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.
Sarita Vs. Sant Gadge Baba Amravati University, through its Registrar
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-02-2016
Oral Judgment: (Vasanti A Naik, J.) 1. Whether the performance of a student at a particular examination could be cancelled and consequential orders could be passed in view of the cancellation order, without granting an opportunity to the said student, is the question that arises for consideration in the instant petition. 2. RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner, an Assistant Professor and also a Member on the Board of Studies, had appeared as an examinee in M.A. Part-I examination in Marathi subject, conducted by the respondent-Amravati University. The examination centre for the petitioner was C.M. Kadhi Kala Mahavidyalaya, Paratwada and the roll number of the petitioner was 02674. While the petitioner was solving the paper of 'Arvachin Kavita' on 19.04.2014, the invigilator found a chit near the desk of the petitioner and a complaint was registered agai...
Bhaskar Vs. State of Maharashtra, Department of Law and Judiciary Mant ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-02-2016
P.R. Bora, J. 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. Following two issues are raised in the present petition: (1) Whether the recommendations of Justice Shetty Commission would be applicable to the post of Assistant Superintendent, Civil Court, Senior Division. (2) Whether the benefits as made available by Justice Shetty Commission can be extended to the employees working in the Office of the District Legal Services Authority. 3. Before adverting to the legal issues raised as above, it would be necessary to note down in brief the facts of the present petition, which are thus: The petitioner entered into the services of the State on 15th July, 1980. He was appointed as Junior Clerk on the establishment of the District Court, Beed. In the year 1989, he was promoted to the post of Senior Clerk. After having completed 12 years of the service in the cadre of Senior Clerk, petitioner was promoted to the ...
Surendra J. Kalangutkar and Another Vs. The Goa State Co-operative Ban ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-02-2016
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. G. K. Sardessai, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel. 3. Mr. G. K. Sardessai, learned counsel waives service on behalf of the respondents. 4. Both the learned counsel point out that the legal proposition involved in both the above petitions are identical and as such they can be disposed of by a common judgment. 5. The above petitions inter-alia pray for quashing and setting aside the entire proceedings starting with the suspension of the petitioners, the subsequent service of the charge sheet against the petitioners, the proceedings of the inquiry officer, the inquiry report, the show cause notice issued to the petitioners and the office order dated 02.05.2015 dismissing the petitioners from the services. 6. Briefly, the facts of the case are that by orders dated 07.07.2010 and 21.08.2010, it...
Pallavi and Others Vs. Government of India, Through its Secretary, Fin ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-02-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. All these Writ Petitions raise similar issues and having almost similar facts claiming similar reliefs are being heard and disposed of by common Judgment. In Writ Petition No.8030/2015, direction is sought to the respondent no. 2 to consider qualification of the petitioner as equivalent to the qualification mentioned in the Notification issued by the respondent no. 3. There is also challenge to the impugned letter / order dated 27th May, 2015, issued by respondent no. 2, with further prayer seeking direction to the respondent no. 2 to allow the petitioner to complete her training and thereafter issue consequential orders. In Writ Petition No.8892/2015, similar reliefs are claimed except the date of impugned order / letter is mentioned as 27th June, 2015. In Writ Petition No. 8937/2015, Writ Petition No. 8702/2015 and Writ Petition No.8415/2015, the petitioners have taken exception to the letter / order dated 3rd June, 2015, 27th June, 2015 and 9th July, 2015, respect...
M/s. Hitech Audio Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Maharashtra throu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-2016
Oral Judgment: (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of both sides, Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks to quash and set aside a work order which has been issued to the 3rd respondent by the 2nd respondent on 28th January, 2016 pursuant to a e-tender dated 21st December, 2015. 3. The petitioner is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and having its office at the address mentioned in the cause title. The 1st respondent is the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary, Department of Public Works and the 2nd respondent is the Chief Engineer (Electrical), Public Works Department (PWD). 4. The 3rd respondent placed a bid in pursuance of this e-tender and was awarded the contract. 5. The 4th respondent has been impleaded as party respondent on the footing that the equipment which was supplied by it to the 3rd respondent is not genui...
Chandrashekhar Vs. Vice-Chairman and Joint Commissioner, Scheduled Tri ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-02-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 21/01/2016, thereby respondent No.1-Committee has invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner. 3. The petitioner, however, has given up his claim with regard to challenge the order disputing his caste invalidation and has now restricted his claim in the present petition only for protecting his service. 4. The petitioner, claiming to be belonging "Halba-Scheduled Tribe", came to be appointed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the year 1997. Since the petitioner claimed to be belonging Scheduled Tribe, his caste claim was referred to respondent No.1-Committee for scrutiny. The Committee has found that the petitioner belongs to "Halba-Koshti" and not "Halba-Scheduled Tribe". 5. Be that as it may. The Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Arun s/o Vishwanath Sonone Vs. St...
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Vs. Maharashtra Electricity Re ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-2016
G.S. Patel, J. 1.Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal. We have heard Mr. Setalvad and Mr. Chagla, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners and the 2nd Respondent respectively at some length, and, in addition, Mr. Singh and Ms. Calcuttawala for the other Respondents. We have considered the material on record. 2.The Petitioner is the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ( MCGM ). This is a statutory corporation and a local authority for Greater Mumbai. Among its various functions is the provision of electric supply and transport for the Island City of Mumbai, through the Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking ( BESandT ; in this judgment, the term BESandT refers also to the Petitioner). In this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the MCGM challenges Regulation 4.10 read with Regulations 4.1 and 4.7 of the Maharashtra Electric Regulatory Commission...
Dr. Chitra Pune Vs. The State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Law Ju ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-2016
Oral Judgment: (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order at annexure Q dated 3rd October, 2011, retiring the petitioner in public interest, invoking the powers under Rule 10(4) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 read with the provisions of Rule 19 of the Maharashtra Judicial Services Rules, 2008, be quashed and set aside, and that the petitioner be reinstated in service with continuity and full back-wages. 2. It is common ground that Rule 10(4) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 read with Rule 19 of the Maharashtra Judicial Services Rules, 2008 has been invoked to pass the impugned order. 3. This Petition was filed on 7th May, 2012 and the impugned order recites that the State Government being fully empowered to pass an order in public interest, having been satisfied that it is necessary and in public inter...
Richie Edwin Dias Vs. State of Goa and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-02-2016
Oral Judgment: (K.L. Wadane, J.) 1. Heard Mr. V. Amonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. M. Amonkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent nos.1 and 2 and Mr. A. Kudtarkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.3. 2. Rule. 3. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waive service. 4. The present petition is filed by the petitioner/accused, invoking jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing and setting aside the charge-sheet bearing No.32/2013 in Criminal Case No.IPC/140/2013/B pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panaji. 5. The brief facts of the case may be stated as follows:- On 29.3.2013 at about 19.30 hours, within the jurisdiction of respondent no.2, the petitioner drove his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and when the petition...
Jitendra Manohar Jadhav Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secr ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-02-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Petition takes exception to the decision rendered by the Administrative Tribunal, dated 25.08.2015 in Original Application No.440 of 2015 at Exhibit-E, and also, to the impugned order of transfer dated 30.05.2015 at Exhibit-B issued by respondent no.3, thereby transferring the petitioner from Rural Hospital, Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon to District Hospital, Nandurbar, on administrative ground. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner came to be posted at Amalner in Rural Hospital in Jalgaon District on his own request. The petitioner is working as Laboratory Technician in Rural Hospital, Amalner, from 01.06.2011. Being a Group-C Government Servant, as per the provisions of the Transfer Act, 2005, he is entitled to continue at a station for two consecutive tenures of three years each. Accordingly, the petitioner was expecting to be continued at his present place of posting at Amalner till May, 2017. However, before he completes the prescribed tenure, h...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »