Mumbai Court April 2016 Judgments
M/s. Radhesham Laxminarayan and Co. Vs. Kashmirilal and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-29-2016
1. This is appeal against acquittal of respondent No.2 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Act in brief), filed by appellant - original complainant. 2. Complainant M/s Radhesham Laxminarayan and Company is partnership firm and filed S.T.C. No.329/1994 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalna against respondent No.2 - accused (hereinafter referred as accused) as two cheques issued by the respondent relating to purchase of grains had bounced, and in spite of notice, the amounts of Rs.1 Lakh each of the two cheques (total Rs.2 Lakhs) had not been paid. 3. The accused was convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide judgment dated 22.2.1995. The accused filed Criminal Appeal No.8/1995, which came up before 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna. The first appellate Court, vide judgment dated 31.7.2003, acquitted the accused of the offence. Thus this appeal. 4. Relevant facts are as follows: (a) Respondent Kashmirilal s/o Harising Gupta is proprietor of busi...
Tag this Judgment!Savia Melo Furtado e Barros and Others Vs. Heritage Princes Real Estat ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-28-2016
1. Heard 2. Admit. 3. Ms. V. Palyekar, learned Counsel waives notice on behalf of the respondents. 4. This is an appeal at the instance of the original defendants assailing the order passed by the learned Adhoc Senior Judge, Mapusa dated 12/05/2015 pursuant to which she allowed the relief of temporary injunction in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs and secured them with the relief of injunction to restrain the appellants from interfering or trespassing the suit plot or alienating the suit plot or any portion thereof pending the final disposal of the suit. The defendant assailed the order on several grounds taken in the appeal memo which are not reproduced herein to avoid repetition. 5. Be that as it may, Shri Shivan Desai, learned Advocate for the appellants took me through the various documents including the Memorandum of Understanding( MOU for short) dated 25.08.2010 and the pleadings to canvass a case that there were no pleadings on the readiness and willingness of the respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Sharad Devaram Shelake Vs. The State of Maharashtra (Home Ministry)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-2016
V.K. Tahilramani, J. 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent rule made returnable forthwith. 2. A very short question is involved in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is directed against the Notification issued by the Home Department dated 23.02.2012. By this Notification, Rule 4 of the Furlough and Parole Rules was amended and after sub-rule (10), sub-rule 11 to 19 were added. 3. The petitioner was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune under Sections 302 and 364 of IPC by Judgment and Order dated 31.8.2012 passed in Sessions Case No. 215 of 2011. The said case arises out of C.R. No. 217 of 2010 of Lonikand Police Station, Pune. In our opinion, the only relevant fact is that the conviction and sentence has been interalia recorded for the offence punishable under Section 364 of IPC i.e kidnapping. 4. The petitioner has stated that he did not apply for furlough leave because in view of the Notification dated 23.2.2012 whereby sub-r...
Tag this Judgment!Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited Vs. International Certificatio ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 the petitioner has impugned the arbitral award dated 26th October, 2015, recommending immediate withdrawal and cancellation of ONGC letter dated 22nd April, 2014 regarding dealing with the respondent and to permit the respondent herein to participate in all ongoing and future tenders, wherever they are qualified and to restore their business credibility. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under: 2. The petitioner herein was the original respondent, whereas the respondent was the original claimant in the arbitral proceedings. 3. The petitioner had invited bids for maintenance, painting of its process platforms at Mumbai in the year 2008. M/s.J.K. Surface Coating Pvt. Ltd. had submitted its bids. The bid of the said M/s.J.K. Surface Coating Pvt. Ltd. was accepted by the petitioner on 8th May, 2009.The petitioner had also invited bids for hiring ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Vinayak Mehta and Another Vs. Veena Jaswant Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-2016
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against an order of a learned single Judge dated 2nd September, 2010, in Criminal Application No.84 of 2008 with Criminal Application No.147 of 2010 with Criminal Application No. 125 of 2008 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1468 of 2003, alongwith Misc. Petition (Lodg) No.306 of 2010 in Testamentary Petition No. 237 of 2009. The appellants before us are original respondent Nos.1 and 2. They are both senior citizens. The respondent Nos.3 and 4 are the original respondents. 2. It is the case of the appellants that they had presented an application on an affidavit dated 5th April 2010 to the then Hon ble the Chief Justice to take immediate measures to control grant of ex-parte orders, take immediate corrective measures and provide speedy justice to the appellants and consolidate three matters to be heard together, namely, Criminal Writ Petition No.1468 of 2003 of the Appellate Side, Misc. Petition (Lodg) ...
Tag this Judgment!Nanasaheb Eknath Suryawanshi Punyai Nagar Vs. Pune District Central Co ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Rule. By consent the petition is forthwith taken up for hearing. 2. The petition impugns an order passed by the Industrial Court at Pune in an Appeal under Section 84 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. By the impugned order the Industrial Court quashed and set aside the judgment and order passed by the Labour Court at Pune, on an application under Section 78(1) of the B.I.R. Act filed by the Petitioner herein for reinstatement with continuity in service and full back wages. 3. Since 1982 the Petitioner was employed as a clerk with the Respondent-Bank. The terms and conditions of his service were governed by the certified standing orders framed under the B.I.R. Act. On 06/11/1995, the Petitioner was charge-sheeted for having committed mis-appropriation of funds. The allegation was that the Petitioner in collusion with the constituents of the Bank, allowed deposit of a stolen draft and withdrawal of money from the Laxmi Ro...
Tag this Judgment!Umme Habiba Begum Vs. Jamil Ahamad Khan Abdul Hamid Khan and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-28-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri Junaid Ahmed, Advocate for the applicant, Shri A.B. Mirza, Advocate for the non-applicant Nos.1 to 4 and Shri N.B. Jawade, Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant No.5-State of Maharashtra. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. The applicant (wife) has filed this criminal revision application challenging the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by which the criminal revision application filed by the non-applicant Nos.1 to 4 and Abdul Hamid Khan Abdul Karim Khan (father-in-law of the applicant) and Salma Khanam Abdul Hamid Khan (mother-in-law of the applicant) came to be decided. The Criminal Revision Application No.1 of 2012 is partly allowed. The learned Additional Sessions Judge granted the prayer of the non-applicant Nos.1 to 4 and discharged them from the prosecution and rejected the prayer of Abdul Hamid Khan Abdul Karim Khan and Salma Khanam Abdul Hamid Khan for discharge from the prosecution for the charges under Sec...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra and Others Vs. Meena A. Kuwalekar and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-2016
M.S. Sonak, J. 1. Rule in each of these petitions. With the consent of and at the request of learned counsel for the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. Learned counsel for the parties state and agree that the common issues of law and fact arise in this batch of petitions and therefore, it will be appropriate if the same are disposed of by common judgment and order. Learned counsel for the parties further state and agree that the facts as set out in writ petition no. 9051 of 2013 may be adverted to, as the same are representative of the facts in this batch of petitions. Accordingly, this batch of petitions is being disposed of by common judgment and order by reference to the facts as set out in writ petition no. 9051 of 2013 for sake of convenience. 3. The challenge in each of these petitions is to the orders (impugned orders) made by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT). The impugned orders have directed the State Government to consider the cases of the respondents...
Tag this Judgment!Bandopant Kishanrao Pathak and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra, T ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-28-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. These Writ Petitions are filed seeking directions to the respondents to grant pensionary benefits i.e. gratuity and leave encashment and amount of arrears of 6th pay commission to the petitioners as per the Government Resolution dated 2nd February, 2008, and further seeking directions to respondent nos. 1 and 2 to pay the pension from their Department i.e. Accountant General, Nagpur as per Government Resolution dated 2nd February, 2008. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that in the year 1979 and 1983 respectively, the petitioners were appointed as Clerks by respondent no. 5 Municipal Council Gangakhed. The petitioners have been given promotions as well as other service benefits regularly. As per the orders dated 30.04.2013 and 30.11.2012, the petitioners got retired from services from the posts of Assistant Accountant as well as Tax Valuer and Administrative Service, and from the post of Labour Supervisor respectively on attaining the age of superannuation. It is ...
Tag this Judgment!Central Board of Trustees Vs. Hotel Leelaventure Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The subject matter of challenge in this petition is an order passed by the Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal. The controversy before the Appellate Tribunal consisted of calculation of damages that could be levied on the Respondent-employer for the delay in payment of provident fund dues. The dues included employees' contributions which were deducted by the Respondent-employer but not deposited with the provident fund authorities. The impugned order directed payment of damages under Section 14-B of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 ("the Act") and simple interest, addition to these damages under section 7-Q of the act, calculated on the basis of the payment by the Respondent-employer reflected in the bank certificate. 2. The basis of the challenge by the provident fund organisation is that Section 14-B of the Act empowers the Central Provident Fund Commissioner to recover from the employer an amou...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »