Mumbai Court March 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.
Seema Raju Pol Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., through its Stat ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-09-2016
Oral Judgment: (Shinde, J.) 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, taken up for final hearing at admission stage itself. 2. This petition has been filed being aggrieved by the impugned action of the respondents dated 6th July, 2013 of cancellation of the selection of the petitioner for MS/HSD retail outlet dealership on Lasur to Sultanabad new Mumbai Highway, District Aurangabad. The respondent Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Issued an advertisement in the newspaper Daily Lokmat on 13th March, 2012 inviting applications for the allotment of retail outlet dealership for MS/HSD. In the said advertisement, one retail outlet which is to be set up at Lasur Station to Sultanabad new Mumbai High Way was advertised. In the said advertisement, it was mentioned that, the said location is reserved for Open category for Woman . In pursuance to the said advertisement, the petitioner filed an application along with necessary documents. It is further case of the petitioner that, ...
Prabha P. Shenai Vs. M/s. Ispat Industries Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-2016
1. This Summary Suit is filed for a decree in the sum of Rs.1,13,06,769.40 together with interest on the basis of a written contract evidenced by four documents, all in connection with earth filing work carried out by the Plaintiff for the Defendant. Upon unconditional leave to defend being granted to the Defendant, the Defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement. Issues were thereupon framed and oral and documentary evidence was led by the parties. I have heard the constituted attorney of the Plaintiff and learned Counsel for the Defendant. This order disposes of the suit. 2. The Plaintiff claims to be carrying on business in civil construction works as a proprietress through herself and earlier through her predecessor in title in the name and style of M/s. Sterling Engineering Co.(The references to 'Plaintiff' hereafter include her predecessor in title as well.) It is the case of the Plaintiff that in or around March 1994, the Defendant approached the Plaintiff for ear...
Shashikant Vs. Mahatama Mungsaji Adiwasi Shikshan Sanstha and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-09-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Heard Shri I.N. Chaudhari, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Anjan De, learned Counsel for respondent no.1 and Shri A.V. Palshikar, learned A.G.P. for respondent no.3. 2. Petitioner, a Junior Clerk in the employment of respondent no.1 was transferred earlier from headquarter Pusad to Dhamangaon on 14.06.2013. By order dated 23.06.2014, he has been transferred back from Dhamangaon to Pusad. By the impugned order dated 25.06.2015, he has been transferred again from Pusad to Dhamangaon. 3. Shri Chaudhari, learned counsel submits that this shows periodical transfer and hence, is in breach of Rule 41 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981. He is relying upon the observations of this Court in judgment reported at 2011 (1) Mh.L.J. 307 (Pawar Bhagwantrao Bhivrao vs. Shri Swami Vivekanand Shikshan Sanstha, Kolhapur and others). 4. Shri Anjan De, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1 i...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Through it's Divisional Manager and A ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-09-2016
1. Both the appeals are admitted. Notice after admission is made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard both the sides for final disposal. 2. First Appeal No. 14/2013 is filed by Insurance Company and the other appeal is filed by owner against judgment and award of Claim Petition No. 103/2006, which was pending before the Claims Tribunal, Sangamner. The Insurance Company has challenged the decision as it is made liable to pay the compensation first though right is given to recover the compensation from owner. The owner has challenged the decision as the Insurance Company is not asked to indemnify him and the right is given to Insurance Company to recover the compensation amount from him. 3. The claim was filed in respect of death of one Balkrushna Khandagale, who was working as Police Head Constable. Accident took place on 20.5.2006 within local jurisdiction of Akole Police Station, District Ahmednagar. The deceased was riding his motorcycle and it is contended by the claimants that d...
Seema Vs. Manganese Ore India Ltd.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-09-2016
1. Heard Shri A.C. Dharmadhikari, advocate for the petitioner and Shri G.G. Modak, advocate for the respondent. 2. This case shows the apathy of the widow of an employee working in the executive cadre with the respondent Corporation which is a Government of India Undertaking. 3. It is admitted fact that the petitioner's husband Mohammad Arif was appointed as Graduate Trainee Engineer with the respondent Corporation on 21st September, 1988 and in due course of time held post of Senior Manager (Mines) which is an executive post. While posted at Tirodi Mines, Distt. Balaghat (Madhya Pradesh) he was missing since 20th November, 2000. According to the petitioner, Mohammad Arif had gone to duty on 20th November, 2000 and did not return. The facts on the record show that the officers of the respondent Corporation had informed the petitioner by the communication darted 10th December, 2000 that Mohammad Arif had left the place of work on 20th November, 2000 and had not reported on duty thereaft...
Vijay Sanghavi Vs. The State of Maharashtra Through Public Prosecutor ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Ms.Kavita M. Pawar, the learned counsel for the appellant. Heard Mr.Anand Talreja, the learned counsel for the Respondent No.2. 2. Leave granted. 3. The application for leave to appeal is treated as a memo of appeal. It be numbered accordingly. Necessary amendments be carried out forthwith. 4. The Appeal is admitted and heard finally by consent. By consent, calling for Record and Proceedings dispensed with, the counsel for the parties agreeing that the same is not necessary. 5. The appellant is the original complainant. He had filed a complaint against the respondent No.2 herein alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. On 31/01/2014, the Metropolitan Magistrate 28th Court, Esplanade, before whom the said complaint case was pending, passed an order of acquittal as contemplated under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (For short, the Code ). Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant has approached th...
Neelkanth Devansh Developers Private Limited Vs. Urban Infrastructure ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-2016
V.M. Kanade, J. 1. Appellants are the original Respondents and are challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the Company Petitions filed by the Respondents/original Petitioners. By the said impugned order, the learned Single Judge was pleased to pass an order of winding up of the Appellants/Company subject to the Appellants depositing the amount which was due and payable under the Inter Corporate Deposits made by the Respondents/original Petitioners. 2. Few facts as are necessary to decide the aforesaid appeals are as under: At the outset, it may be noted that the facts in the aforesaid three appeals are substantially similar and that only the amounts in each appeal differs. The learned Single Judge, in the impugned order, has referred to the facts in Company Petition No. 31 of 2013, which is appeal No. 102 of 2015. 3. The respondents/original petitioners' case as disclosed in the company petitions broadly is as under : According to the respondents/original petitioner...
Rashid Khan Vs. Kashinathrao and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-09-2016
1. Admit. By consent of parties, taken up for final disposal forthwith. 2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 26.2.2010, passed by the learned C.J.S.D. Nanded in W.C.N.F.A No.1 of 1987, the appellant-original petitioner has preferred this appeal. 3. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows:- Undisputedly, respondent No.1 was the owner of matador bearing registration MTB-7330 on the date of accident i.e. on 1.7.1986, and the said matador was insured with respondent No.2-Insurance Company. The appellant-petitioner was in the employment of respondent No.1 and was working as a driver on the said matador. On 1.7.1986, the said matador, being driven by the appellant-petitioner from Kandhar to Nanded, met with an accident. In the said accident, the appellant-original petitioner had sustained injuries to his left eye. Even after long medical treatment, the appellant-petitioner lost vision of his left eye and consequently, he is not able to dr...
Shridhar Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through Principle Secretary, Tr ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-09-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Brief facts giving rise for filing the Petition, are as under: The petitioner possesses Master Degree in the stream of Commerce, and joined as Junior Assistant in the Year 1979 with the Maharashtra State Co-operative Tribal Development Corporation Ltd., and in the Year 2000 worked as Accountant. The Government of Maharashtra decided to establish a separate Financial and Development Corporation for the welfare of tribals, and as such by the Government Resolution No.2396/45/Pra.Kra.-39/Ka-3, dated 9th December, 1998, the Shabari Tribal Financial and Development Corporation Ltd. came into existence. Accordingly, the staff for STFD Corporation Ltd. came to be filled in from the Maharashtra State Co-operative Tribal Development Corporation Ltd., and other similar Organizations vide Government Resolution Tribal Development Section G.R. No.TDC/1099/Pra.Kra.-7/Ka-3 Mantralaya Extension, Mumbai-32, dated 13th December, 1999. Thus, the vacancies of STFD Corporation Ltd. came t...
Dilbahadur Mansing Khadaka and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-2016
Common Oral Judgment: (V.K. Tahilramani, J.) 1. Appellants i.e original accused No.1 - Dilbahadur Mansing Khadaka and original accused No.3 - Jaharsing Harising Badela have preferred Criminal Appeal No.1082 of 2009 against the Judgment and Order dated 31.8.2009 passed by 2nd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai in Sessions Case No.389 of 2007. Appellant i.e original accused No.2 - Shankar Mahendra Gogati has preferred Criminal Appeal No.355 of 2010 against the very same Judgment and Order. By the said judgment and order, the learned Session Judge convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC and sentenced each of them to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.500/- each, in default S.I. for one month. As both the appeals are directed against the very same Judgment and Order, we are deciding both the appeals together. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer to the appellants as they were referred before the trial Court i.e appel...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »