Mumbai Court October 2016 Judgments
Purushottam Vs. Narayan
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-27-2016
1. With the consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is finally heard. 2. The appellant has filed the present appeal challenging two orders both of the date 23rd February, 2016 passed by the Principal District Judge, Nandurbar in Civil Appeal No.17/2011. The aforesaid appeal was filed by the present appellant challenging the judgment and decree passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nandurbar in Special Civil Suit No.13/2007. The aforesaid civil suit was filed by the present respondent, seeking partition and possession. Relief of permanent injunction was also sought. The learned Trial Court decreed the said suit partly and held the plaintiff and defendant therein entitled for half share each in the suit land and the suit house. 3. The civil suit filed by present respondent was resisted by the present appellant on several grounds. It was the contention of the appellant that the partition was already effected in respect of the suit properties in the year 1962. It...
Tag this Judgment!Raul Aires Fernandes and Another Vs. State Of Goa, through its Chief S ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-27-2016
Nutan D. Sardessai, J. 1. Heard Shri Rohit Bras De Sa, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners, Shri S.D. Lotlikar, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondent no.1, Shri P. Dangui, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 and Shri A. R. Kantak, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent no.5. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waive service. 3. Shri Rohit Bras De Sa, learned Advocate for the petitioners contended that the respondent no.6 was the member of the Conservation Committee who had sat in decision as apparent from the minutes and without disclosing the fact that he had drawn the plan on behalf of the respondent no.5. The permission thus granted had to be revoked as it was affected by bias on the part of the respondent no.6 and since the doctrine of fairness was equally applicable in administrative action. He relied in Minera...
Tag this Judgment!Gajanan Dahotre Vs. Bank of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-27-2016
Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. The Petitioner, who retired as Chairman and Managing Director of Respondent No.1 Bank of India, has challenged impugned order dated 7 January 2014, passed by Respondent No.1-Bank and also seeks to quash and set aside Regulation 14 of the Bank of India (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 and also prays for directions to Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to pay enhanced all pensionary benefits, along with accrued interest in accordance with law. 2. The brief facts are as under: The Petitioner began his career as a Probationary Assistant in the State Bank of India with effect from 1st July 1957. The Petitioner thereafter served in various capacities with the State Bank of India during the period June 1957 to December 1976. Whilst being so employed with the State Bank of India (SBI), the Petitioner s rise in SBI was steady and rapid. By 1976, the Petitioner was the Chief Officer (Merchant Banking Division) at SBI. The Petitioner joined Respondent No. 1 bank in 1976. The Petit...
Tag this Judgment!Vinay Tilokchand Karnavat Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through its Se ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-27-2016
K. L. Wadane, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal. 3. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by respondent no.2, dated 5th September, 2013 along with public notice dated 24.02.2015 and the proceedings of advertisement No. 12/2014 by which respondent No.2 has fixed tariff. The petitioner has further challenged the order passed by respondent No.2 in Case No. 95/2013, dated 25.06.2015 by way of amendment in the writ petition. 4. The petitioner is a consumer of respondent No.3-Company. Respondent No.2 is a Regulatory Commission established under the Electricity Act, 2003. It has power to fix tariff and is expected to be a watchdog of interest of the consumers and function transparently. 5. According to the petitioner, on 16.08.2012, respondent No.2 settled the tariff w.e.f. 1st August, 2012 in case No.19/2012. As per provisions of Electricity Act, respondent No...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. J.K.Surface Coatings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corporatio ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-27-2016
B.P. Colabawalla, J. 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the office order dated 25th April, 2014 (for short the impugned order or the banning order ) issued by the 1st Respondent Corporation (Exh. C to the Petition). A Writ of Mandamus is also sought directing the Respondents to permit the Petitioner Company to obtain the documents and participate in future tenders floated by Respondent No.1. 3. The order dated 25th April, 2014 and which is impugned herein, is nothing but a banning order passed by the 1st Respondent against the Petitioner. This banning order has been passed pursuant to a Show Cause Notice ( SCN ) dated 4th December, 2013 issued to the Petitioner. The grounds on which the Petitioner is sought to be banned a...
Tag this Judgment!The Grampanchayat Kharghar and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-27-2016
Oral Judgment : (Per Ranjit More, J.) 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is heard finally by consent. 2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging various notifications issued under Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act 1949 (for short the Corporations Act ), Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act 1965 (for short the Nagar Panchayats Act ), Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act 1961(for short the Panchayat Samitis Act ) and Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act 1961 (for short Village Panchayats Act ), whereunder the municipal corporation of the city of Panvel is formed from the entire Panvel Municipal Council and 29 revenue villages. 3. We have heard Mr. Dani, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Sakhare, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Vagyani, learned Government Pleader for the State of Maharashtra. We have also heard Mr. Kumbhak...
Tag this Judgment!Bhujanga Abba Patil (since deceased) Vs. Dnyanu Ramchandra Powar (sinc ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-26-2016
1. By this petition filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellants now through legal heirs and representatives (original plaintiffs) have impugned the judgment and decree dated 29th July 1993 passed by the learned 4th Additional District Judge, Kolhapur allowing the Regular Civil Appeal No.277 of 1987 filed by the respondents (original defendants) and dismissing the cross-objection filed by the appellants. The first appellate Court has set aside the judgment and decree dated 16th October 1987 passed by the learned IInd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kolhapur in Regular Civil Suit No.217 of 1979 filed by the original plaintiffs inter alia praying for injunction and for possession which was decreed by the learned trial Judge. The parties in this judgment are described as per their original status in the proceedings before the learned trial Judge. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this second appeal are as under:- 2. It was the case ...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Rohini S. Kurghode and Others Vs. M/s. E. Merck (I) Limited and A ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-26-2016
1. The writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked against the judgment and order dated 23.12.1999 passed by the Learned Member of the Industrial Court, Thane, by which, the Revision Applications being Revision Application (ULP) Nos.13 to 22 of 1998 and 42 to 46 of 1998 and 56 of 1999 were dismissed and resultantly, the judgment and order dated 08.09.1997 passed by the Learned Judge of the Labour Court, Thane, dismissing the Complaints in question came to be confirmed. 2. The facts necessary to be cited for the adjudication of the above Petition can in brief be stated thus: The Petitioners herein are the original Complainants who had filed Complaints (ULP) invoking Items 1(a), (b), (d) and (f) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (For short the MRTU and PULP Act ). The Petitioners had filed separate Complaints being Complaints (ULP) Nos.124 to 135, 148 to 153 and 15...
Tag this Judgment!Sayyad Yousuf and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through the Se ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-26-2016
1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable and heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Writ Petition No.6794/2012 is filed against the judgment and order dated 4th of August, 2012, passed by the School Tribunal at Latur in Appeal No.14 of 2011. Petitioner was respondent no.3 in the Appeal before the School Tribunal. The aforesaid appeal was filed by present respondent no.3 challenging promotion of the present petitioner on the post of Headmaster with a consequential relief to promote him on the post of Headmaster from 1.1.2003 by setting aside the promotion of the present appellant as Headmaster. 3. It was the contention of the present respondent no.3 in the aforesaid appeal that the present appellant was junior to him and could not have been appointed on the post of Headmaster, superseding his claim. As against it, it was the contention of the present petitioner before the School Tribunal that the appeal filed by respondent no.3 was hopelessly barred by l...
Tag this Judgment!Colgate-Palmolive (India) Ltd. and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra an ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-26-2016
1. Being aggrieved by the seizure of goods under receipt dated 8.5.2002, notice dated 11.5.2002, and a complaint dated 18.10.2002 and the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aurangabad dated 19.10.2002 issuing thereby process against the applicants, the applicants prefers this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the same. 2. Brief facts, giving rise to the present application are as under: a] The applicant No.1, is a Company registered under the Companies Act having its office at Mumbai. The company has a manufacturing Unit/Factory at Aurangabad and the company is engaged at aforesaid unit, in manufacturing, inter-alia, toilet soaps. b] On 8.5.2002 respondent no.2 had inspected the toilet soap stored in the petitioner no.1's premises. It was noticed during the said inspection that the products of the company namely Palmolive Naturals Soap (with milk cream) and Palmolive Naturals Soap (Relaxing) have weighed lesser than the declared net...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »