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.
Imtiyaz Hussain Vs. The Central Government Secretary, Government of In ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-22-2016
Nutan D. Sardessai, J. 1. The petitioner herein has challenged the order of detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1976 ( COFEPOSA Act for short hereinafter). 2. The detention order dated 31.3.2015 was issued by the respondent no.2 against him under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act, with a view to preventing him in future from acting in any manner prejudicial to the smuggling of gold and allied object. The detention order was served on him on 3.8.2015 and he was taken in detention. He was served with a copy of the detention order with the grounds of detention and the list of documents were purported to have been placed before the Detaining Authority and purported to have been referred to and relied upon by the Detaining Authority. The impugned order of detention was also served on him on 28.7.2015. 3. In the brief facts, on 7.7.2014, the officer of the Customs seized 19.491 kgs of gold from the possession of three international ...
Foundation Brake Kamgar Sanghatna Savali Vs. M/s. Foundation Brake Man ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-22-2016
1. Heard. The petitioner union has filed the present petition against order dated 26th February, 2016 passed by Member, Industrial Court, Jalgaon in Appeal (IESO) No.1 of 2015. 2. The aforesaid appeal was filed by the present respondent, seeking quashment of order dated 21.8.2015 in Application No.1 of 2015 passed by Deputy Commissioner of Labour, i.e. Certifying Officer, under The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (for short, the Act), whereby he had allowed the application of the petitioner union and has consequently allowed to extend age of retirement from 58 years to 60 years in the Standing Orders. Vide the impugned order, the Industrial Court, which is an appellate authority, as provided under the provisions of the Act, has set aside the order dated 21.8.2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Nasik Division, Nasik in Application No. 1 of 2015 and consequently, he has rejected the application filed by the petitioner union, whereby the union had prayed fo...
Madhukar Shrirang Sonwane and Another Vs. Tatyarao Gangaram Mule
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-21-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. The petitioners are personally present in the Court in pursuance to the order of this Court dated 03.05.2016. None appeared for the respondent on 03.05.2016. None appeared for the respondent today also. 2. Learned Advocate Mrs. Reddy has appeared on behalf of the petitioners in this matter. This petition was admitted on 17.06.2003. Interim relief was not granted. 3. I have heard the learned Advocate for the petitioners who has criticized the impugned judgment of the Labour Court dated 21.06.2000 by which the criminal complaint filed under Section 48(1) of the MRTU and PULP, Act 1971, has been allowed and the petitioners have been convicted with fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand) each. The petitioners are also aggrieved by the judgment of the Industrial Court dated 29.11.2002 vide which the appeal filed by the petitioners has been dismissed. 4. Mrs.Reddy has strenuously criticized the impugned judgments. Contention is that ad interim protection was granted by the ...
The Manager, Central Workshop, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corpor ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-21-2016
1. The present petition has been filed against the judgment and award dated 2nd February, 1995 passed by the Labour Court at Aurangabad in Reference (IDA) No.128 of 1990 whereby the present Petitioner was directed to reinstate the present Respondent with continuity of service and back-wages from 7th September, 1990. 2. Facts relevant for decision of the present petition are thus: Respondent was working as a Helper with the Petitioner from the year 1987. In the year 1988, he was served with a chargesheet containing an allegation that he remained absent from duty from 28th October, 1988 upto 9th January, 1989 without giving any prior intimation or application for leave and thus has caused adverse effect on the working of the Petitioner. In the Departmental Enquiry held against the Respondent, he was held guilty and punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on him. Respondent challenged the said order of dismissal by raising a dispute before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Auran...
Soni Vs. Election Officer, Gram-Panchayat, Taroda and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-21-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri Shantanu Khedkar, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri H.R. Dhumale, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent No.1 and Shri K.S. Narwade, Advocate for the respondent No.2. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. The respondent No.2 has filed petition under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act challenging the election of the present petitioner on the ground that she was not eligible to contest the election as on the date of election she was below twenty-one years. In the election petition, the present petitioner filed an application praying that the issue present about jurisdiction of the Court, to entertain the petition on the ground raised in the petition, be framed and tried as preliminary issue. The Court considered the submissions of the parties and passed an order dated 08-01-2016 directing the framing of preliminary issue. By the impugned order, the Court has concluded that it has jurisdiction to entertain and try the election ...
------ Vs. Union of India, through its Secretary, Ministry of Environm ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-21-2016
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents waive service. 4. A Suo Motu cognizance was taken by this Court based on the news item in the local news paper by an order dated 31.07.2006 and accordingly notices were issued to the concerned Government Authorities. Thereafter, by order dated 08.08.2006 the learned Amicus Curiae appointed by this Court brought to the notice of this Court the various orders and the guidelines issued in different other petitions in connection with the structures which mushroomed within the NDZ area and subject to the CRZ Regulations, 1991. Accordingly, this Court by order dated 08.08.2006 passed the following directions. 6. Having heard Mrs. Alvares, it has become necessary to issue following directions to the State Government. (a) The Chief Secretary State of...
Imran Abdul Wahid Hasmi Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Police and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-2016
Prakash D. Naik, J. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of parties. Learned APP waives service for Respondents State. The petitioner has challenged the order of externment dated 30th December, 2014 issued by respondent no.1 under Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (for short the said Act ) as well as the order dated 9th April, 2015, passed by respondent no.3 dismissing the Appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 60 of the said Act. 2. The factual matrix of the petition is as follows:- (a) The Assistant Commissioner of Police Deonar Division, Mumbai had issued a show-cause notice dated 28th June, 2014 under Section 59 of the said Act. In the said show-cause notice, it was mentioned that it is proposed to extern the petitioner for a period of two years from Greater Bombay Suburban and Thane Districts. The show-cause notice refers to the statement of two persons recorded in-camera. It is further stated that the acts and movements of the peti...
Samir Prabhakar Agale Vs. Poonam Samir Agale and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-2016
P.C. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties. 3. Petitioner herein happens to be Respondent in C.C. No.2972 of 2012 pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class at Pune. Complainant i.e. Respondent had filed application under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (Hereinafter referred as "The said act"). Learned Magistrate by an order dated 25/04/2013 passed an order thereby issuing process against the Respondents. On the same day, learned Magistrate had passed an order that Respondent i.e. present Petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs.4,500/- per month to the complainant/respondent towards rent of the flat hired by her. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order, Petitioner had filed Criminal Appeal No.294 of 2013. Learned Appellate Court was swayed by the submissions that process was issued against the appellant without following due procedure of Law under the Code of Criminal Procedure or Code of Civil Procedure. Notice...
ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Babasaheb Dhanpal Gat (Desai) and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-2016
1. This writ petition, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenges awards passed by the Labour Court at Kolhapur on 13th February, 2014 ( Part-I Award) and 15th May, 2014 (Final Award). The awards are passed on a reference made under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in pursuance of a demand notice issued by the first respondent workman, complaining of illegal termination from the services of the petitioner. 2. The respondent workman was employed initially with Sangli Bank (now merged with the petitioners) at its branch in Tasgaon District, Sangli, and was working as an Agricultural Assistant. (Sangli Bank was merged with the petitioner under a scheme of amalgamation w.e.f. 19th April, 2007). The Petitioner's case is that on 5th December, 2002, a staff member at the branch, one Dilip Hingmire, arranged a party, where liqour and food were served. This party was attended by six colleagues of Hingmire. After this party, except Hingmire and one peon all other...
Nagendra @ Nagesh and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-21-2016
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Deshpande, J.) 1. These two appeals are decided by this common judgment. These two appeals arise out of the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, dated 8th of May, 2013 in Sessions Case No.161 of 2011. 2. Criminal Appeal No.490 of 2013 is filed by Nagendra Tekam, original accused no.1 and Sunil Tekam, original accused no.2. Criminal Appeal No.328 of 2013 is filed by Krushna Jatwa, original accused no.3. All the appellants were convicted by the learned Sessions Judge for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and they were directed to suffer imprisonment for life on account of their conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and all of them were directed to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. All the accused persons were also directed to suff...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »