Mumbai Court July 2016 Judgments
Sangita Vidyadhar Malte Vs. Bansode Nitin Ananda and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-2016
1. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to impugn the order dated 19th September, 2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Additional School Tribunal, New Mumbai in Appeal No. 68 of 2000 thereby quashing and setting aside the appointment of the respondent no.1 with retrospective effect i.e. from 7th July, 1999 which was issued by memo dated 13th April, 2000 and directing the management to reinstate the respondent no.1 on the same post. The school tribunal also declared that the respondent no.1 shall be entitled for continuity of his services w.e.f. 7th July, 1999 with all consequential benefits, including the salary of his work done from 7th July, 1999 to 24th April, 2000, by recovering the same from the petitioner if paid to her within three months from the date of the said order. The school tribunal directed the Deputy Director of Vocational Training, respondent no.4 herein to consider the proposal of the appointmen...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Auto Craft Engineers Vs. Akshar Automobiles Agencies Private Limi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-2016
1. By these two petitions filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the 'Arbitration Act') both the petitioners have impugned the ex-parte award dated 24th September, 2013 passed by the learned arbitrator allowing the claims made by the respondent. Since the facts in both the arbitration petitions are identical, by consent of parties, both the petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order and judgment. 2. Learned senior counsel appearing for the parties have addressed this court in the Arbitration Petition No.556 of 2014 and thus the facts in the said arbitration petition are summarized in the later part of this judgment. It is agreed by and between the parties that the conclusion drawn by this court in the Arbitration Petition No.556 of 2014 will apply also to the Arbitration Petition No. 680 of 2014. 3. The petitioner is a sister company of M/s.Navnit Motors Pvt. Ltd., an authorized dealer for Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. ...
Tag this Judgment!Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, L ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-29-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. This matter has been heard at length on 25/07/2016 and today. 2. The petitioner/Corporation is aggrieved by the judgment of the Labour Court dated 24/07/2008, by which Complaint (ULP) No.31/2003, filed by the respondent, has been allowed and the Labour Court has passed the following order: 1. Complaint is allowed. 2. It is declared that the respondents have engaged in unfair labour practice as per Item 1 (a and b) of Schedule IV of M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act and respondents should desist from the same. 3. The respondents are directed to reinstate and absorb the complainant by accepting his proposal of reinstatement even after resignation from service by virtue of circular dtd.04/04/1981 and precedents followed by the respondents on the same scale of driver till he attains the age of retirement. 4. The services of complainant be treated as continued from 01/02/1999 on the same scale of Rs.4,720/- and he be paid all the differences of wages and that wages from 01/02/1999...
Tag this Judgment!Kailash Bhaskarrao Deshmukh Vs. Aurangabad Zilla Parishad Karmachari S ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-29-2016
Oral Judgment : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 27/10/2015 passed by the Respondent temporarily dismissing the petitioner pending disciplinary proceedings. He is also aggrieved by the order dated 19/05/2016 by which his appeal has been dismissed. 3. I have considered the extensive submissions of the learned Advocates. 4. A short issue has been raised for the consideration of this Court as to whether a delinquent employee can be 'temporarily dismissed' from service pending disciplinary proceedings for the period during which the enquiry is to be conducted. 5. I am astonished to note that, the respondent, by order dated 27/10/2015, has initiated a departmental enquiry against the petitioner by appointing an Auditor (Class II), Co-operative Society (Consumer), Aurangabad as an Enquiry Officer and in the same order of appointing of an Enquiry Officer, the petitioner has been temporari...
Tag this Judgment!Naresh Kumar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-28-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Admit. 3. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties. 4. This revision application involves a challenge to the order of the learned Special Judge passed on 10.6.2016 deferring a decision on the objection about the admissibility of certain portion of evidence tendered by the prosecution witnesses. During the course of recording of examination-in-chief of PW 7, certain evidence tendered by this witness came to be recorded. This evidence was to the effect that upon inquiry made by the Investigating Officer of the Central Bureau of Investigation, accused No.2 Sk.Wahid demanded and accepted the bribe amount on behalf of accused No.1 in this case. An objection was taken by the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant that this statement being in the nature of confession made to a police officer was hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, and so was inadmissible in evidence. It was also asserted by the learned Senior Counsel, who wa...
Tag this Judgment!Pushpanjali Subodha Shenvi Vs. Nagrik Seva Mandal and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-2016
1. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari inter alia praying for quashing and setting aside the impugned order and judgment dated 4th March, 2016 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Navi Mumbai thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner under section 9(1) (b) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and Rules framed thereunder (for short the said MEPS Act and the said MEPS Rules). The petitioner herein had impugned the order of supersession dated 10th July, 2013 issued by the respondent no.1 management promoting the respondent no.4 to the post of the headmaster and had prayed for an order and direction against the management to promote the petitioner on the post of the head mistress w.e.f. 10th July, 2013 and to pay her all the salary as per scale, dues including back wages, emoluments, etc. attached to the said...
Tag this Judgment!Titagarh Wagons Limited Vs. Chowgule and Company Private Limited
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-28-2016
Oral Order: 1. Shri S.M.Usgaonkar, learned Senior Counsel with Shri R.K.Choudhary, learned Counsel for the applicants and Shri S.D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel with Shri P. Lotlikar, learned Counsel for the respondents came to be heard on the application for the condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 2. It was the contention of Shri S.M. Usgaonkar, learned Senior Counsel that the applicants were a Company which was having its registered office at Kolkata without any local office. The learned District Judge had passed the Award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the Act" for short) and which was sought to be assailed by way of an appeal before this Court by recourse to Section 37 of the Act. The decision was taken by the applicants to prefer an appeal and in that context they tried to seek the services of their erstwhile Counsel but due to their inability, the applicants were able to locate the Counsel having operations in Mumbai, ...
Tag this Judgment!Pravin Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-28-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. By this criminal writ petition, the legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Zarizamni dated 13.4.2016, below Exh.-1, and the judgment and order dated 28th April, 2016 delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kelapur, in Criminal Revision Case No.10/2016 are questioned. This petitioner is an owner of one JCB Machine, bearing registration No.MH-29-AK-1149 as described in paragraph 1 of this petition about which there is no dispute. The petitioner has been arraigned as an accused in Crime No.45/2016, registered against one person and subsequently against this applicant also for an offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation is that co-accused and this applicant, by means of JCB Machine involved in this crime, illegally excavated stones from Mine No.12/2, situated at Za...
Tag this Judgment!Sagar Bhagwat Vs. Kiran
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-28-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the decree for eviction passed by the trial Court which has been maintained by the appellate Court. The respondent no.1 is the owner of a shop in which the respondent no.2 - defendant no.1 and the petitioner no.1 - defendant no.2 were the tenants. The rent agreed to be paid was Rs.2500/- per month. For the sake of convenience, the respondent no.1 would be referred to as the landlady, the petitioner no.1 would be referred to as the tenant and the petitioner no.2 would be referred to as the subtenant. 3. According to the landlady, the tenants were in arrears of rent since August 2006. As these arrears of rent were not paid despite demand being made, on 21-11-2009 the landlady issued a notice under provisions of Section 15(2) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short, the said Act) to the ten...
Tag this Judgment!Ibrahim Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra through Principal S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-2016
Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J. 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of both the parties, heard finally at the stage of admission itself. 2. In this writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a very short question is raised for consideration relating to the interpretation of Section 8(2) of Haj Committee Act, 2002. The exact nature of controversy is centered around the question as to whether a member, who was elected for more than 2 terms, can be eligible for renomination on the Haj Committee, considering the wording of Section 8(2) of the Act that, "an outgoing member shall be eligible for renomination on the Committee for not more than two terms." 3. For deciding this controversy, the relevant facts of the petition can be stated as follows: The petitioner is a citizen of India and is elected Chairman of respondent No.4-the Maharashtra State Haj Committee and is nominated as a representative of respondent No.4 to respondent No.3-Haj Committee...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »