Mumbai Court May 2016 Judgments
Sachin Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: May-06-2016
P.C. 1. Prima facie, we are of the view that invoking the provisions of Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (MOCA) was not justified in the facts of the case, inasmuch as the dispute appears to be civil in nature. 2. In that view of the matter, issue notice to respondents, returnable after six weeks. 3. Mr V.A. Thakre, learned APP waives service on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 3. Hamdast granted for respondent no.4. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicants and learned APP on the question of grant of interim relief. 5. On account of invoking the provisions of MOCA, the applicants have been detained since 24.1.2016. 6. We have already observed that prima facie the provisions of MOCA would not be applicable. However, it appears that the Investigating Officer, for the reasons best known to him, has invoked the provisions of MOCA. On account of invoking the provisions of MOCA, the applicants are behind the bars for a period of almost three months. 7. We would co...
Tag this Judgment!Santosh Vs. The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary for School ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-06-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that while taking education, he constantly practised Indian Origin Sport known as Atyapatya . The petitioner has acquired mastery in the said sport. He also received participation certificate for the years 2008-2009, 2010-2011, 2012-2013 at State level and for the year 2012-2013 at National level, and secured second place in the said sport. All these sport competitions in respect of Atyapatya were held by Atyapatya Federation of India which is affiliated to All India Olympic Association. In order to promote sports in the State of Maharashtra and more particularly, Indian Origin Sports, the Government of Maharashtra has taken a policy decision to reserve 5% of posts in jobs for sports persons by issuing Government Resolution dated 30.04.2005. An object to be achieved by the said ...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Resurgere Mines and Minerals India Ltd. and Others Vs. Vyagreshwa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. By these two arbitration petitions filed under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the said Act ) both the appellants have impugned part of the same order i.e. dated 22nd April, 2016 passed by the learned arbitrator in an application filed under section 17 of the said Act refusing to grant part of the relief in favour of the appellant in Arbitration Petition (Lodging) No.618 of 2016 and granting part of the reliefs against the appellant in Arbitration Petition (Lodging) No.629 of 2016. Both the appellants have therefore, impugned part of the order passed by the learned arbitrator against each other. Since both the petitions are arising out of the same order, both the petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding these petitions are as under: 2. The appellant in Arbitration Petition (Lodging) No.618 of 2016 was the original claimant, whereas the appellant...
Tag this Judgment!Rahul and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Urba ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: May-06-2016
1. By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the legality and correctness of the order dated 20.2.2016 passed by the respondent no. 2, the Hon'ble Minister, thereby disqualifying the petitioners under the provisions of Sections 55B and 42 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1965). 2. The petitioners, when the impugned order was passed, were or had been the part of the Municipal Council, Katol, in such capacities as petitioner no. 1 being the President; petitioner no. 2 being the Ex-President and the Councillor and petitioner nos. 3 to 10 being the councillors and petitioner no. 10 being a co-opted councillor. They were disqualified by respondent no.2 for the reason that they were found to have indulged in misconduct and disgraceful conduct. The alleged controversial conduct of the petitioners related to the allotment of some minor works to one contractor, Shri Bambal. 3. Some councillors...
Tag this Judgment!N.J. Nayudu and Company Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation and ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: May-06-2016
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 02.02.2007 passed by the learned Member, Employees State Insurance Court Nagpur, in proceedings under Section 75 of the said Act. By the said order the application under Section 75 of the said Act came to be dismissed and the demand towards contribution made by the respondent has been confirmed. 2. The facts giving rise to the present proceedings are that, the appellant is a registered partnership firm carrying on business of exhibition of films. Four theaters are being run by the appellant in which it had engaged its own employees. The establishment conducted by the appellant is governed by the provisions of the said Act and the coverage is with effect from 27.11.1976. On 15.02.1978 an inspection was carried out by the Inspector of the Corporation. During said inspection the coverage of employees of the cycle stand and canteen in ...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Hari Singhania and Others Vs. Sushila Singhania and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2016
P.C.: 1. The judgment creditors in execution application no.2006 of 2015, who, henceforth are referred to as Calcutta Group for the sake of convenience, were the claimants in an arbitration before Mr. Justice S.N. Variava (Retd.) as Sole Arbitrator. The judgment debtors to this execution application were the respondents in the arbitration and participated as two separate groups. The judgment debtor nos.1 to 7, who hereinafter are referred to as Kanpur Group, were respondent nos.1 to 9 in the arbitration and the judgment debtors nos.8 to 14, who hereinafter are referred to as Bombay Group, were respondent nos.10 to 16 in the arbitration. Respondent nos.1 and 4 in the arbitration have since expired. In the arbitration the claimants sought distribution of the assets of the erstwhile partnership firm of M/s. J.K. Bankers (Juggilal Kamlapat Bankers). The Ld. Arbitrator passed an award dated 4th August, 2008 to which certain minor modifications were carried out on 12th September, 2008 (the s...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Babli Ransing Adult Vs. State of Maharashtra through its Secreta ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2016
Anoop V. Mohta, J.) 1. By this Petition the Petitioner has challenged order dated 23 December 2008 passed by Respondent No.2-Caste Scrutiny Committee, whereby the caste validity certificate dated 19 September 1983 issued to the Petitioner was declared to be invalid and the claim of the Petitioner as belonging to Thakar-Schedule Tribe was dismissed. By order dated 3 April 2003 in Writ Petition No.4005 of 1996 filed by the present Petitioner, the Division Bench of this Court considering the then existing provisions of law and the facts including Affidavit dated 10 March 2003, whereby it was averred and not controverted by anyone that the concerned Caste Scrutiny Committee had validated the caste claim of the Petitioner's son, nephew and niece as belong to Thakar-Schedule Tribe and set aside the order dated 7 December 1995 and directed the Caste Scrutiny Committee to reconsider the case of the Petitioner. 2. We have noted that those findings in favour of the Petitioner's paternal side rel...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat Chemical Port Terminal Co. Ltd. Vs. Indian Oil Corporation of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2016
1. By this petition filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ), the petitioner has impugned the order dated 17th December 2015 passed by the arbitral tribunal in the application filed under Section 17 of the said Act thereby granting various interim measures in favour of the respondent (original claimant) i.e. (i) directing the petitioner to allow the respondent to export upto 300 TMT of naphtha for the duration of the contract subject to the respondent submitting its annual plan/quarterly plan/monthly plan as required from time to time within 15 days from the date of the order to enable the petitioner to accommodate the requirement of the respondent; (ii) granting liberty to the petitioner if berths are available to provide additional export purely within the discretion of the petitioner; (iii) temporary injunction in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) of the application under Section 17 is granted subject to the di...
Tag this Judgment!Sudam Gopal Pednekar Vs. Land Acquisition Officer and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: May-06-2016
1. The original owner of the acquired land is in appeal questioning the validity of the judgment passed by the Reference Court dated 17.07.2012 consequent upon the remand of the file to the Reference Court by this Court setting aside the earlier judgment dated 13.12.2002 in First Appeal No.107/2003 and First Appeal No.136/2003 at the instance of the owner and the Acquiring Department respectively. The Acquiring Department had pursuant to the Section 4 of the Notification issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("The Act" for short hereinafter) had acquired the land for the purpose of a construction of the bypass road which was published in the Official Gazette at Sr. No.34 dated 25.09.1989. An area of 1110 sq. mts. was acquired from the property bearing no.239 of the village Ponda for the said purpose and the Land Acquisition Officer, ("LAO" for short hereinafter) fixed the compensation @ Rs.250/- per square mt. The appellant claimed the enhanced compensation at Rs.4000/- per sq. m...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer and Others Vs ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: May-05-2016
B.R. Gavai, J. 1. Since the learned Sessions Judge, Nagpur by judgment and order dated 4.2.2016 in Sessions Trial No. 488/14 has awarded death penalty to the accused Nos. 1 and 2, the reference has been made to this Court for confirmation in Criminal Confirmation Case No. 1/16. 2. Both the accused/appellants have also preferred appeals being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 4.2.2016. Though both the appellants are condemned persons, for the sake of convenience, hereinafter we will be referring to them as accused. 3. The prosecution case in nutshell as could be gathered from the material placed on record is thus: PW. 1 Dr. Mukesh Chandak, the first informant, is a resident of GuruVandana Housing Society, Lakadganj Road, Nagpur. PW.1 Dr. Mukesh Chandak as well as his wife Premal are both Dentists by profession and running a clinic known as Chandak Dental Clinic which is located at Darodkar Square, Central Avenue Road, Nagpur. The couple was blessed wit...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »