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.
Union of India, Through the General Manager and Another Vs. Shri Nasir ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-06-2016
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Kanade, J.) 1. The Union of India has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order passed by the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 51 of 2009 filed by the Respondent, restraining the Petitioners herein to recover the excess amount mistakenly paid and to refund a small portion of the amount already recovered from the Respondent with simple interest. 2. Brief facts are that the Applicant was working as Artisan Grade-III with the Respondent. The Railway Board took a policy decision regarding up-gradation of certain posts by order dated 28th September, 1998. Accordingly, he was up-graded to the post of Artisan Grade III with effect from 1st September, 1998. It is not in dispute that the up-graded pay scale was to be granted on their passing prescribed Trade Test within reasonable time. The Applicant passed the prescribed examination on 4.8.2000. Recovery proceedings were initiated against th...
Vinayak Aba Sawant (Since deceased), through L.Rs.) and Others Vs. Vij ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-06-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. C.G. Gavnekar, learned Counsel for the applicants and Mr. T.S.Ingale, learned Counsel for the respondent, at length. 2. By this application under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, CPC), the applicants have challenged the judgment and decree dated 2.7.2002 passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Shriwardhan in Regular Civil Suit No.39/1997 in as well as judgment and decree dated 2.2.2007 passed by learned Adhoc District Judge-1, Raigad-Alibag in Civil Appeal No.160/2002. By these orders, the Courts below dismissed the suit instituted by Vinayak Aba Sawant, hereinafter referred to as the 'original plaintiff'. 3. Original plaintiff had instituted a suit against the respondent, hereinafter referred to as 'defendant', for recovery of possession of two rooms on the ground floor from southern side of house No.2742/1695 situate at village Shriwardhan, Taluka-Sriwardhan, District-Raigad (for short, 'suit premises'). It is the case of or...
Dinesh and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary C ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-06-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Petition is filed with the following prayer: (B) Hold and declare that the inaction on the part of respondent No.6 society, for injuncting the respondent no.6 society from proceeding with the further process of recruitment in pursuance of the advertisement published in daily Sakal on 14th September, 2015 is illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14, 19(1)(c) and 21 of the Constitution of India hence liable to be quashed and set aside. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that as per the staffing pattern, one post of clerk is admissible as against 300 members and one post of peon is admissible as against 400 members. Already there are excess peons and clerks working with Respondent No.6 Society, and therefore, there was no need of recruitment. As on today, there are 14 clerks, 9 peons and one watchman working with Respondent No.6 society. One post of clerk is already in excess and there is no further need of recruitment, which puts addi...
Satish Mahadeorao Uke Vs. Registrar, High Court of Bombay, Bench at Na ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-06-2016
1. This revision application has been filed to seek copies of the record of C.A. No.U-3733/ E-122 R.No.122 dated 4-4-2016, which, according to the applicant, was filed in Criminal Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015 by the office of the Government Pleader. Normally, the application would either be allowed or dismissed for the reasons to be stated in the order to be passed. There would also not be any objection for the Court if the applicant wanted to withdraw the revision application. This could have been permitted by this Court if it had been a simple revision application without making any serious allegations assailing the record of this Court and without mud-slinging the sitting Judges and the officers of this Court. The revision application along with the documents and pursis on record contain all sorts of wild allegations amounting to scurrilous attack on the sitting Judges, the officers of this Court, including the Government Pleader, and the record of this Court. Such allegations...
Jaya and Another Vs. Tahsildar, Parner and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-05-2016
P.C. 1. Not on board. Taken up for hearing at the request of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, on account of urgency. 2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Asst. Government Pleader appearing for respondent nos.1 and 2. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has sought stay to the meeting scheduled to be held on 6th June 2016, at 11.00 a.m. at village Kinhi, Taluka Parner, District Ahmednagar, to discuss the motion of no confidence brought against the petitioners, who are working as the Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch respectively. 4. It is not in dispute that as per the application (undated) which was received by respondent no.1 -Tahsildar, on 30th March 2016, motions of no confidence were brought by one Sudhakar Bhanudas Khodade and others against the petitioners. However, respondent no.1 did not convene meeting to consider the said motions of no confidence. Respondent no.1 issued a notice dated 13th April 2016 to convene a special meeting for...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›