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.
Pravin P. Wategaonkar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-2016
PC : 1. Heard Applicant in person and learned counsel for Respondent C.B.I. 2. Applicant has filed present application seeking relief as under: (a) To issue appropriate Writ, Sentence, Finding, Order or Directions, in the interest of Justice, to Respondent no. 1 / CBI to register a case against Shri. Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil, who was part of the decision making process, for his acts of commission and omissions as then public servant, in the approval of grant of land in possession of Defence Department to Adarsh Housing Society u/s Sec. 120-B, Criminal Conspiracy, Indian Penal Code;. Criminal Misconduct by a Public Servant Sec. 13 (2) r/w Sec. 13 (1) (d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, etc and file a report within time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the CBI has drawn the attention of this Court to the prayer clause in Criminal Application No. 25 of 2013 in Criminal Public Interest Litigation No. 20 of 2011. Prayer clause (a) reads as : (a) Th...
Vandana and Others Vs. Gundappa and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-12-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Being aggrieved by the common judgment and award dated 12.1.1998 passed by learned Member, M.A.C.T. Latur in M.A.C.P. No.145 of 1994 alongwith M.A.C.P. No.110 of 1994, the original claimants in M.A.C.P. No.145 of 1994, prefer this appeal to the extent of quantum. 3. Brief facts, giving rise to the present appeal, are as follows:- a) Deceased Suryakant and deceased Gangadhar were cousins. Both of them were employed as Gramsevaks in the office of Panchayat Samiti, Vasmat, District Parbhani. On 12.3.1994, deceased Suryakant was riding his motor cycle bearing registration No.MH-22-A-5854, on Latur Nanded State Highway. Deceased Gangadhar was pillion rider. At that time one S.T. bus of Latur-Kinwat came from opposite direction in excessive speed and gave a dash to the motor cycle from front side. In consequence of which, deceased Suryakant died on the spot whereas deceased Gangadhar sustained injuries and succumbed to th...
Inesh Dasarya Gavit Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Fisher ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-12-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Petition takes exception to the impugned communication dated 12th February, 2016, issued by respondent No.4. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner is a Tribal and belongs to Scheduled Tribe category. After completing SSC and HSC Examination, the petitioner completed Diploma in Agriculture from Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri in the Year 2002-04. In the year 2012, the petitioner obtained B.A. [Hindi] degree and in the Year 2013, B.P.Ed. degree. Presently, the petitioner is prosecuting post graduation studies in Hindi. The petitioner possesses certificates of M.S. office and UIDAI. 3. It is further the case of the petitioner that, on 10.10.2015, respondent No.1 issued an advertisement for filling up various posts including the posts of Live Stock Supervisors. The petitioner, being eligible, applied for the said post. The petitioner, after scrutiny of applications, was found eligible and hence was called for written examination of 200 mar...
Dr. Subir Kumar Banerjee Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-2016
P.C. 1. The applications are moved for pre arrest bail as the applicants/accused are facing charges for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code in C.R. No.323 of 2015 registered with Rabale police station, Thane. The offence is registered at the instance of one Avinash Singh on 22nd September, 2015. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 25th November, 1994 a trust namely "Nagar Yuwak Shikshan Santha" was established. It was registered with the office of Charity Commissioner, Thane vide registration No.F-3745. Initially some other persons were the trustees of the trust till 2001. Thereafter, the family members of the complainant's family (Singh) and the persons from the family of applicants/accused (Banerjee) were appointed as trustees. The object of the trust was to run educational institution. The father of the complainant was the active member of the trust. He died in the year 2013. Thereafter, the trustees of opp...
President, Rashtriya Shikshan Samittee Vs. State of Maharashtra Throug ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-12-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner/Management is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 05/12/2014 delivered by respondent No.2 / Deputy Director of Education, by which the order of punishment dated 15/03/2014, thereby permanently stopping 2 annual increments of respondent Nos.5 to 9, has been interfered with. 3. The petitioner submits that departmental enquiries under the MEPS Act and the Rules were conducted against respondent Nos.5 to 9 (hereinafter referred to as the employees). They did not participate in the enquiry and virtually boycotted it. Orders of punishment dated 15/03/2014 were issued. Said orders were challenged by the employees before respondent No.2 leading to the impugned order. 4. Grievance is that a single line order has been passed by respondent No.2 thereby quashing the orders of punishment. Mr.Ghatge, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the President of the petition...
Poona Christian Medical Association Vs. Prabhakar
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-12-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The issue raised in this petition is with regard to the interference of the Industrial Court in an order of suspension which has been issued by the employer under Standing Over 25(5) of the Model Standing Orders, pending disciplinary proceedings. 3. The petitioner/Management is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 15/02/2016 by which Complaint (ULP) No.33/2014 filed by the respondent/employee has been partly allowed and the suspension order dated 07/06/2014 has been quashed and set aside. 4. Mr.Prabhakaran, learned Advocate for the Management submits that a charge sheet-cum-show cause notice had been issued to the respondent on 27/09/2015. After considering his reply, disciplinary proceedings in the nature of a domestic enquiry under the Model Standing Orders has been initiated. Owing to the order of suspension dated 07/06/2014, the respondent is paid subsistence allowance in...
Rajesh Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-11-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. 2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. The petitioner (father of the victim) has challenged the order passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 17 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1956") rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for custody of the victim and directing that the victim be kept in a Protective Home for one year from the date of the order. The petitioner has also challenged the order passed by the Sessions Court dismissing the revision application filed by the petitioner. 4. The Police Station, Wani registered Crime No.3100 of 2015 for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Act of 1956 and three girls (including the daughter of the petitioner) are rescued on 6th April, 2015 from the custody of the concerned accused. The victim girls were kept in Sarswati Shikshan Mahila Mandal's 'Stree Aadhar Kendra', Krishna Nagar...
Microsec Capital Limited Vs. Ankit Bimal Deorah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-2016
1. Learned Counsel appearing for the parties are adidem that aggregate the value of the claim and counterclaim in the arbitration in question is less than one crore rupees. 2. The roster/assignment with regard to Appeals before this Division Bench (Anoop Mohta and A.A. Sayed, JJ) with effect from 21.03.2016 reads thus : "(C) Appeals under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Court Act, 2015, against Order under Section 10 of the said Act." 3. The Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (for short, Commercial Courts Act, 2015) and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as amended by The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 (3 of 2016) have been brought into force with effect from 23.10.2015. Both these Acts are required to be read for the purposes of considering the object of expeditious hearing of commercial matters in the Court as well as before the...
International Foodstuffs Co. LLC. Vs. Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. and Ano ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-2016
Oral Judgment: 1.This order will dispose of the Plaintiff s application for infringement and passing off. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendants product, a boiled confectionary sweet, is sold under a mark that so closely resembles the mark used by the Plaintiff for its ice cream that the Plaintiff is entitled to an injunction on both causes of action, i.e., trademark infringement and passing off. 2. I disagree. My reasons follow. 3. To begin with, there is a very great deal of controversy about whether the Plaintiff does or does not have any entitlement to the mark in question. I have, however, for the purposes of this Notice of Motion, made it clear that I am not addressing this issue. It will be left open to the trial of the Suit. I will proceed further on the basis that the Plaintiff is indeed the proprietor of its mark at page 29 of the Plaint. 4.This is the mark LONDON DAIRY , depicted in a stylised fashion. The two words are used separately. They are depicted on a a device of a...
Antar Bharti Ashram Vs. State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Ur ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-11-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Rule, returnable early. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Service of a valid notice under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 is not in dispute. However, only defence raised by the Planning Authority is that original owner Dr. S.P. Gumastha has donated the land, which could have been otherwise declared surplus to petitioner before scheme under Section 20 of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 was sanctioned. 3. Adv. Parchure for petitioner is relying upon order of exemption dated 16/3/1981. He states that exemption has been granted specifically for enabling Dr. S.P. Gumastha to donate that land to petitioner public trust and for construction of a hospital and dispensary upon it by petitioner public trust. 4. With the assistance of learned Counsel for the parties, we have perused papers. We find that in opening paragraph 1 itself of the order of exemption dated 16/3/1981, p...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »