Mumbai Court April 2016 Judgments
M/s. Shilpa Re-Rollers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Employees State Insurance Corpora ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal filed under Section 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short, the said Act) takes exception to the order dated 4-10-2006 passed by the learned Judge, Employees State Insurance Court, Nagpur in proceedings under Section 75 of the said Act. 2. The appellant is a private limited Company to which the provisions of the said Act have been made applicable. In the matter of contribution payable by the appellant for the years 1993-94 and 1994-95 inspection was carried out by the Officers of the respondent Corporation. On 23-12-1997, a show cause notice came to be issued by the Corporation calling upon the appellant to pay an amount of Rs.1,74,983/-. In the said show cause notice, the dues claimed were on account of contribution for the difference in the payments made to contractors as well as on the difference on the amount paid to Security Guards. The appellant appeared before the Corporation and contested the proceedings. After grant of necessary ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Maharashtra Vs. Haribhau and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri S.S. Doifode, A.P.P. for the appellant and Shri V.S. Kukdey, advocate for the respondents. The respondent No.3 is reported to be dead. The appeal against the respondent No.3 stands abated. 2.The State of Maharashtra has filed this appeal challenging the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitting the respondents/ accused of the offence punishable under Section 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3.The case of the prosecution is : On 28th August, 1997 around 7.00 p.m. to 8.00 p.m., Deochand Gomase and his son Sanjay were returning from weekly market, at that time Haribhau and Sheshrao caught hold of Deochand and Mahadeo, assaulted Deochand by sword causing injuries on his head, chin and ear. Umesh was also present at that time. Haribhau (accused) is elder brother of Deochand (victim) and Mahadeo and Umesh are sons of Haribhau. Sanjay took his father to Rural Hospital, Arvi where PSI Ambhore recorded his statement in presence of Dr. M...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Azim Vs. Ammra Firdos and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri A.B. Mirza, Advocate for the applicant and Shri A.D. Sonak, Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant No.3. None appears for the non-applicant Nos.1 and 2. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. The applicant has filed this revision application under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act challenging the order passed by the Family Court, directing the applicant to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to the non-applicant No.1(wife) and Rs.1,000/- per month to the non-applicant No.2 (minor son) towards maintenance. 4. The learned Advocate for the applicant has submitted that the non-applicant No.1(wife) is living separately without any justification and this has been endorsed by the Court by passing decree for restitution of conjugal rights in Regular Civil Suit No.123/2012 on 13-11-2013. Relying on the judgment given by this Court in the case of Rajendra Wamanrao Dhomne vs. Smt. Jaishri Rajendra Dhom...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Phulora Printers Vs. Ankush Sitaram Sawant
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
1. This petition challenges an award dated 23 February 2006 passed by the Labour Court at Mumbai on a reference under the Industrial Disputes Act. 2. Since 1989, the Respondent was working for the Petitioner. In 1990, he was made permanent. In 1996, he started working as a printer on a monthly salary of Rs.3,000/. It is his case that on 1 June 1996, whilst on duty, the Manager of the Petitioner, one Mr. Wadekar, called him to the office and asked him to tender his resignation. It is the Respondent's case that he was threatened with dire consequences if he did not resign. Accordingly, the Respondent claims to have had no alternative but to tender his resignation on 11 June 1996. The resignation was accepted by the Petitioner on 19 January 1997. On 25 August 1999, the Respondent approached the Petitioner with a demand for reinstatement. Since the demand was not accepted, the Respondent applied to the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation) for adjudication of the industrial dispute,...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Hudda Amin Vs. Nandan Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. By consent taken on board for final hearing at the stage of admission itself. 2. This writ petition is preferred by the defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order dated 22/4/2013 passed by 5th Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune below Exh.124 in Civil Suit No.82/2007 partly allowing the respondent/plaintiff's application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for carrying out appropriate amendment in the plaint. 3. Learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner/defendant submits that the Trial Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the respondent/plaintiff has made out a case in its application for carrying out amendment in the plaint. He submits that in the present petition the respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit in the year 2007 for peaceful possession of the suit premises i.e. Room No.1 and 2 ad-measuring about 260 sq. ft. situated on western side (north-west corner) of the three storied ...
Tag this Judgment!Sai Accumulator Industries Sangamner, Through its Partner, Kacheshvar ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
1. This is an Appeal against acquittal of Respondent original accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ("Act" in brief). 2. Facts in brief may be stated as follows: (A). The Appellant original complainant (hereafter referred as "complainant") filed private complaint in the trial Court claiming that the complainant is a registered partnership firm and had business dealings with Respondent accused. Respondent had purchased battery plates from the complainant and against such transaction, on 18th May 1994 issued two cheques (Exhibit 46, 47), each of Rupees Twelve Thousand. The cheques were presented to Nagar Urban Central Cooperative Bank of the complainant on 16th November 1994. The Bank sent the cheques for collection to Indira Cooperative Bank of the accused. The cheques returned back to the complainant unpaid with memorandum (Exhibit 56) dated 22nd November 1994 reporting insufficient funds. Complainant issued notice (Exhibit 48) on 25th November 1994 through ...
Tag this Judgment!Anand Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri Mohd. Shakir, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri N.B. Jawade, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1 and Shri A.M. Kukday, Advocate for the respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. The petitioner has challenged the interim order passed by the Sessions Court imposing conditions while allowing the application filed by the petitioner praying for stay to the effect, operation and execution of the order passed by the learned Magistrate, directing the petitioner to pay maintenance to the respondent Nos.2 and 3. 4. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is suspended and therefore, is not in a position to pay the amount of maintenance as directed by the learned Magistrate. It is further submitted that the petitioner is having the responsibility of maintaining his old parents and this factor is not taken into consideration either by the learned Magistrate or the learned Additional Sessions Ju...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Ankita Arun Pednekar and Another Vs. State of Goa, through the Chi ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. V. Rodrigues, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents No.1 and 2, Ms. Aditi Kamat, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.3, and Mr. Nitin Sardesai, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondents No.9 to 14. 2. Rule. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waive service. Heard forthwith, with the consent of the learned Counsel. 3. The above petition, inter alia, seeks for a writ to quash and set aside the Merit List dated 7th April, 2016 for the purpose of admissions to M.D.S. Programs for the academic year 2016-17 in the Goa Dental College, and for a writ of mandamus, commanding the respondents that the admissions to the Post Graduate M.D.S. Programs for the year 2016-17 be made on the basis of the Merit List circulated on 5th April, 2016. Another relief sought by the petitioners is for a writ of certiorari, quashing and setting asid...
Tag this Judgment!Shivaji Dagadu Mahangade Vs. Aba Gopala Shinde, since deceased and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
N.M. Jamdar, J. (Oral) 1.This Second Appeal is filed by the Original Defendant challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Wai and the dismissal of the Appeal filed by the Appellant by the District Judge, Satara. The Civil Judge decreed the suit holding that the Respondent-Plaintiff was entitled to redemption of mortgage, re-conveyance and possession of the suit property on his depositing the mortgage money of Rs. 19,850/-. This judgment and decree has been confirmed by the District Judge. 2. The suit land is an agricultural land admeasuring 4 acres 3 gunthas bearing Gut No. 90 situated at Village Parkhandi, Taluka Wai, District Satara. The genesis of the dispute is a document dated 1 March 1972. The Respondent filed a Suit bearing No. 254 of 1983 contending that by a mortgage dated 1 March 1972, an amount of Rs. 19,850/- was received as a loan from the Appellant and since the relation between the parties were good, the Appellant was put in possessio...
Tag this Judgment!Firoza Fazal Shaikh Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-22-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for parties. 2. By this application, Applicant / original Accused challenges the order dated 25th February, 2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad below Exhibit 1 in Sessions Case No.300 of 2013. 3. Heard at length Mr. R. S. Deshmukh, learned counsel for Applicant and Mr. S. D. Ghayal, learned APP for State. 4. Facts giving rise to present application may be stated in nutshell as under: i. PSO Begumpura Police Station, Aurangabad filed chargesheet in Crime No.I34 of 2013 against the Applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 of 201 of the Indian penal Code. Applicant is an under trial prisoner. Sessions Case No.300 of 2013 arising out of said crime is pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad. ii. On 9th May, 2013 Accused was arrested. He moved an application Exhibit 7 under Section 330 of the Code of Criminal Proce...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »