Mumbai Court October 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.
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Vithal Baliram Bhoja and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-06-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 13.11.1998 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded in Sessions Case No. 119/1994, thereby acquitting the respondents of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302, 504 and 506 (2) read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code ( IPC for short). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to by the same nomenclatures by which they have been referred before the trial Court. 3. The background facts for filing the present appeal as per the prosecution case are as under: There were trees of Bor owned by the informant viz. Madhavrao Hanmantrao Bhojane situated on the common bund of his land and that of the accused, situate within the local limits of village Ekdara, Taluka Nanded, District Nanded. There was dispute about the said trees between the informant and the accused 6 months prior to the date of the incident. The police did file chapter cases against the inf...
Mario Francisco Lobo Vs. The State of Goa through Chief Secretary, wit ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-05-2016
Nutan D. Sardessai, J. 1. Heard Shri Ryan Menezes, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Shri Mahesh Amonkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent no.1. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waive service. 3. Shri Menezes, learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that certain persons were named in the complaint lodged by the complainant with the respondent no.3 who had allegedly committed the offences with the others after forming a mob of 30 to 40 persons in the property of the complainant. However in the chargesheet filed by the respondent no.3 certain named persons were not arrayed as the accused and there was also no reason or justification for their non-impleadment. The statement of the nephew too was not recorded who was present at the site at the time of the offence and could have shed light on the incident and the persons involved therein. There were statements on...
Indorama Synthetics (I) Ltd., through its Vice President (HR) Vs. Dush ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-05-2016
1. In Application, bearing B.I.R. Case No.22 of 1998, filed by the ten employees of the petitioner-Company in the Labour Court on 21-2-1998, the provisions of Section 42 read with Items 1, 2, 4 and 5 under Schedule II of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 were invoked alleging their transfer from Polyester Department to Spurn Yarn Department amounted to illegal change , as defined under sub-section (15) of Section 3 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. The Labour Court, by its judgment and order dated 5-12-2006, allowed the said application and passed an order, the operative portion of which, is reproduced below: 1. The application filed by the applicants is allowed. 2. The non-applicant is directed to give original work to the applicants in the Polyester utility department and give all consequential benefits from the date of illegal change made by the nonapplicant i.e. 2.10.98. 3. No order as to cost. The Industrial Court dismissed Appeal (BIR) No.1 of 2007 by its judgment ...
Veljiben V. Satra and Another Vs. Kanaiyalal Purshottamdas Shah and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Admit. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents waives service of notice. By consent, these First Appeals are heard finally and disposed of at the stage of admission itself. 3. All these First Appeals, along with the Civil Applications therein, are heard and decided together by this common Judgment, as the issues involved and the reliefs claimed therein are the same, coupled with the fact that the respondents herein are also the same. 4. These First Appeals are filed against the Judgment and Order passed by City Civil Court, Mumbai in three different Chamber Summons filed by the appellants/obstructionists, under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking declaration that the Decree passed in Suit No.1173 of 1971 dated 15th April 1997 by the City Civil Court, Mumbai, cannot be executed against them; and that the order passed in Chamber Summons No.397 of 1999 on 19th September 2000 to take forcible possession of the suit land by removing original defe...
The Secretary and Another Vs. Sanjay Premanand Athavale and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-05-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. I have heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides at length on 04/10/2016 as well as today. 3. There is no dispute that respondent No.1 / employee was appointed on 14/06/2011 and while he was under probation, a show cause notice dated 30/07/2012 was issued to him leveling allegations against him. After completing the enquiry under the MEPS Rules, the employee was awarded the punishment of reduction in rank by order dated 29/03/2014. 4. The employee approached the School Tribunal in Appeal No.3/2014. By the impugned judgment dated 09/10/2015, the enquiry was held to be unsustainable from the stage as prescribed under Rule 36(1) of the MEPS Rules, 1981. The petitioner is, therefore, permitted to conduct a fresh enquiry. The observation of the School Tribunal that the appellant be treated under suspension and be paid suspension allowance from the date his termination, has b...
Chindhu Fakira Satale and Others Vs. Vithabai Kashinath Jadhav and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-2016
1. By this appeal filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellants (original defendant nos.1 to 7) have impugned the judgment and decree dated 30th October, 2012, passed by the learned District Judge 5, Nashik, dismissing the appeal (Civil Appeal No.112 of 2011) filed by the appellants herein by which the appellants had impugned the judgment and decree dated 10th August, 2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dindori in Regular Civil Suit No.55 of 2001 filed by the respondents herein (original plaintiffs) thereby decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiffs and declaring the plaintiffs as the owners of the suit land to the extent of half area and directing the defendants to deliver the possession of the suit land to the extent of half area to the plaintiffs. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this second appeal are as under: 2. The parties in this judgment are described as per their status in the civil suit. It was the cas...
M/s. Ghodawat Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through t ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-2016
Oral Judgment: (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are claiming a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction as under : (b) this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India : (i) Quashing of the order of the Respondent No.4 dated 26.6.2015 demanding part payment of Rs.1,41,93,1897/- from the Petition for grant of stay in appeal. (ii) restraining the Respondents by their servants, agents and subordinates from enforcing the order dated 26.6.2015 passed by the Respondent No.3 directing the Petitioners to make part payment. . (f) this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of I...
Prakash Gobindram Ahuja Vs. Ganesh Pandharinath Dhonde and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-2016
Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J. 1. As per the order passed by the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice, this Appeal is placed before us for deciding following questions of law, which are framed by learned Single Judge of this Court [Coram : R.C. Chavan, J.], when the Appeal was placed before him for admission:- (I) Does Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act provide adequate protection to the parties from transfers pendent lite since such transferees are not required to be, or entitled as of right to be, impleaded as parties to the suit and cannot resist execution proceedings in view of provisions of Order XXI Rule 100 of the Code as amended by this Court? (II) Would plaintiffs' registering notices of their suits under Section 18 of the Indian Registration Act (though such registration may not be compulsory) not secure for plaintiffs more than what an injunction could secure since transferees, who purchase property, pendente lite in spite of such registration would be deemed to have n...
Vidya Akhave Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respective Respondents. 3. By this Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is seeking following reliefs : a. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No.1 to take steps to ensure that employers comply with the law on sexual harassment, in letter and spirit; b. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant a writ of certiorari or a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside the report dated 17.02.2014 of the committee constituted by the Respondent No.3 Company and consequently the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 01.05.2014 awarding punishment to the Respondent No. 2; c. That this Hon'ble Court be please...
Martha Gracias Vs. Shaikh Basir and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-04-2016
1. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the judgment dated 28/1/2016 in Municipal Appeal No.23/2012 and the order dated 3/7/2014 passed in Misc. Application No.83/2012/Intervener, in the said appeal. By the impugned order dated 3/7/2014, the Tribunal has refused to allow the petitioner to intervene in the appeal. By the judgment dated 28/1/2016, the Tribunal has partly allowed the appeal and while setting aside the final notice of demolition issued to the respondent no.1 on 23/4/2012, has directed for carrying out inspection of the premises, in the presence of the respondent no.1 (the appellant before the tribunal) and thereafter to issue a show cause notice, along with the document of transgression and description and pass a reasoned order, after giving a 'reasonable opportunity of hearing to the respondent no.1'. 2. The brief facts are that on the basis of a complaint lodged by the petitioner, action was taken against the respondent no.1 which culminated into the final not...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »