Mumbai Court April 2016 Judgments
Dr. Anjali Malpani Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-2016
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. By a brief order dated 29th April, 2016, we directed as under:- "For the reasons separately recorded, we reduce the period of suspension from 13th April, 2016 till 30th April, 2016, both days inclusive. The petitioners can commence their practice from 1st May, 2016." 2. Here are our brief reasons. 3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge an order of the Maharashtra Medical Council dated 13th April, 2016. By this order, the said council has directed removal of the names of the petitioners for a period of three months from the date of the order. Thus, their names stand removed from the Medical Register, which the Council maintains in terms of section 20 of the Maharashtra Medical Council Act, 1965 (for short "the MMC Act"). 4. The petitioners are doctors and residing at the addresses mentioned hereinabove. The first respondent is the State of Maharashtra. The second respondent and the third respondent govern a...
Tag this Judgment!Pandit @ Baban Chimaji Bhutekar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-2016
Oral Judgment: (V.K. Tahilramani, J.) 1. Rule. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. The petitioner has prayed for parole for a period of 30 days on the ground that the marriage of his daughter is to take place on 29.5.2016. Hence, it is prayed that parole may be granted for a period of 30 days. It is seen that the petitioner has not preferred an application to the concerned authority for parole, but he has directly approached this court with the prayer for parole. 3. Mr. Khamkar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of full Bench of this Court in the case of S. Sant Singh @ Pilli Singh Ajit Singh Kalyani v. The Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Ors. [2006 ALL MR (Cri) 625]. He placed reliance on paragraph 26 and 27 of the said decision to contend that a prisoner can directly approach this court with the prayer for parole leave. We have carefully perused the entire decision, more, particularly paragraph 26 and ...
Tag this Judgment!The Union of India, through the Indian Army, HQ, MGandG Area, through ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-2016
R.G. Ketkar, J. 1. By an Administrative Order dated 25.8.2015 passed by the Honourable Chief Justice, this Special Bench was reconstituted for hearing of the above petition and other connected matters from the Division Benches available at Original/Appellate Side of this Court. In pursuance thereof, we have heard Mr. Daraius Khambata, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Shailesh Shah, learned senior counsel for respondent no.1, Ms. Kiran Bhagalia, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and Mr. Navroz Seervai, learned senior counsel for respondent no.4 at length. Rule. Learned counsel for the respective respondents waive service. At the request and by consent of the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is instituted by the Union of India through the Indian Army, Head Quarters, Maharashtra Gujarat and Goa Area through the General Officer Commanding (for short, 'GOC...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Paranjape Schemes (Construction) Ltd. and Others Vs. Avinash Madh ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-2016
1. Admit. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents waive service. By consent of parties, appeal is heard finally. 2. By this appeal filed under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (for short the said 'Arbitration Act'), the appellant has impugned the order and judgment dated 21st January, 2015 delivered by the learned District Judge 14, Pune allowing the application filed by the respondents partly filed under section 9 of the Arbitration Act and temporarily restraining the appellant from carrying out construction of 'E' Building in terms of prayer clause (A) of the application, till further orders. The appellant herein was the original opponent in the proceedings before the learned District Judge 14, Pune whereas the respondents herein were the applicants. 3. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this appeal are as under:- 4. The respondents desired to acquire residential accommodation for themselves and their family members. The appellant is...
Tag this Judgment!Shalini Harpalsingh Dugal and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-2016
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Oka, J.) 1. Not on board. Taken on board. Rule. The learned APP waives service for the respondent No.1 and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 waives service. Forthwith taken up for final disposal. Prayer in this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (for short "Cr.PC") is for quashing the FIR registered at Gamdevi Police Station for the offence punishable under sections 323, 326, 342, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. We have perused the FIR. The FIR is lodged by the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 is the husband of the applicant No.1. The respondent No.2 is the father of the applicant Nos.2 and 3. The FIR relates to an incident of 16th March 2016 at Dubai. The respondent No.2 stated that at that time, there was an altercation between him and the respondent No.1 over some property. It is alleged that the applicants started assaulting him and he was assaulted by a steel rod, leather belt and mobile charge...
Tag this Judgment!Jolly Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Surendra Nath Jolly and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-2016
1. By this notice of motion the applicant seeks condonation of delay of 31 days in filing petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this notice of motion are as under:- 2. On 10th October, 2015, the arbitral tribunal rendered the arbitral award. The learned presiding officer by his letter dated 16th October, 2015 to the learned advocates representing the parties informed that the arbitral award was ready and was duly signed by all the three arbitrators. The learned presiding arbitrator requested the learned advocates representing the parties to depute their representative to collect the award from his office after prior intimation. Pursuant to the said letter received from the learned presiding arbitrator, the applicant's advocate deputed his representative to collect a signed award from the learned arbitrator on 16th October, 2015 who collected the said signed award from the office of the learned pre...
Tag this Judgment!Central Board of Trustees, EPF Vs. Nutan Pushpak Premises Co-op. Socie ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition filed by the Board of Trustees of the Employees Provident Fund Organisation seeks to challenge an appellate order passed by the Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal. By the impugned order, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the employer's appeal and set aside an order passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, which held that the Respondent employer was covered under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ("the Act'). 3. The Respondent employer is a co-operative society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 being a co-operative society of owners of commercial premises, employing at all material times less than thirteen employees. These employees were all watchmen and sweepers employed for protection and maintenance of the premises. The employees carried on work without the aid of power. On these facts, the controversy in the present petition conce...
Tag this Judgment!Farzana and Another Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-29-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the said Act) by the claimants who are aggrieved by the judgment of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur dated 01/03/2003 dismissing the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the said Act. The facts in brief are that one Haroon, son of Gulam Ali was going along with one Raju Goswami as a pillion rider on a scooter. The said vehicle was dashed by a bus belonging to the respondent. Said Haroon lost his life in the accident. The mother and brother of said Haroon filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the said Act. The claim petition was opposed by the respondent by filing its written statement. During pendency of the proceedings, the present appellants filed an application for being impleaded as claimant Nos.2 and 3 in the proceedings. Said application was allowed. Thereafter by judgment dated 01/03/2003, the Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition holding that the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Adarsh Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. A Society registered under Maharash ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-2016
R.G. Ketkar, J. 1. By administrative order dated 25.08.2015 passed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, this Special Bench was reconstituted for hearing of above Petition and other connected matters from the Division Benches available at Original / Appellate Side. In pursuance thereof, we have heard Mr. Navroz Seervai, learned Senior Counsel for petitioners, Mr. R. S. Apte, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1, Mr. Daraius Khambata, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.6, Mr. Shailesh Shah, learned Senior Counsel for respondents No.7 and 8 and Mr. Toor, learned Counsel for BEST at length. At the request and by consent of the parties, the Petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. This Petition is instituted by Adarsh Co-operative Housing Society Limited (for short 'Adarsh Society') and one of its members under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against respondent No.1 - Union of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests (for short 'MOEF'), respondent No.2 - Mr. Jayram Ram...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Waman Deshmukh and Another Vs. Pune Municipal Corporation and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule in both the above Petitions, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked against the order dated 06/10/2015 passed by the learned Principal Judge of the Small Causes Court, Pune by which order the Election Petition being No.9 of 2012 filed by the Respondent No.2 herein came to be allowed and the Petitioner Shri Vijay Waman Deshmukh in Writ Petition No.11334 of 2015 (i.e. the Respondent No.4 in the Election Petition) came to be unseated as a Corporator of the Pune Municipal Corporation from Ward No.44 B, Hadapsar, Pune. In so far as Writ Petition No.10730 of 2015 is concerned, the same has been filed by the Election Petitioner Shri Vijay Zumbar More (i.e. the Respondent No.2 in Writ Petition No.11334 of 2015), challenging the same order i.e. the order dated 06/10/2015 in so far as it rejects the prayer of the said Petiti...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »