Mumbai Court May 2016 Judgments
Jayshree Ramakant Khadilkar-Pande Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-27-2016
VACATION COURT P.C.: 1. Issue notice returnable on 9th June, 2016. Heard Mr.S.P.Sarnath, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Anil Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1, Mr. Mattos on behalf of respondent no.8, Dr.Chandrachud for respondent no.3 and Mr.Londhe for respondent no.4. 2. The present PIL is filed by the petitioner contending therein, that though the Municipal Commissioner of Bombay Municipal Corporation has prima facie found respondent nos. 3 to 7 having indulged into serious irregularities and though he has directed taking action against them and though FIR are registered against them, the Municipal Corporation as well as respondent no. 8 has awarded various contracts in their favour. 3. Mr.Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Municipal Corporation submits that as a matter of fact, the contracts were concluded prior to the issuance of Show Cause Notice to the respondent Contractors and as such in view of the rules f...
Tag this Judgment!Shantanu Hari Bhardwaj Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-23-2016
P.C. 1. It is the contention of the petitioner that though the petitioner has Validity Certificate that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe, his claim to post graduate admission is not being considered on the ground that the petitioner has changed his surname. 2. If the surname is changed, that does not change caste of a person. It is specific contention of the petitioner that the change in his surname is duly notified in the Government Gazettee. 3. By way of ad-interim relief, we direct the respondents to consider the claim of petitioner from reserved category if the petitioner possesses validity certificate and Government Notification notifying the change in his name. 4. The learned AGP to communicate the order passed by this Court to the concerned authority....
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra, through the Station Officer Vs. Santosh
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: May-19-2016
Oral Judgment: (Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. The State Government has questioned the acquittal of respondent by 1st Adhoc A.S.J. Amravati in Sessions Trial No. 65 of 2003 on 15th September, 2004. As the appeal is more than 5 years' old, it has been listed in Summer Vacation before the Special Bench for final hearing. Counsel appointed for respondent through Legal Aid Sub Committee is not available. Learned APP Smt. Rashi Deshpande for appellant State. The matter was heard on 18th May, 2016 and came to be adjourned to today as part heard. Today we have heard learned APP Smt. Rashi Deshpande further. 2. The story of prosecution is, the family of deceased Babarao and accused/respondent Santosh were having long standing enmity. On 2nd December, 2002, at about 6 p.m., Babarao was proceeding on bicycle from his house towards hutment area. When he reached on tar road, respondent suddenly came there and assaulted him with axe. He fell down from his bicycle. The assault was witnessed by Vasant Deshmuk...
Tag this Judgment!Deepika Sagar Nersekar Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Dep ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-13-2016
A.S. Oka, J. 1. The Petitioner is an unfortunate mother of 8 year old female child Hetal who is suffering from Cerebral Palsy Diplegia since her birth. On 19th May 2014, the All India Institute of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation has issued a medical certificate in the prescribed form certifying that Hetal is physically disabled and has 60% permanent physical impairment. The Petitioner is in the employment of the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai as the Stenographer (HG). 2. The Petitioner is relying upon Rule 43-C of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 (for short "the Central Rules") as amended in the year 2009. Rule 43-C reads thus: "43-C. Child care leave.- (1) A woman government servant having minor children below the age of eighteen years and who has no earned leave at her credit, may be granted child care leave by an authority competent to grant leave, for a maximum period of two years i.e. 730 days during the entire service for taking care of up to two children whet...
Tag this Judgment!Subhiksha Trading Services Ltd. and Another Vs. Azim Premji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-12-2016
1. The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiffs against the Defendant alleging defamation by the Defendant. Plaintiff No. 1 is a Company named Subhiksha Trading Services Ltd. and Plaintiff No.2 Mr. R. Subramanian is the Promoter and Managing Director of Plaintiff No.1. The Plaint was verified by Plaintiff No.2. In paragraph 38 of the Plaint, Plaintiff No.2 has stated that he has signed and verified the Plaint as the Promoter and Managing Director of Plaintiff No.1. However, there is no reference to Plaintiff No.2 being authorized on behalf of Plaintiff No.1 to file the suit. 2. In the Defendant s Written Statement, the Defendant challenged the maintainability of the suit, inter alia, on the ground that Plaintiff No.2 had no authority to file the suit on behalf of Plaintiff No.1 and further that under the Articles of Association of Plaintiff No.1, any resolution for commencement or discontinuance of any litigation as set out therein required the consent of at least one Director nom...
Tag this Judgment!Viransingh @ Simansingh Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: May-11-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned advocate for the respective appellant and learned A.P.P. for the respondent. 2. The appeal was filed by two appellants challenging the judgment passed by Sessions Court convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 399 of the Indian Penal Code and directing the appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.Five Hundred and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The Sessions Court convicted the appellant No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.Five Hundred and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. During pendency of the appeal the appellant No.2 died and by the order dated 25th June, 2015 the appeal of the appellant No.2 is disposed as abated. 3. Shri R.H. Raolani, advocate for the appella...
Tag this Judgment!Waman Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: May-10-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. 2. The appellant has challenged the judgment passed by the Sessions Court convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.200/- and in default payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. 3. The case of the prosecution is : The prosecutrix-Anusayabai was working as labour at the relevant time. The construction site being near the house of the accused, on the night of the incident when the prosecutrix was sleeping in Chhapri, the accused committed rape on her under the threat to kill her. According to the prosecutrix, the accused assured to marry her if she became pregnant and because of his assurance she did not disclose about the incident to anybody. The accused repeated the act on 2-3 occasions. On the report of the prosecutrix, the crime was registered, i...
Tag this Judgment!Vishvash Machhinder Saptal Vs. The State of Union Territory through Da ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2016
A.M. Badar, J. 1. This is an appeal by the appellant / accused, who is convicted for an offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one month for challenging the said judgment and order dated 30th July 2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Daman in Sessions Case No.10/2007. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts leading to the prosecution of the appellant / accused are thus:- (a) On the day of incident i.e. on 13th September, 2007, accused Vishvash Machhinder Saptal, deceased Naresh Ramashrey Pandey, Sunilkumar Shyamlal Sahoo (PW-1), Vilash Babushaeb Shinde (PW-3), Meena Patel (PW-4) and Shantaben Dhawal (PW5) were working with M/s.V.P.Plastic Company situated at Kachigam, Nani Daman. PW-3 Vilash Shinde was the Supervisor, PW1 Sunilkumar Sahoo was the helper, accused Vishvash Saptal was Machine Operator, whereas P...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State, Mumbai Vs. M/s. Neul ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2016
A.A. Sayed, J. 1. Above two Appeals filed under section 27 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as MVAT Act ) arise out of common judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal, Mumbai dated 6 August 2015 in VAT Appeal Nos.931 and 932 of 2014. 2. The operative part of the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal reads as under: In view of all above, the matter is disposed of are as under:- ORDER The VAT appeal bearing No.931/2014 is hereby allowed and the D.D.Q. order dated 18-07-2014 of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State, Mumbai is set aside. The products of the appellant are classified under schedule entry C-107 (11)(g) during the relevant period i.e. from 15.01.2011 to 13.03.2013 liable for 5% of VAT Tax. The VAT appeal bearing No.932 of 2014 is hereby allowed and the D.D.Q. order dated 18.07.2014 of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State, Mumbai is set aside. The products of the appellant are classified un...
Tag this Judgment!Magasvargiya Shikshan Sanstha and Another Vs. Bhausaheb Sonaji Kakade ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-06-2016
1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties. 2. Rule. 3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal. 4. A vital issue emerges in this petition:- "Whether under Rule 16(2) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 ( MEPS Rules for short), issuance of a notice to the temporary / probationer employee before arriving at a conclusion that he/she has voluntarily abandoned employment would be a necessity?" 5. Considering the conspectus of the matter, I had invited the learned Advocates practicing in service law to render their assistance in this matter. I have thus heard the learned Advocates for the litigating sides, as well as, those learned Advocates. 6. The petitioner / management has challenged the judgment and order dated 24.9.2015, delivered by the School Tribunal, Aurangabad, by which, Appeal No. 5 of 2013, filed by the appellant / employee Respondent No.1 herein, has been allowed an...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »