. Since the land of the petitioners was not acquired for the purpose for which it was reserved for a period of more than ten years from the publication of the final D...
Bhimrao Savala Gaikwad Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-2016
1. The appellant herein stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 250/- in default to suffer further R.I. for one month for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He is further sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 250/- in default suffer further R.I. for one month for offence punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by Special Judge, Pune in Special Case No.10/1989 vide Judgment and Order dated 28/6/1995. Hence, this appeal. 2. Such of the facts which are necessary for the decision of this appeal are as follows : (i) The appellant herein was working as Talathi of Gehera Purandhar Sajja. That one Baban Kokare and his deceased uncle Dhondiba Kokare were the owners and in possession of the agricultural land at Gat No.108 and 88 at vill...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »