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.
Reliance General Insurance Vs. Pundalik Gurudas Ekawade and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-22-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Mr. Dhargalkar, learned Counsel waives service on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2 (who are the only contesting respondents). Respondent no. 3 is served, but there is no appearance. The notice to respondent no. 4, who was ex-parte before the learned Tribunal, is hereby dispensed with. The petition is taken up for final disposal with consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner, which is the original respondent no. 3 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, is challenging the order dated 11.08.2015, by which application filed by the petitioner for taking the written statement on record has been rejected. 3. The brief facts are that the respondent nos. 1 and 2, who are the original claimants have filed Claim Petition No. 15/2013, which is pending before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panaji, Goa. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 are seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the death of one Gurudas Ekawade in a veh...
Trimurti Balak Mandir Shikshan Sanstha and Another Vs. Vithabai Bhikan ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-22-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner management has challenged the impugned judgment dated 1.1.2015 delivered by the School Tribunal, Aurangabad, by which the Appeal No.3/2009 filed by respondent no.1 employee has been allowed and she has been granted reinstatement with consequential benefits from the date of her oral termination, which is 23.12.2008. 3. After considering the strenuous submissions of the learned Advocates for the respective sides, I find that this case is a classic example of an unscrupulous employer exploiting a teacher employee, who has been working in the said school for more than five years. 4. The contention of Shri Godbole, learned Advocate for the petitioner management, can be summarized as under: a] Respondent no.1 employee was allowed to work only to gain experience as a teacher. b] She was inducted as an extra teacher only for the purpose of enabling her to gain experience. c...
Gajanan Ramrao Lande and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-2016
Oral Order: 1. The anticipatory bail application No.1851 of 2015 is moved by the applicants-accused Gajanan Lande and Rajiv Lande for pre-arrest bail as the offence is registered at C.R. No.II-2 of 2015 with the Tarapur policestation, Palghar, at the instance of one Suresh Govindrao Bhamre on 18.10.2015. The anticipatory bail application No.1852 of 2015 is moved by the applicant-accused Gajanan Lande for pre-arrest bail as the offence is registered at C.R. No.II-21 of 2015 with the Manikpur police station, Palghar, at the instance of one Dinesh Narayan Pashte on 18.10.2015. Initially the complaints were registered under sections 188 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code as also under section 7 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Mal Practices At University, Board and other Specified Examinations Act, 1982. However, later on, charges under sections 420, 464, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code were added. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that both the informants are public servants. The offi...
Peter Agnelo Danney Estiberio Vs. Reena Colaco
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-21-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Admit. Mr. Agni, learned Counsel waives service for the respondent. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner had filed Matrimonial Petition No.17/2013/B before the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Panaji, Goa, against the respondent for dissolution of marriage. It appears that the said petition was dismissed in default on 31.10.2013. The petitioner filed Civil Miscellaneous Application No.72/2013/B, for restoration of the petition under Order 9 Rule 4 and Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned trial Court framed two points, namely, (1) whether the petitioner has made out sufficient cause for not appearing before the Court on 31.10.2013 and (2) whether the application is barred by limitation. 3. Insofar as the first point is concerned, the learned trial Court has answered the same in the affirmative. However, on the second question, the learned trial Court found that the application was not filed within the period of limitatio...
Shankar Vs. Sainath
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-21-2016
1. The proceeding is filed to challenge the judgment and order M.A.R.J.I. No.16/2009 which was pending in the Court of the Civil Judge Junior Division Khultabad, District Aurangabad. The said proceeding was filed under provision of Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure by the plaintiff. The trial Court has held the present petitioner guilty of breach of order of temporary injunction and the trial Court has ordered to send the present petitioner to civil prison for 15 days. Both the sides are heard. 2. The provision of Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the CPC was not made applicable to this State in view of the Bombay Amendment of 1st October 1983. It appears that there are conflicting decisions on the tenability of the revision against the order made under aforesaid provision. It appears that in cases reported as 1993 (1) Bom. C.R. 131 (Dry Chillies Brokers Association v. Dnyaneshwar Chamat) (Nagpur Bench) and 2002 (3) Bom. C.R. 593 (Vitthal Shriram Kharbadkar v. Pandurang Irbhanji Kad...
Nathuram Gopal Padvekar Vs. District Magistrate, Ratnagiri and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-2016
Oral Order: (V.K. Tahilramani, J.) 1. By this petition for seeking a writ of habeas corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner, who is the detenu has taken exception to the order dated 27th November, 2015 passed by the first Respondent in exercise of powers under Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the "M.P.D.A. Act"). By the said order, the first Respondent directed that the Petitioner shall be detained by way of prevention in exercise of powers under the said Act. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has urged only one ground before us i.e. ground 5(a). The relevant portion of the ground is that the detaining authority has taken into consideration two in-camera statements of the witnesses "A" and "B". It is contended that the verification notes of the two in-camera statements are not furnished to the detenu. Learned...
Sneha Sachin Dhuri Vs. Sachin Dinanath Dhuri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-2016
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Oka, J.) 1. The Family Court Appeal No.95 of 2007 preferred by the wife takes an exception to the judgment and decree dated 13th February 2006 passed by the learned Judge of Family Court, at Mumbai. The appellant-wife filed an application under Sections 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short "the said Act"). The appellant prayed for a maintenance @ Rs.30,000/- per month for herself and Rs.20,000/- per month for the minor son. By the impugned judgment and decree, the Family Court directed the respondent-husband to pay Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance to the appellant-wife and Rs.3,500/- per month as maintenance to the minor child. The respondent-husband was directed to provide suitable accommodation to the appellant-wife and the minor son. 2. Family Court Appeal No.211 of 2007 was filed by the present appellant-wife. The said appeal takes an exception to the order dated 1st November 2007 passed by the learned Judge of the Family Cou...
Gajanan Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-21-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara in Special Criminal (Atrocity) Case No.15 of 2011, dt.19.10.2013 thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months, the appellant has approached this Court. 2. The prosecution case, as could be gathered from the material placed on record, is thus : On 15.8.2011, at about 3.00 p.m., Complainant Balchand Anupam Idapate (PW-1) and his father Anupam Idapate were sitting in their house. Accused Gajanan Kisan Bawane came to their house and started chatting with the father of Complainant. The accused demanded money from the father of first informant. Balchand Idapate (PW-1) - the first informant went to his field and returned home at about 3.30 p.m. At that time,...
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Vs. Arun Ganpatrao Shen ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-21-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. In Land Acquisition Case No.25 of 1996, under Section 34 of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Act, 1968, the Reference Court has enhanced the compensation for dry crop land. The Reference Court has granted enhancement at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per hectare against the rate of Rs.15,000/- per hectare granted by the Land Acquisition Officer. The acquiring body is before this Court to challenge the enhancement so granted. 2. Shri Agnihotri, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant M.I.D.C, the acquiring body, raises the point that, there is no basis to hold that the lands in question were irrigated lands. 3. Shri Agnihotri, however, does not press the point regarding limitation decided by the trial Court on the ground that the Exh. 59 and the other documents placed on record shows that the notice was issued to the claimant asking him to remain present on 04.04.1994 to receive the amount of compensation. Thus, from 04.04.1994 the reference was file...
Suresh and Another Vs. The Union of India, Through the Secretary, Mini ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-18-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Writ Petition takes exception to the advertisement dated 27th July, 2011 [Annexure-D Page-80] for selection of distributors for LPG issued by the respondents. It further also prays for quashing the April, 2011 Guidelines [Annexure-C Page-60]. 2. The learned counsel Mr. R.R.Mantri appearing for the petitioner submits that, it is settled position of law that, while distributing public largesse, the same are to be distributed based on the criteria, which have nexus to the object of the particular grant by selecting beneficiaries for effecting transparent procedure. Any law made contrary to the above cannot stand to the scrutiny of test of constitutional validity, and would amount to arbitrariness. In order to achieve the objective of directive principles of State policy and to uplift the members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes etc., the provision is made for making available the infrastructure as well as corpus funds for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »