Mumbai Court April 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.
Yoseph Keru Pandit, Deceased through his L.Rs. and Others Vs. V.B. Pim ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-13-2016
1. All these Writ Petitions have been admitted by this Court. The first four petitions have been filed by the employees and the last petition has been filed by the Sugar Factory at issue. For the sake of clarity, the worker petitioners would be referred to as the "Employees" and the employer would be referred to as the "Factory". 2. In all these petitions, the judgment impugned is dated 6.5.1997, delivered by the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar in Complaint (ULP) Nos. 2 of 1996 involving 64 employees, 3 of 1996 involving 6 employees, 4 of 1996 involving 74 employees and 5 of 1996 involving 66 employees. 3. These matters were argued by the learned Advocates for the respective sides on 14.1.2016, 15.1.2016, 28.1.2016, 4.2.2016, 9.2.2016, 11.2.2016, 16.2.2016, 18.2.2016, 24.2.2016, 25.2.2016, 1.3.2016 and 14.3.2016, when the matter was closed for judgment. 4. I have considered the extensive and lengthy submissions of the learned Advocates for the employees, the learned Sr. Advocate for the m...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Pralhad Raghuji Sonwane and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-13-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri N.B.Jawade, A.P.P. for the appellant/ State and Shri Shashikant Borkar, advocate for the respondents. Respondent No.7 is reported to be dead. 2. The appellant has challenged the judgment passed by the learned Magistrate acquitting the respondents of the offence punishable under Section 21(1)(b), (e) and (f) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. 3. The case of the prosecution is:- In the night between 31st December, 1994 and 1st January, 1995 at about 11.00 p.m., Mahendra Shukla, Forest Guard who was on patrolling duty in forest near Khapri village heard noise of cutting of tree. Shri Mahendra Shukla and some persons, who were also on patrolling duty, noticed that two persons had gone on motor cycle in the direction from where noise of cutting of tree was coming. After some time, they saw that the motorcycle and a tractor came from the direction from which the noise was coming, Shri Mahendra Shukla stopped motor cycle and the tractor with trolley and it was found ...
Nehashree Dnyaneshwar Sonkusare Vs. State of Maharashtra (Through Secr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-2016
G.S. Kulkarni, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 19th August, 2013 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Konkan Division, Thane (for short 'Caste Scrutiny Committee') whereby the application of the petitioner for validation of her caste certificate, certifying that she belongs to 'Halba scheduled tribe' has been rejected invalidating the caste certificate issued to the petitioner. 2. Conspectus of facts as would fall for our consideration are thus : The petitioner is a student of Bachelor of Dental Sciences course. In June 2012 at the time of filing of the petition the petitioner was studying in the first year in respondent No.3-Institution. The petitioner claimed to belong to the 'Halba' tribe which is listed as a schedule tribe in the Presidential Order. A caste certificate was issued to the petitioner by the Deputy Collector and Special Land Acquisition Officer, Mumbai Suburban District dated 30th Ju...
Suwarna Prashant Mhaiskar Vs. Prashant Chandramani Mhaiskar
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-13-2016
1. Heard Shri U.J. Deshpande, advocate for the applicant and Shri Mahesh Rai, advocate for the non-applicant. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. The applicant (wife) has filed this revision application challenging the order passed by the Family Court rejecting her claim for maintenance. 4. The following facts are undisputed: That the marriage between the applicant (wife) and non-applicant (husband) was solemnized on 25th May, 2009, that since last more than five years the applicant and non-applicant are living separately, that since 6th February, 2010 the applicant is residing with the parents and the applicant and non-applicant are not having any issue. 5. The applicant filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying that the non-applicant be directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month towards maintenance. According to the applicant, the non-applicant is having six acre of agricultural land and is earning substantially from it and he has n...
Chandraben K. Bhatt Vs. Kiritkumar Bhatt
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-2016
P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner-defendant challenges the order dated 03.12.2012 passed by the Court of Small Causes, Mumbai below Exhibit-24 in RAD No.1266/1995 rejecting her application u/s. 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for stay of the suit RAD No.1266/1995 filed by the respondent -plaintiff for declaring him as tenant of the suit premises i.e. Block No.5, admeasuring 500 sq.ft., Bajaj Road, Vile Parle (West), Bombay - 400 056. 3. The respondent filed RAD Suit No.1266/1995 on 15.05.1995 in the Court of Small Causes, Mumbai for declaring him as tenant of petitioner in respect of the suit premises with following prayers: "(a) For decree and judgment of this Hon'ble Court declaring that the respondent is the tenant of the petitioner No.1 in respect of suit premises namely Block No.5, Shree Niket, Bajaj Road, Vile Parle (West), Bombay - 400 056, and petitioner No.1 is not entitl...
Eros International Media Limited Vs. Telemax Links India Pvt. Ltd. and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-2016
Oral Judgment: 1.This is the 1st Defendant s application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The prayer made is that all the disputes between the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 be referred to arbitration in terms of the Arbitration Agreement contained in a Term Sheet dated 13th June 2012. That Term Sheet was between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant. I must note that Defendants Nos. 2 to 8 all claim to have used the copyright-protected material in question under a sub-licence from Defendant No. 1. None of the Defendants are using any of that material now. Defendants Nos. 2, 7 and 8 are separately represented. Defendants Nos. 2 to 6 have all filed Affidavits supporting the 1st Defendant and inter alia agreeing to have that disputes referred to arbitration. Defendants Nos. 7 and 8 have confirmed this as well. 2.The Suit itself was first mounted as a copyright action. Some facts are necessary. The Plaintiff produces, distributes and exhibits feature films throu...
Laxman Vs. Rajesh and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-12-2016
1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 15.04.2015 passed by learned Member, MACT, Beed in MACP No.20 of 2014, the original claimant has preferred this appeal to the extent of quantum. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows: On 30.01.2011 at about 1.30 p.m., appellant-claimant was proceeding to Beed from Naigaon on his motorcycle. He was riding said motorcycle from the correct left side of the road in moderate speed. On way, within the limits of Village Pimpargavan, one TATA Indica Car bearing registration No.MH-28/V-143 came from his backside in speed. It was being driven in rash and negligent manner by its driver. Said car gave dash to the motorcycle, in consequence of which, the appellant-claimant sustained grievous injuries to both the legs and other parts of his body. He was immediately taken to Civil Hospital, Beed and therefrom, he was shifted to Government Medical College and Hospital, Aurangabad. The appellant-claimant had taken treatment in...
Abdul Sattar Haji Usman and Another Vs. The Archbishop of Bombay and O ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-2016
1. The suit seeks declaration of ownership of the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.3 of a plot of land and challenges acquisition of the plot by the State Government under the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, 1971 as vitiated by fraud and prays for directions to the State to restore possession of the plot to the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.3. 2. By an order dated 5 December 2011, and as amended by an order dated 4 January 2016, the following issue was framed as a preliminary issue, on the application of Defendant No.5. (a) Whether Defendant No.5 proves that the present suit is barred by virtue of Section 42 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Encroachment and Improvement) Act 1971? The parties have chosen not to lead any evidence and instead argued the preliminary issue on the pleadings and admitted documents on record. (By a Notice of Motion, Defendant Nos.4 and 5 sought leave to lead evidence on the preliminary issue. By an order of 8 December 2015, that application was rejected by this Court, hol...
Goldie Sud Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-2016
P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Advocate for the petitioner submits that they tried to serve the respondents by private notice. He submits that notice issued to the respondent by registered post A/D returned unserved with postal remark 'refused to accept'. To that effect, petitioner filed affidavit of service dated 18.3.2016. The same is taken on record and marked 'X' for identification. 3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that they tried to serve the respondents by hand delivery on 5.3.2016. At that time, respondent nos.2 and 3, Ms.Hemlata Bolinjkar and Ms.Nalini Bolinjkar refused to accept the same. To that effect, petitioner himself filed affidavit of service dated 16.3.2016. Same is taken on record and marked 'X-1' for identification. Though respondents are duly served no one appeared on behalf of them when the matter was called out. 4. By this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner plaintiff challe...
Rashmi Haresh Tawari Vs. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-2016
Oral Judgment: (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. On 20 September 1997, the Petitioner was appointed by Respondent No.2 and posted at the office of Respondent No.3 on the post of Nurse under reserved category of Scheduled Tribe. Since the Petitioner was appointed from the reserved category, Respondent No.3 referred the caste certificate of the Petitioner to the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Thane for verification. The Scrutiny Committee, however, has invalidated the caste certificate of the Petitioner as belonging to Mahadev Koli, Scheduled Tribe on 13 June 2012. On 20 July, 2012, in view of the invalidation of tribe claim as belonging to Scheduled Tribe, Respondent No.3 passed an order thereby terminating the services of the Petitioner on the post of Nurse. 3. The Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner against the order of the Scrutiny Committee was disposed of by this Court directing the Divisional Caste Certif...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »