Mumbai Court October 2016 Judgments
Bajirao Ramchandra Shelar and Others Vs. Vishnu Rustum Shinde and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-26-2016
1. By these four appeals filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellants have impugned the common judgment and decree dated 23rd April, 1990 passed by the learned District Judge, Satara in Regular Civil Appeal Nos.348 of 1985, 416 of 1987, 349 of 1985 and 416 of 1987. The aforesaid four appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding these appeals are as under: 2. Suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No.92 of 1971 is filed by Suvarna Natya Mandal (hereinafter referred to as the said Mandal ) against Vishnu R. Shinde and the said Bajirao R. Shelar. Vishnu R. Shinde is referred as the said Shinde and Bajirao R. Shelar is referred as the said Shelar . Suit No.320 of 1976 is filed by the said Shinde against said Shelar. Suit No.192 of 1979 is filed by said Shelar against said Shinde and Jaysing Ganu Nalawade. The said Jaysing Ganu Nalawade is hereinafter referred to as the said Jaysin...
Tag this Judgment!Anna Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Secretary, Home D ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-25-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. This Petition takes exception to the order dated 16.06.2016 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik in Externment Appeal No.12/2016. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent no.4 issued a notice on 13.05.2015 stating therein that, why the petitioner should not be externed from the limits of Ahmednagar, Beed, Osmanabad and Solapur Districts for the period of two years on the ground that the petitioner has indulged into various criminal activities causing danger and alarm to the public order. The petitioner filed a detailed reply to the said notice and denied the allegations and also filed documents supporting his contention that the show-cause-notice is issued under the pressure of political persons. On 31st March, 2016, respondent no.4 passed an order invoking the provisions of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, thereby externing the petition...
Tag this Judgment!JM Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Mahar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-25-2016
B.P. Colabawalla, J. 1. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner had originally challenged the notification dated 11th June, 2014 issued by Respondent No.2 under the provisions of the Maharashtra Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1958, [formerly known as the Bombay Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1958] (for short BRU Act ). This notification was valid for a period of one year from the date of its issuance. It has thereafter been brought on record that subsequent notifications have also been issued and the notification that is currently in force is dated 18th June, 2016. This notification is valid for a period of one year commencing from 18th June, 2016 till 17th June, 2017 (both days inclusive). Under this notification, Respondent No.4 is referred to therein as a 'Relief Undertaking' and all of its rights, privileges, obligations or liabilities (except those obligations or liabilities as specified therein) accrued o...
Tag this Judgment!R.M. Yadav Vs. Bank of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-25-2016
G.S. Kulkarni, J. 1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 17 December 2004 by which the Respondents imposed on the Petitioner a major penalty of 'compulsory retirement' in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. This order is confirmed by the Appellate Authority as also by a further order of the Reviewing Authority, which are also challenged. 2. In the year 2003 the Petitioner was working with Respondent No.1 as a Branch Manager with the Agardanda branch, in Alibag District. The Disciplinary Authority issued a memorandum dated 30 October 2003 alongwith statement of charges alleging that the Petitioner has failed to discharge duties with utmost integrity, devotion and diligence and the Petitioner has failed to protect the interest of the bank and if the charges are proved would amount to breach of Regulations 3(1), 20(4) and 24 of Bank of India Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulation...
Tag this Judgment!Sunil Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-25-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the Appellant Original accused no.3, challenging the judgment and Order dated 21.03.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Vaijapur in Sessions Case No.277/2012 (Old No.319/2009), thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC ) and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer S.I. for 6 months. Facts of prosecution case, in brief, are as under: 2. On 30.05.2009, accused no.1 Vitthal lodged the report at Police Station Waluj (Exh.60) alleging that his daughter-in-law deceased Swati has not woke up as usual in the morning, and when he tried to awaken her she was not responding, therefore, he took her to the Hospital where the Medical Officer found her dead. On his report, A.D. bearing No.15/2009 was registered. 3. PSI Suresh Bhale (PW-5) conducted the inquiry of A.D. He sent dead body for post mortem examinati...
Tag this Judgment!Sabina Fernandes and Others Vs. The Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Stat ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-24-2016
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Mr. Arun Bras De Sa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents, Mr. J. Vaz, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the CBI and Mr. A. Rodrigues, learned counsel appearing for the intervenor. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents waive service. 4. The above petition inter alia prays for a writ or direction to the respondents to hand over the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation for reinvestigation and filing of an appropriate Final Report Form in accordance with law. Further, directions also sought to register the petitioners' complaints dated 16.04.2016, 15.04.2016, 18.04.2016, and 28.04.2016 as FIRs in terms of Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 5. It is the contention of the petitioners that Kamakshi Forex Private Limited is a Private Limited Company ...
Tag this Judgment!Chandrashekhar and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-24-2016
Common Judgment: (G.S. Kulkarni, J.) 1. Rule Returnable forthwith. Respondents waives service. By consent of the parties and their request heard finally. 2. This batch of petitions challenge the orders passed by the respondent No.2-Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Ltd. (for short 'MSETCL') whereby the petitioners who were selected and temporarily appointed as Additional Executive Engineer (Transmission) (for short 'the said post") have been removed from the said posts by the impugned orders. The impugned orders are dated 20 May 2016 and qua the petitioner in Writ Petition No.6343 of 2016 is dated 4 June 2016. Some of the petitioners who had participated in the selection process for the said post were in-service candidates and being removed by the impugned orders are reverted to the post on which they were working prior to their selection. 3. These petitions involve common issues of facts and law. We have thus heard common arguments. Learned counsel for the petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!Prashant Vs. Hon'ble Minister for State for Urban Development Departme ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-24-2016
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard both sides by consent for final disposal. 2. The petition is filed against the order of the Hon'ble Minister, Urban Development Department in a dispute filed by present respondent Rajendra Patil under the provisions of section 51(6) read with section 16(1)(a1) read with section 55-A of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). In the proceeding declaration was sought that respondent No.1, Pawar, present petitioner, was disqualified on the date of election held for the post of the President of Bhadgaon Municipal Council and after making such declaration to make further declaration that Rajendra Patil was elected in the said election as he had also filed nomination for the said election. Notice was issued in respect of this proceeding for hearing by the Government in August 2015. Initially present petitioner had prayed for transfer of the matter from the Ho...
Tag this Judgment!Hubtown Limited Vs. IDBI Trusteeship Service Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-24-2016
Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. This Commercial Appeal is filed by the Appellant-Original Defendant against the Judgment and order dated 6 June 2016, passed by the learned Single Judge of the Commercial Division in Summons for Judgment whereby, refused an unconditional leave to defend and has granted a leave to defend, but conditional. Preliminary objection to the maintainability of Commercial Appeal. 2. To decide the preliminary objection of the maintainability of Commercial Appeal as filed, as raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondents, though the parties have consented to hear the Appeal on merits, we have relisted the matter for hearing on the maintainability as it goes to the root of the matter in view of the confusion prevailing in the Office/Registry after the transfer of such pending summary suits because of the provisions of The Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (for short, The Commercial Courts Act ...
Tag this Judgment!Sonali Bodraj Moon and Others Vs. The Chief Secretary and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-24-2016
P.C. (G.S. Kulkarni, J.) 1. These batch of petitions raise common issues namely recruitment and selection under the State service. Some of the petitions assail State Government circulars issued in relation to the services under the State Government (State Public Services) on the ground that that these circulars are unconstitutional and contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court on the issue of vertical and horizontal reservation. 2. The respondent-State has appeared and has raised an objection to the maintainability of these writ petitions on the ground that the petitioners, as are seeking reliefs, in relation to State services, the petitioners are required to approach the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunals under the provisions of section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. (for short 'the Act'). The respondent-State supports this submission relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of L.Chandra Kumar vs Union of India 1997 (3) Supreme Court Cases 261. 3...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »