Mumbai Court February 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.
Jagannath and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-10-2016
1. Heard both sides. 2. Aggrieved by the recording of conviction by the learned Special Judge, Aurangabad in Special Case No.31 of 1998 vide judgment and order dated 22/09/2003 for the offences punishable under section 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the present appeal is preferred by the appellants/original accused. 3. The appellant no.1 -Jagannath S/o Diwanrao Barse, who was original accused no.1, was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.250/- for the offence punishable under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.250/- for the offence punishable under section 13(1)(d) r/w. Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The appellant no.2 i.e. original accused no.2 - Ganesh S/o Poma Rathod was convicted for the offence punishable under section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment ...
Indrabahadur P. Sharma and Others Vs. Dy. Collector (Enc) and Competen ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-2016
1. The learned counsel for the parties agree that these petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment and order. In all the three petitions, the challenge, is to the orders dated 12 December 20016 and 14 May 2007 made by the President of the Slum Areas (I.C. and R.) Tribunal (Slum Tribunal). 2. These petitions concern the property admeasuring about 7171.1 sq. meters surveyed at CTS Nos.823, 823/1 to 170 Marol, Andheri, Bombay Suburban Division (suit property). In 1978, the suit property, was declared as 'slum area', in terms of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (Slum Act). At the behest of some Imla Maliks (owners of structures), the Slum Tribunal, by order dated 25 April 1979, set aside such declaration and remanded the matter to the Competent Authority for re-determination. On 25 January 1983, portion of the suit property, admeasuring 6942 sq. meters or thereabouts, was redeclared as 'slum area'. The Slum Tribunal, again at the behest...
Padmatai Vs. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Urban Develo ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-10-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner has approached this court being aggrieved by the notification dated 12.2.2015 issued by the respondent no.1 thereby constituting an area within the Amgaon Gram Panchayat area to be a Nagar Panchayat as provided under Section 341(A) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (for short the said Act). The petitioner has also sought for direction to the respondent no.1 to declare 'Amgaon' constituted urban area, by amalgamating areas of Gram Panchayats Amgaon, Bangaon, Risama, Kumbhartoli, Padampur, Malhi and Kidangipar as Amgaon Nagar Parishad as provided under subsection 2 of Section 3 of the Act. 3. The facts in brief giving rise to the present petition are as under: The village Amgaon was a Gram Panchayat and has been declared as Tahsil headquarter. The area of Gram Panchayat is surrounded by the seven other Gram Pa...
The Superintending Engineer, Nagpur Irrigation Circle, Command Area De ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-10-2016
R.K. Deshpande, J.(Oral) 1. In Complaint (ULPN) No. 248 of 2000, the Industrial Court has granted a declaration that the petitioners are engaged in an unfair labour practise under Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act (in short "the MRTU and PULP Act"). A positive direction has been given to the petitioners to consider the proposal for bringing the complainants on Converted Regular Temporary Establishment (in short "CRTE") from the year 1982 i.e. from the date, when they were brought on CRTE as Mazdoors. This judgment and order dated 13.01.2006 passed by the Industrial Court is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition by the petitioners employer. 2. The question before the Industrial Court was whether the complainants were actually working on the post of Clerks from the dates of their initial appointments till the completion of 5 years service, so as to bring them on CRTE as Clerks i...
Suryakant Shankarrao Gaikwad and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-2016
Common Judgment : 1. Both these appeals can be conveniently disposed of by this common order as the appellants were tried and convicted on a single trial held by the Special Judge appointed under Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The appellant Gopal Gadhave (Criminal Appeal No.176 of 2005) was the accused no.1 and the appellant Suryakant Gaikwad (Criminal Appeal No.171 of 2005) was the accused no.2 in the trial court. The learned Special Judge convicted the appellant Gopal Gadhave (accused no.1) of the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the P.C.Act ) and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/on each of the said two counts. The learned Special Judge convicted the appellant Suryakant Gaikwad (accused no.2) of an offence punishable under Section 12 of the P.C.Act and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a p...
Draupada @ Draupadi Jaydeo Pawar and Others Vs. Indubai and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-2016
1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 17th February, 2010 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangli while disposing of Misc. Application Nos. 168 of 2003 and 131 of 2006 by a common judgment. 2. Draupada Jaydeo Pawar and Indubai Jaydeo Pawar both claimed to be wives of the deceased Jaydeo Pawar, have filed these Misc. applications separately for succession and heirship certificate in their favour. (In order to avoid confusion, both the parties are addressed by their names). 3. As per the case of the Draupada, her marriage was solemnized with Jaydeo Pawar in the year 1979 and five children were born out of the said wedlock. Jaydeo died on 10th July, 2003 at village Ainwadi, Tal. Khanapur, Sangli. Before death Jaydeo had executed a Will dated 17th May, 2002 and he bequeathed the entire property in favour of his wife Draupada. After death of Jaydeo, Draupada applied for the Letters of Administration and on that basis she claimed that Jaydeo had mar...
Babu J. Upardekar and Others Vs. Returning Officer, Co-operative Socie ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-09-2016
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Mr. D. Pangam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Ms. P. Bhandari holding for Mr. P. Dangui, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2. 2. At the outset, Mr. Pangam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks leave to delete the respondent no.13. Leave granted. The respondent no.13 stands deleted at the risk of the petitioners. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 3. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel. 4. Ms. P. Bhandari, learned Addl. Government Advocate waives service on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2. Remaining respondents absent though notice was issued for final disposal at the stage of admission. 5. The above petition takes exception to an order dated 21.01.2016 passed by the respondent no.1 at Exhibit F to the petition and direction to the respondent no.1 to accept the nominations of the petitioners. 6. Briefly, the facts of the case as stated by ...
Nanded District Central Co-operative Bank Through its Deputy General M ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-09-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 18.10.2013 delivered by the Labour Court, Nanded by which the Complaint ULP No. 16/2006 filed by the respondent was allowed and he was granted reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages from 11.05.2006 till his retirement on 31.10.2010. The petitioner is further aggrieved by the judgment of the Industrial Court dated 09.07.2015 by which Revision ULP No. 183/2013 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 3. The strenuous contention of Mr. Ingole Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent was charged with misappropriation. Grave and serious charges have been leveled upon him. Yet, the Labour Court has casually considered the enquiry conducted against the respondent as per rules and has interfered with the findings and enquiry by its Part-I judgment dated 05.12.2012 and has set aside...
Pandurang Gangaramji Karhale Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-09-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned judgment of Industrial Court dated 21.08.2014 by which Revision ULP No. 174/2013 filed by the respondent-MSRTC has been allowed and the dismissal of the petitioner has been upheld. 2. The petitioner submits that he had joined employment with respondent-Corporation as a bus conductor in 1990. On 25.5.2008 when the bus was subjected to a surprise check, the petitioner-conductor was alleged to have resold used tickets. The chargesheet dated 18.06.2008 was served upon the petitioner. He replied to the chargesheet on 20.06.2008. After conducting a departmental/domestic enquiry, the respondent issued a show cause notice dated 12.11.2008 proposing the punishment of dismissal from service. 3. The petitioner submits that he challenged the show cause notice dated 12.11.2008 by filing Complaint ULP NO. 240/2008 before the Labour Court, Nanded. The application for interim relief dated 23.08.2010 was rejected by the Labour Court. His Rev...
Aditya Dhananjay Phadte and Others Vs. State of Goa, through the Secre ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-09-2016
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. V. Rodrigues, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents No.1 and 2, Ms. A. Kamat, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 and Mr. S. S. Kantak, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the intervenors. 2. The above petition, filed by five petitioners on the ground that have successfully passed the MBBS Degree Examinations and are eligible for seeking admissions to the Post Graduate Degree and Diploma Course of the Goa University, at the Goa Medical College, Bambolim. The petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for a direction that AIPGMEE, 2016 be cancelled and admissions to the Post Graduate Degree and Diploma Courses 2016-17 be conducted on the basis of the Goa (Rules for Admission to Post-graduate Course of the Goa University at the Goa Medical College) Rules, 2004 ( Admission Rules 2004 for short) at Exhibit A. In the alternative, to issue an appr...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »