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.
Rajaram Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Rural Dev ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-09-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and heard finally with the consent of the parties. 3. By way of filing present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner takes exception to the order dated 2nd July, 2015, issued by the respondent No.4, by Outward No.477/2015. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Road Karkoon on 1st April, 1987. The service record of the petitioner is unblemished and clean. It is further the case of the petitioner that, he was appointed and converted on C.R.T. on 1st April, 1987, as per the policy decision of the Assured Progress Scheme, the petitioner has completed 12 years of service from the date of appointment on 1st April, 1999. The Government of Maharashtra inspired by the scheme prepared by the Central Government to grant senior pay scale / certain benefits, after completing regular service of 12 years for Class-III and Class-IV employees, by issu...
Babasaheb Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-09-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard both sides. 2. The present appellant/original accused no.1 was convicted by the learned IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Aurangabad for the offences punishable under Section 498-A and 306 of Indian Penal Code vide judgment and order dated 8th November, 2001 passed in Sessions Case No.432 of 1999. He was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code. He was further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of R.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code. The parents of the present appellant i.e. original accused nos.2 and 3 were, however, acquitted by the learned IInd Addl. Sessions Judge. 3. The prosecution case, in short, is as under:- That, deceased Sangita, daughter of PW 1 -Sudhakar and PW 2 - Mathurabai, r/o. Zalta, Tq. and Dist. Aurangabad, had married to the present appellant who was then residing...
Ganpat D. Kulthe Vs. Hasansaheb Miyalal Mushrif
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. By this Miscellaneous Civil Application, the applicant seeks transfer of Special Civil Suit No.134 of 2011, which is pending in the Court of 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur to this Court in exercise of powers under section 24(1)(b)(i) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 2. The respondent was a Minister of State from 2000 to 2009 and is a sitting member of Legislative Assembly, Maharashtra. Some time in the year 2000, the respondent filed a suit against the appellant in the Court of 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur inter-alia praying for damages to the tune of Rs.1,00,05,000/-. The applicant has already filed his written statement in the said suit. It is the case of the applicant that the said suit filed by the respondent had been listed for about 33 times before the 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur when the respondent remained present only on three occasions. The learned trial Judge has also imposed cost on the respon...
Western Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Namrata A. Banokar
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-09-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. In the Reference Case No.CGIT/NGP/38/2009, the Labour Court has passed an award on 20.01.2014, holding that the action of the management in not providing employment to the complainant, who is the dependent of the deceased-employee, is unjustified and the complainant is, therefore, entitled to employment in accordance with the provisions of National Coal Wage Agreement in force. The Court has directed the petitioner-employer to provide employment to the complainant. 3. As per the decision rendered by this Court in Writ Petition No.3203 of 2012 (Western Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Lomesh Maroti Khartad), decided on 22.07.2013, the benefit of providing employment on compassionate ground is available to the permanent workers. If it was the claim of the respondent that his father had acquired the status of permanent employee upon completion of continuous service of 240 days, ...
Vishnu Hari Khopkar Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-2016
Oral Judgment: (Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J.) 1. Appellant, who stands convicted by the judgment and order dated 30.5.2013, of Additional Sessions Judge, Vasai, in Sessions Case No.27 of 2011, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months, by this appeal challenges his conviction and sentence. 2. Brief facts of the appeal can be stated as follows :- Deceased Aruna was wife of the appellant. Their marriage had taken place about 12 to 13 years prior to the incident. Out of wedlock, she had two daughters and three sons, including P.W.3 Rahul. Alongwith their children, the appellant and deceased Aruna were residing in room No.6 at Neha Apartment, Datta Nagar Nalasopara. Her sister, P.W.1 Rekha was residing in the same Apartment in room No.8. It is alleged by prosecution that the appellant was addicted to alcohol. He was also sus...
Dashrath Aba More Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-09-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard both sides. 2. Aggrieved by the conviction recorded by learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhusawal, in Sessions Case No.216 of 2014 for the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(f), 448 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, present appeal is preferred by the original accused. The appellant was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 448 of Indian penal Code. He was also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 506 of Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case, in short, is as under :. That, the present appellant's family was residing in the neighborhood of the complainant and the victim at Yawal, Dist.Jalgaon. On 4th June, 2012, PW 1 -comp...
Rajinder Kumar Malhotra Vs. Paresh Biharilal Vyas and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-2016
1. The petitioner has approached this court with an allegation against the respondents that the respondents are guilty of having willfully disobeyed a direction contained in an order dated 21.10.2013 (copy whereof is at Exhibit-A to the petition), passed in Company Application (L) No.70 of 2013 in Company Appeal No.15 of 2013 (the said order). The portion of the order which the respondents are alleged to have willfully disobeyed is in paragraph-18 and it reads as under:- ..........Furthermore the amount of 12% on Rs.67.5 crores under the agreement needs to be paid. The same shall be paid within three weeks from today.......... 2. Admittedly this direction has not been complied with. Moreover, it is not the case of any of the respondents that they could not comply with despite efforts. It is the case of the respondents that they were not bound to comply with the said order. 3. The respondent nos.1 to 3 have been represented by Shri Sancheti i/by M/s.Legasis partners and respondent no.4...
The Chief Officer, Shirdi Municipal Council, Shirdi Vs. The Director, ...
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 a municipal council who is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 07.08.2014 delivered by the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar by which Complaint ULP No. 116/2012 filed by Respondent No.2 herein has been partly allowed. 3. The petitioner submits that one Mr. Nandkumar Vitthal Dalavi (presently deceased) was working with the petitioner-Council on daily wages. He had approached the Industrial Tribunal in Reference IDA No. 1/1997 which was allowed and the said Nandkumar Vitthal Dalavi was granted permanency on the post of Cashier with effect from 01.07.1992. He continued in employment till his demise on 04.09.2006. 4. Respondent No.2 is the wife of the deceased Nandkumar Dalavi who preferred Complaint ULP No. 116/2012 before the Industrial Court praying for being appointed on compassionate basis in place of her husband who has passed away while in service. The petiti...
The TJSB Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs. B.D. Sampat and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. The appellant is the original complainant. He had filed a complaint alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I.Act hereinafter) against the respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 herein. The respondent no.3 is a private limited company and the respondent nos.1 and 2 are the directors thereof. On 29th January 2013, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vashi, before whom the complaint was pending, passed an order of acquittal of the respondents. In the operative part of the order, the learned Magistrate referred to the provisions of Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code) and mentioned that the accused were being acquitted of the said offence under the said provision. 2. Being aggrieved by the said order of acquittal, the appellant original complainant has filed this appeal, after obtaining the special leave of this court. 3. At the time of granting leave, it was decided, by consent, that the appeal would be hea...
Arun Vishwanath Kamble Vs. Satish Siddharth Chavan and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-2016
1. The petitioner an elected Corporator of Bombay Municipal Corporation (BMC) challenges order dated 19 September 2013 made by the Small Causes Court at Mumbai, dismissing petitioner's application at Exhibit 43/2013 seeking rejection of election petition No.58 of 2012 under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, inter alia on the ground of failure to disclose a cause of action. 2. On 13 November 2013, this Court, whilst issuing Rule and granting interim relief in this petition, made the following order: "P.C : Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2) Perused the impugned order as well as judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in Narayan Gunaji Sawant versus Deepak Vasant Kesarkar 2011 (2) ALL MR 504 in Application No.26 of 2010 in Election Petition No.16 of 2009. In my view, strong prima-facie case is made out, therefore, Rule. Rule is made returnable on 10 th February, 2014. 3) During the pendency of the above petition, further proceedings of Election Petition No.58 of 2012...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »