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.
Arun Atmaram Patil and Others Vs. Sandhya Arun Patil and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. This writ petition takes an exception to the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik on 17.8.2001, in Criminal Revision Application No.332 of 2000. The said revision was preferred by the petitioners against the order passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nashik on 19th August, 2000 below Exh.19 in Criminal Case No.165 of 1997. By dismissing the revision application, learned Sessions Judge has confirmed the order passed by the learned Magistrate thereby refusing to act upon the pursis to bring on record that the matter was already compromised and settled between the parties, hence further proceedings are not tenable. 2. Brief facts of this writ petition can be stated as follows:- The marriage of petitioner and respondent No.1 had taken place on 16th May, 1981 at Nashik a per Hindu rites and ceremonies. In September, 1997, the petitioner No.1 had filed a petition for divorce bearing HMP No.209 of 1997 against respondent No.1, on the ground of cruelty....
HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Thr Its Branch Manager, Dhule Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-24-2016
Per Court: 1. The first proceeding is filed against judgment and Award of Claim Petition No.19 of 2012 and the second proceeding is filed against Judgment and Award of Claim Petition No. 1122 of 2011. Both the claim petitions were pending before Claims Tribunal, Dhule. The Tribunal has fastened the liability to pay compensation on the insurance company and so the insurance company has filed the appeals. Both the sides are heard. 2. The challenge of the insurance company is on the limited point viz. the liability in respect of deceased who were in transport vehicle. It is the case of insurance company that both the deceased persons were present in the transport vehicle as passengers and so risk of such persons was not covered under the policy. Meager amount of compensation is given by the Tribunal by presuming notional income as Rs.3,000/- in both the cases when the accident took place in the year 2011 and so the challenge is not on the point of quantum. 3. It is the case of claimants f...
Saroj Kiran Ahire Vs. Sunil Eknath Pawar and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-2016
P.C. 1. This is an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. filed by the aforesaid applicant challenging the order dated 28.4.2000 in Criminal Case No.211/S/2000 whereby the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Bandra, Mumbai has issued process for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Mr.Govilkar, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. He has further submitted that the applicant herein is the sister of the complainant and that she had already lodged a complaint against the respondent-complainant for committing theft of the subject cheque. He has further submitted that the police report also substantiates the allegations leveled against the applicant. The learned counsel therefore contends that this is a fit case for quashing the order of issuance of process. 3. The respondent was not present despite due servi...
The Secretary, Krishi Vigyan Kendra Vs. Ghansham
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-24-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. Mr.Choudhari, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has strenuously criticized the judgment of the Labour Court dated 08/12/2009 by which Complaint (ULP) No.41/2005 was partly allowed. He is aggrieved even by the judgment and order of the Industrial Court dated 27/07/2012 by which Revision (ULP) No.25/2010 has been dismissed. 3. The strenuous submissions of Mr.Choudhari can be summarized as follows: [a] The Marathwada Sheti Sahayya Mandal (MSSM) is a public trust registered under the provisions of The Bombay Public Trusts Act and the Societies Registration Act. [b] MSSM was established in 1969 for ensuring water resources management, land development, dry land farming, forestation, development and research in agricultural land. [c] The Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) is a National Agency established by the Department of Agriculture, Union of India. ...
Momin Matin Ahmad Mobin Ahmad and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra Thro ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-24-2016
1. Rule. 1. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally, by the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. It is the case of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5677/2014 that, the petitioner was working as Physical Education Teacher in Urdu Medium Girl s High School at Ter. The services of the petitioner have been terminated due to derecognition of the school. Thereafter, the petitioner did approach before the School Tribunal by way of filing Appeal. The School Tribunal at Solapur is pleased to allow the appeal of the petitioner, and directed the respondents to enter the name of the petitioner in the waiting list of the teachers, who are due for absorption. The service record of the petitioner is in the custody of the respondent no.2. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that, the respondents have issued an advertisement for filling in the posts of teachers including Physical Education Teacher, without considering the claim of the petitioner for absorption. There...
Suryachakra Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. JBF Industries Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-2016
Oral Judgment: (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) 1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties heard finally. This Appeal is filed by the original Respondents under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short' the 'Act') against order dated 3 December 2014 whereby the learned Judge after hearing both the parties, recorded the conduct of the Appellants, merits of the rival submissions and in view of the apprehensions so raised and as a case is made out for an interim protection order, as contemplated under section 9 on the principle of the grant of injunction/protective reliefs/security as provided under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.) has passed the order. "I have considered the submissions advanced by the Advocates for the parties and have perused all the documents relied upon by the Petitioner as well as the Respondent. I am satisfied that the Respondent is in the habit of making statements/submission which are false and incorrect to...
Umesh Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Rural Devel ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-24-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Petition takes exception to the impugned communication / letter dated 17.03.2015 passed by respondent no. 6. There is further prayer, seeking directions to respondents to issue the appointment order to the petitioner on the post of Live Stock Supervisor in the office of respondent nos. 5 and 6 Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar, under Nomadic Tribe reserved category forthwith, with all other consequential service benefits. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner passed H.S.C. Examination in February, 2004. The petitioner also passed Diploma of two years in Diary Development Management and Animal Husbandry of the Maharashtra Husbandry and Fishery Science University, Nagapur in April / May 2006. The petitioner, thus, is possessing the requisite qualification of being appointed on the post of Live Stock Supervisor , as per the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad, District Services [Recruitment] Rules, 1967, as amended from time to time [for the sake of convenience,...
M/s. Siddheshwar Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd. Vs. Ganesh and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-24-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. Since a common issue is involved in both these matters, I have considered these petitions together. 3. The petitioner has raised an unusual, but a vital issue in the light of the Part I order of the Labour Court concluding that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse. Whether the evidence statement of a witness in written form before the Enquiry Officer in a domestic enquiry, should necessarily be sworn on oath before a Notary or before a competent authority which has the power to administer an oath, is the issue. 4. In both these cases, the respondents / employees have preferred complaints before the Labour Court Aurangabad u/s 28 of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971. In both these cases, the fairness of the enquiry has been conceded. However, in both these cases, the findings of the Enquiry Officer has been assailed. 5. The Labour Court permitted the litigating sides to lead ...
Kashiram and Another Vs. Mansaram since Deceased : Through his LRs. an ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-24-2016
1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 14th March 2001 in Regular Civil Appeal No.30/2000 made by the learned 7th Additional District Judge, Nagpur, by which the lower Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree dated 29.11.1999 in Regular Civil Suit No.32/1994 passed by the Civil Judge, Jr. Dn., Kuhi and decreed the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs, the present Appeal was filed by the original defendants. 2. Field Survey No.22(old) Gut No.11 admeasuring 6.44 acres situated at Mouza Savangi, Tah.Kuhi, District: Nagpur was originally owned by Mansaram, along with his father Tulshiram and uncle Bala. The appellants agreed to purchase the said suit field vide an agreement of sale dated 17.9.1967 for a consideration of Rs. 4,000/- and the said agreement was executed by all the owners Mansaram, Tulshiram and Bala. The entire amount of consideration, namely, Rs. 4000/- was paid and was received by the respondents and the possession was also handed over to the appell...
The Union of India through the Assistant Director of Postal Services ( ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-2016
G.S. Kulkarni, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners, learned counsel for the Respondents and learned counsel for Intervenors in Civil Application Nos.3273 of 2015 and 3272 of 2015. 2. Both the Writ Petitions assail the judgment and order dated 31 July 2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench (for short 'Tribunal'), passed in a batch of original applications. Writ Petition No.11470 of 2015 is filed by the Union of India and Writ Petition No.11285 of 2015 has been filed by the original Petitioners before the Central Administrative Tribunal. 3. The challenge as raised on behalf of the Union of India to the orders passed by the Tribunal is to the extent the Tribunal has directed to hold reexamination of Paper-II without disturbing the result of Paper-I for the candidates who appeared initially for the said Paper. The challenge as raised by the private parties in the second Writ petition is to the extent Tribunal has not accepted their prayer that the firs...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »