Mumbai Court July 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.
Amruta Kaluji Shejul, Since dead, through his LRs. and Others Vs. Vith ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-15-2016
1. The deceased-respondent No.1-Vitthal Ganpat Wadekar was the original plaintiff No.1, whereas the deceased-respondent No.2-Mahadeo Ganpat Surve was the original plaintiff No.2. Both the plaintiffs were real brothers. The plaintiff No.1 was the son-in-law (husband of the daughter) of one Laxmibai, whereas the plaintiff No.2 was the son of Laxmibai, adopted on 9-5-1952. The dispute in this matter pertains to 12 acres of land out of Survey No.117, situated at Mouza Belgaon, Tq. Mehkar, District Buldana, sold by Laxmibai to the deceased-defendant No.1-Amruta and the defendant No.3-Yashwant by the registered sale-deeds dated 4-6-1974 and 19-7-1976; to the deceased-defendant No.2-Dagdu by the registered sale-deed dated 13-4-1976; and to the defendant No.4-Gajanan by the registered sale-deed dated 2-4-51978. 2. The plaintiffs approached the Civil Court by filing Regular Civil Suit No.22 of 1986 with the case that they had purchased the land Survey No.117, admeasuring total 4.86 HR, equivale...
Sunil Kisan Bhojane Vs. Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-2016
G.S. Kulkarni, J. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent of parties and at their request taken up for final hearing. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner who was appointed on probation by Respondent No.1 on the post of Senior Clerk, has prayed that communication dated 31 January 2013 of the Respondents terminating his services be quashed and set aside and that the Petitioner be reinstated on the post of senior clerk with continuity of service and full back wages. 3. In brief the facts are : By an appointment order dated 1 August 2011 the Respondent No.1 appointed the Petitioner on the post of a senior clerk. Clause 8 of the appointment order provides that the appointment was for a period of one year on probation. Further clause 9 provides that during the probationary period if the work of the Petitioner is found to be unsatisfactory, the appointment would be terminated. 4. The case of the Petitioner is that he accordingly joined services ...
Padmanath Vs. State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Water Supply ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-15-2016
P.C. 1. This petition is filed with the following prayers :- "B. By issuing writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, or writ of certiorari like nature and to quash and set aside the letter dated 18/12/2012, PPO No.8737 issued by the respondent No.6 and direct the respondents to release the pension and amount which is withheld by respondent No.6 and its consequential benefits to the petitioner within two months and revise the pension of the petitioner." C. By issuing writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order of direction, or writ of certiorari like nature and to direct the respondent No.6 to release the amount which is withheld by the respondent, to the petitioner with @ 18% interest till the realization of amount and said be recovered from the official head of the respondent No.6." 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that without issuing any notice or assigning any reasons, the Respondents have withheld the amount payab...
Noor Islam Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-15-2016
1. The appellant - original accused (hereafter referred to as "accused") was tried along with one Mohammad Yunus for offence punishable under Sections 489(B) and 489(C) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC in brief) in Sessions Case No.83/2012 before Additional Sessions Judge-5, Aurangabad and, while the other accused came to be acquitted as there was no evidence against the said accused, the appellant was convicted for these Sections. He was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month, under Section 489(B) of IPC. For offence under Section 489(C), he was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Thus these appeals. 2. The case of prosecution in short is as under: On 29.9.2011, at about 3.00 p.m., in Cannaught Market, Cidco, Aurangabad, the accused ha...
Shantaram Vs. The Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transp ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-15-2016
1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. The present writ petition has been preferred against the Judgment and Order dated 12th January 2001 passed by the Industrial Court at Jalgaon in Revision (ULP) No.199/1999 (Old No. 147/1995), whereby the Industrial Court had quashed and set aside the order dated 29th April, 1995 passed by the Labour Court, in Complaint (ULP) No. 106/1990. 3. The facts, which are relevant for decision of the present petition, in brief, are thus, a) The petitioner was appointed as a Driver in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (for short, S.T. Corporation) in its Jalgaon division in the year 1971. In the year 1985, the petitioner was issued with a charge sheet on the allegation that he had consumed liquor while performing his duty. On the basis of the charge so levelled against the petitioner, a departmental enquiry was held wherein the petitioner was held guilty and by way of punishment, he was dismissed from the services of...
Digambar and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-15-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Petition takes exception to the order dated 27th April, 2012, passed by Education Officer [Secondary], Zilla Paishad, Nanded, and also seeks direction to respondent no.2 to grant approval to the appointment of petitioner nos.1 and 2 and release the benefits of grant-in-aid in their favour from 1st December, 2003, with all the consequential benefits. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that though petitioner no.1 is appointed after following due process of law by the School Committee on clear vacant and sanctioned post, respondent no.2 has wrongly observed that the appointment of petitioner n.1 was without prior permission and he was not appointed by the properly constituted School Committee. He submits that the impugned order is passed totally on unsustainable reasons, ignoring the fact that the petitioner is appointed on the sanctioned post. He submits that there is no provision which mandates to seek prior permission of the Education O...
Selwyn Agnelo Botelho and Another Vs. Norton D'Souza and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-14-2016
1. Rule. Rule, made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the respondents waive service. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. Both these revision applications are between the same parties and involve a common question as to whether the plaint in a suit filed by the respondent no. 1 is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). As such, these revision applications are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the revision applications may be stated thus: Respondent no. 1-Norton D'Souza is the original plaintiff. The petitioner-Selwyn Agnelo Botelho (CRA No. 25/2015) is the original defendant no. 1, while the petitioner-Shirley Botelho (CRA No. 35/2015) is the original defendant no. 2 before the trial Court. Shirley Botelho is the wife of Selwin Botelho. The parties are hereinafter referred to in their original capacity as plaintiff and defendants. 4. The plaintiff filed S...
N.P. Vakil Trust and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-2016
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Since detailed arguments are canvassed based on exhaustive pleadings, we proceed to dispose of this writ petition finally with consent of parties. 2. Rule. Respondents waive service. 3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are seeking a writ of mandamus or any writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, directing the respondents to forthwith withdraw and cancel the notices impugned in the writ petition (Annexures B-1 to B-9) dated 23rd May, 2013 and not to take any steps including holding any inquiry in pursuance thereof. The first petitioner is a private trust governed by the provisions of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882. The indenture of Trust dated 14th January, 1892 duly registered with the Sub-Registrar of Assurances, Bombay is relied upon and the petition is affirmed by the second petitioner, who is one of the trustees of the first petitioner Trust. He has been duly authorised to file this petition. 4. Annexure...
Vinanti Ratnakar Gaonkar Vs. Sahajanand Investments Private Limited an ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-14-2016
1. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the common order dated 07.04.2009, passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Panaji in Execution Application Nos.9/2008 and 12/2008. By the said order, the Execution Application No. 12/2008, filed by the petitioner is rejected, while Execution Application No. 9/2008, filed by respondent no. 1, has been allowed. Consequently, it has been directed that the judgment debtor no. 2 i.e. M/s Landscape Developers shall hand over and transfer the suit flat to Shri Sahajanand Investments Private Limited, after receiving the payment of the amount due, under the award. 2. The brief facts are that the respondent no. 1- Shri Sahajanand Investments Private Limited, has executed an agreement with the petitioner-Vinanti Gaonkar, under which the petitioner had agreed to purchase suit flat no. 523 for a total price of Rs.13,00,000/-. M/s Landscape Developers was a confirming party to the suit flat. As disputes and differences arose between the part...
Kritika Nagpal and Others Vs. Geojit Financial Services Ltd. and Other ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-2016
1. By these five petitions, the petitioners have impugned the five separate arbitral awards rendered by the arbitral tribunal constituted under the provisions of bye-laws, the rules and regulations of National Stock Exchange of India Limited (NSE) thereby allowing the claims made by the respondent and rejecting the counter claims made by the petitioners. In view of the fact that the facts in all the aforesaid matters are identical, learned counsel appearing for the parties have agreed to make submissions in the Arbitration Petition No.47 of 2009 and state that the judgment in the said arbitration petition would conclude the issues raised in the other four petitions. By consent of parties, all the five petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. Since the learned counsel have made submissions in the Arbitration Petition No.47 of 2009, some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding the petitions based on the facts of the said petition setout are as ...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »