Mumbai Court February 2016 Judgments

The Chief Executive Officer Vs. Anita Sitaram Mali and Another

Court: Mumbai Aurangabad

Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 17.5.2014 delivered by the Labour Court, Jalgaon, by which Complaint (ULP) No.38/2008 filed by respondent no.1 has been partly allowed. The petitioners were directed to pay Rs.75,000/- to the respondent no.1 employee in lieu of reinstatement in service and full back wages. 3. The petitioners are also aggrieved by the judgment and order delivered by the Industrial Court, Jalgaon, dated 5.3.2015 by which Revision (ULP) No.17/2014 filed by respondent no.1 has been allowed and Revision (ULP) No.18/2014 filed by the petitioners has been dismissed. 4. I have heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides at length. 5. A host of factors have been canvassed. However, I find that the following issues are material while dealing with this petition: [a] Whether an order of termination with retrospective effect can be sustaine...

Karlheinz Hermann Sieverding Vs. Hi Tech Corporation and Another

Court: Mumbai

P.C. 1. Leave to amend, to correct the date of order on page No.14 of the Application, is granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2. By this Application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused No.4 in Criminal Case No.1255 of 2001 has challenged the order dated 14.08.2001, whereby the Learned Magistrate, Pune has issued process against him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and the order dated 12.05.2004 in Cri.Revision No.181 of 2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, whereby the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the Cri.Revision No.181 of 2004. 3. The brief facts necessary to decide this Application are as under:- The Respondent No.1 had lodged a complaint against the aforesaid Applicant and the other co-accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 r/w.141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The case of the Respondent No.1/Complainant was that the present Applicant...

Mayank Vs. Neha Malhotra (Kohli)

Court: Mumbai Nagpur

Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Both these appeals under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, are filed by the husband Mayank. Petition No. A386/13, filed by him under Section 12[1][c] of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for annulment of marriage between him and respondent by a decree of nullity, has been dismissed by the Family Court. Similarly, Petition No. A 289/12 filed by the respondent wife under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights has been allowed with a direction to resume cohabitation and in default to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 20,000/. The Family Court has decided both these matters by a common judgment dated 23.07.2015. Family Court Appeal No. 73 of 2015 challenges the dismissal of annulment proceedings filed by him. FCA 74 of 2015 assails the grant of restitution in proceedings filed by Respondent wife. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is hereinafter referred to as the Act . 2. This Court has on 23.09.2015, issued notice observing ...

Johnson Matthey Chemicals India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Maharashtra ...

Court: Mumbai

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Rule in both Petitions. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. By these Writ Petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks the following reliefs (WP/7400/2015):- (a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that the impugned Trade Circular No. 2T of 2010 dated 11.01.2010 is without jurisdiction, and is ultra vires Section 6A of the Act and is of no effect and accordingly, set aside the same; (b) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to further declare that the circular no. 16T of 2007 dated 20.2.2007 read with Circular No. 5T of 2009 dated 29.1.2009 alone are legal, valid and correct; (c) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that the Section 6A is inapplicable to interstate movement of final goods returned by a job workers to his customer, after job work. (d) In the alternative and without prejudice to prayer (c) above, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that Section 6A is...

Purushottam Kashinath Kulkarni and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and ...

Court: Mumbai Aurangabad

Per Court: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. This Petition seeks directions to the Respondent No.5 to release the amount of gratuity, pension and group insurance as against the LIC Master Policy No.CGI-20053 and 20256. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, merely on the ground that, the criminal case is pending against the petitioner, the amount of pension and gratuity is withheld by the Respondents. The said action of the respondents withholding pension and gratuity amount on the ground that, the criminal case is pending against the petitioner, is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Jharkhand and ors. Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and anr., (2013) 12 S.C.C. 210. Therefore, he submits that, the Petition may be allowed. 4. On the other hand, the learned A.G.P. appearing for the respondent/State invited our attention to the ave...

Qays Tayyibji Vs. Akbar Humayun Abdulali

Court: Mumbai

P.C. : 1. This Notice of Motion is taken out by the Defendant applicant under Order XXXVII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( CPC ) for setting aside an ex-parte decree passed by this court on 18 February 2003. 2. The present Summary Suit is filed by the Plaintiff for a decree of Rs.17,09,470/- together with pendent-lite and post decree interest at the rate of 24 % per annum on the principal amount of Rs.10 Lacs. The suit is filed on a Promissory Note as well as a dishonoured cheque. The Plaintiff claims to have lent and advanced a sum of Rs.10 Lacs to the Defendant repayable on demand with interest @ 24 % p.a. In consideration, the Defendant has executed a Demand Promissory Note dated 26 September 1997, promising to pay to the Plaintiff or his order the principal amount of Rs.10 Lacs together with interest @ 24 % per annum. It is the Plaintiff's case that the Defendant issued a cheque of Rs.10 Lacs on 10 April 2000 drawn on Bombay Mercantile Co-operative Bank Ltd. towards r...

Mahesh Kumar Agarwal Vs. Union of India, through the Secretary and Ano ...

Court: Mumbai

Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. The Petitioner has challenged judgment and order dated 19 July 2013 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Mumbai Bench, whereby Original Application No. 326 of 2010 was dismissed and thereby minor penalty imposed by the Respondent's Appellate Authority is maintained. 2. The Petitioner averred that, the Petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Inspector of Works Grade-I, on 30 March 1998 and was promoted as Assistant Engineer, Group-B post on 20 November 1999 and was again promoted to the post of Executive Engineer on adhoc basis and the same was regularized by the UPSC. While working as Executive Engineer, on 4 July 2005, the Petitioner was chargesheeted alleging that; the Petitioner failed to detect excess payment to contractor in that payment for sum quantity of 355500 M3 was made as against actually executed quantity of 31169.43 M3 causing loss of Rs.4.79 lacs; variation in thickness of sand layer against schedule item NS4 (part B). Charge s...

Vyankat Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai Aurangabad

Oral Judgment: 1. Heard both sides. 2. Aggrieved by the conviction for the offences punishable under section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Ambajogai, vide judgment and order dated 6th November, 2011 passed in Sessions Case No.3 of 2000, the present appeal is preferred by the original accused. He was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.3000/- on each count. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case, in short, is as under: That, PW3 Purushottam Deshmukh the complainant wanted that there should be mutation entry in his name in the Gram Panchayat record of village Massajog, Taluka Kaij, District Beed. The present appellant was working as Gramsevak of the said Gram Panchayat. Therefore, on 20th October, 1999, the complainant handed over the original sale deed which was recorded on a stamp paper of Rs.5/-, ...

Bapuso Narayan Kulkarni (deceased) through Lrs. and Others Vs. State o ...

Court: Mumbai

Oral Judgment: (A.S. Oka, J.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and the learned AGP for the Respondents. On the last date, the parties were put to notice that the Petitions will be taken up for final disposal at admission stage. In Writ Petition No.11616 of 2014, the challenge is to the Award dated 30th September, 2002 under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the said Act of 1894"). The main contention raised in the Petition is that in view of Sub-Section (2) of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short "the said Act of 2013"), acquisition proceedings shall be deemed to have been lapsed. This contention is mainly based on the assertion that the compensation amount has not been paid. 2. In Writ Petition No.11259 of 2014, the challenge is to the Award made on 21st January, 2004 under Section 11 of the said Act of 1894. The main challenge is on the s...

Nivrutti Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai Aurangabad

Reported in:

Court held - appellant could not have dreamt that shadow witness would be present, his statement already should be prepared in his name - there was no force in appeal – trial court had rightly came to conclusion that prosecution case was proved beyond reasonable doubt - Trial court was appointed through High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee to appear on behalf of appellant, his fees was quantified at prescribed amount, to be paid by High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee - Criminal Appeal was dismissed.

Paras : (17,18)

Case Referred:
Vishwanath s/o. Karnuji Londhe Vs. The State of Maharashtra 1995 Cri.L.J. 25 (Para 11).

Comparative Citations:
2016 ALL MR (CRI) 2257, 2016 (4) MAH.L.J(Cri) 100,

Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Aggrieved by the conviction for the offences punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short "the Act") vide impugned judgment and order dated 16th June, 2001 passed by the learned Special Judge, Aurangabad in Special Case No.3 of 1996, original accused has preferred the present appeal. The appellant was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act; and rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) of the Act. Hence, the present appeal. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is as under:- That, during the relevant period, the appellant was working as Revenue Inspector at village Waluj. The complainant PW 2 - Uday Patil was, during the relevant period, was Administrator of the Gram Panchayat, Waluj. For some period, he was Sarpanch of the Gram Pan...