Mumbai Court June 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.
Suman Dashrath Gade Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-2016
P.C. 1. Both Applicants/accused in Crime No.I-99 of 2015 for the offences punishable under sections 302, 498(A), 304(B) read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered with Vani Police Station, Nashik at the instance of the informant -Babasaheb Bhikaji Kumbharkar, by these applications are praying for releasing them on bail. 2. Applicant-Suman in bail application No.976 of 2016 is the mother-in-law, whereas applicant-Dashrath in bail application No.977 of 2016 is father-in-law of deceased Rupali Chetan Gade, who died at her matrimonial house at Shindwad, Tal. Dindori, Dist. Nashik on 23th August, 2015 by hanging. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for Applicants /accused as well as the learned APP for the State. Learned counsel for Applicants argued that both the applicants/accused were not even present at the very house which was being shared by deceased-Rupali and her husband Chetan. Learned counsel argued that averments made in the FIR as well as in statements of witnes...
Shalini Harishkumar Kotian Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through the S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-2016
P.C: 1. At the request of Mr. Acharya, who accepts service on behalf of Respondent No.3, we list this matter on 27th June 2016, to be placed on the Supplementary Board. 2. We have heard Mr. Talekar, learned counsel for the Petitioner, at length, but we are not inclined to grant any ad-interim relief at this stage. 3. Needless to clarify, that every step or measure, which is initiated in pursuance of the rules and brochure in question, shall abide by the outcome of this Petition. 4. Mr. Acharya stated, on instructions, that those appearing and taking these exams would be informed well in advance of the pendency of not only this Petition, but that involving larger challenge to the legality and the validity of the Act; that such Petitions are pending before this Court and its Bench at Aurangabad, would also be notified....
Satish Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-16-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. In view of notice for final disposal issued earlier, the learned Counsel for the parties have been heard at length. 2. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the adjudication of his application for interim relief that was filed along with his complaint under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short, the said Act). 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was employed with the respondent as a Conductor having been appointed in the year 2010. During the course of service, he was served with a charge-sheet dated 9-7-2012 on the charge that while he was on duty certain passengers were found travelling without ticket. Pursuant to aforesaid, an enquiry was held and the punishment of withholding of three annual increments not having cumulative effect came to be imposed upon the petitioner by order dated 18-11-2013. It is his further case that on 20-8-2014, a show cause notice came to be issued ...
M/s. Spring Fresh Drinks Pvt. Ltd., through its Director Hasmukhbhai a ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-16-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Since identical orders are challenged in these writ petitions, the same are being decided by this common judgment. 2. For the sake of convenience the facts in Writ Petition No.2084/2007 are being referred to. The petitioners are the original plaintiffs who had filed Regular Civil Suit No.1577/2004 against the respondents herein. In the said suit, it was the case of the petitioners that the respondent No.2 which was a public trust was the owner of the building which had been let out to the respondent No.1 herein. The petitioners were occupying the separate shop blocks, the same having been let out to them by the respondent No.1. It was their further case that with the view to get the premises occupied by them vacated, the respondent No.1 initially committed various illegal acts at the behest of respondent No.2 due to which the petitioners could not enjoy the suit premises as tenants. It was pleaded that on 30-11-2004 the petitioners were restrained from enjoying the su...
MCA Constructions Vs. Mrs. Ranjana Rajesh Patil and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Admit. Considering the challenge raised heard forthwith. 2. The above Appeal from Order takes exception to the order dated 13.07.2015 passed by the Learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Borivali Division, Dindoshi, Mumbai. By the said order, Notice of Motion No.1117 of 2015 filed by the Appellant i.e. the Defendant No.5 came to be dismissed. 3. The Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are the original Plaintiffs who have filed the suit in question wherein the main substantive relief sought is by way of prayer clause (a). The same is reproduced hereinunder for the sake of ready reference:- "(a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to restrain the Defendant, their servants, agents and/or any other person/s acting on its behalf, permanently by an order and injunction of this Hon'ble Court from demolition of suit premises 001 Transit Camp Hanuman Nagar, Prsiwada, Andheri (East) Mumbai-400 099 and not to demolish the transit camp till allotment of permanent alternate accommodation in r...
B.P.H.E. Society's Institute of Management Studies (Career Development ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-15-2016
Oral Judgment: (R.M. Borde, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Petitioner is seeking quashment of the Circular No. 96/2014 issued by respondent no. 2 Savitribai Phule University and the communicated dated 13.04.2015 issued by the Director of Board of College and University Development, instructing petitioner-management not to admit students to direct second year MCA programme conducted by the faculty of management for the year 2016-2017. 3. Petitioner contends that the institution has been accorded extension of approval by AICTE during the academic year 2013-2014 to conduct MCA course in second shift by admitting students directly to second year MCA programme. AICTE also accorded approval for conducting aforesaid course during the year 2014-2015 by granting extension of approval with admit capacity of 60 students. It is further contended that extension of approval is also accorded for the yea...
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Through its Divisional C ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-15-2016
1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. This Writ Petition has been preferred against the order passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Jalna, in Miscellaneous (ULP) No.01/2012, on 15.4.2014, whereby the Industrial Court has condoned the delay caused in filing a complaint of unfair labour practice by the present respondent against the present petitioners. 3. The question to be determined in the present petition is: "can a pendency of a criminal case against an employee and his consequent acquittal therefrom be accepted as good and sufficient cause so as to condone the delay occurred in filing a complaint by the said employee against the punishment imposed on him in the departmental proceedings held against him based on the same incident which had given rise for institution of a criminal prosecution against him." 4. Respondent was working as a Driver at the State Transport Depot at Amb...
Dr. Anjana Singh, Proprietress of Central Diagnostic Vs. M/s. Metropol ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. By this petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Arbitration Act ), the petitioner has impugned the arbitral award dated 8th April 2015 rendered by the arbitral tribunal allowing the claim made by the respondent and dismissing the counter claim filed by the petitioner. The respondent has not impugned any part of the award rendered by the arbitral tribunal. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:- 2. On 19th July 2008, the parties recorded a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Pursuant to the said MOU, the Joint Venture Company i.e. Metropolis Clinical Diagnostics (Bihar) Pvt. Ltd. came to be incorporated on the terms and conditions recorded therein. 3. On 7th November 2008, the petitioner as well as the respondent and the said joint venture company entered into a Business Transfer Agreement as contemplated under the terms of the MOU. Under the said writing, the petitioner had...
Subhash Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-15-2016
1. The Appellant original accused has been convicted in Sessions Case No.36 of 2002 by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon vide Judgment dated 16th January 2003, under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC" in brief) and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/-. In default of fine, he has been directed to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months. The accused came to be acquitted of offence under Section 306 of IPC with which also he was charged. 2. In brief, the case of the prosecution is as follows: A). Contents of F.I.R. show that Sunita, the daughter of PW1 Changdeo Tulshiram Rathod (here after referred as "victim") was married with the accused on 18th April 2000. After marriage, she went to reside with the accused at Mordad Tanda. Later on accused was appointed as teacher at Akadikheli, Tq-Nandurbar and the accused started residing at place called Mhaswad-Pimpri. On holidays he used to come down to Mordad ...
Ramzan Ghori Vs. Ali Imam Hussain and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-2016
P.C. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties. 3. Petitioner herein is seeking the relief of quashing of the order of issuance of process passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 21st Court at Bandra in the complaint No.1435/SS/2013 under section 500 of Indian Penal Code. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order, Petitioner had filed criminal revision No.4 of 2015 before the Sessions Court, although the petitioner was aware that there is a delay of more than 3 years. Pursuant to the notice issued, the respondent appeared and demonstrated that there was a delay of more than 3 years and 6 months, an application seeking condonation of delay was filed thereafter, without there being a plausible explanation for the inordinate delay. No specific satisfactory reason was assigned for not seeking condonation of delay at the threshold. An attempt was made to mislead the Revisional Court and it reflects upon the conduct of the Petitioner. Same exercise was u...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »