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.
Kalpana Vs. The Chief General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited an ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-07-2016
Sangitrao S. Patil, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Solicitor General of India, heard finally. 2. The husband of the petitioner, namely, Vinayak Tryambak Bachhav was working as T.M. with the respondents. He died on 18th January, 2008 in harness leaving behind him the petitioner (the widow) and two daughters. The petitioner being indigent applied for her appointment to some suitable post on compassionate ground. The said application came to be rejected as per the impugned order dated 20th May, 2014 on the ground that the family of the petitioner is not living in penury. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on the guidelines dated 27th June, 2007, issued by the Assistant Director General (Pers.IV) of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited ( BSNL , for short) wherein the assessment criteria for determining indigent condition has been given and further it has been mentioned that the cases with...
A-Wife Vs. B-Husband
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-2016
P.D. Naik, J. 1. Considering the controversy in the Appeal, we have mashed the names of the parties and witnesses. The appellant/wife has challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 12th September, 2007 passed by the Family Court No.2, Mumbai in Petition No.A-1371 of 2002. The said petition was preferred by the respondent - husband seeking decree of divorce under clauses (ia) and (ib) of Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 read with Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Section 7(1) of the Family Court Act, 1984. 2. The aforesaid petition preferred by the respondent -husband was partly allowed. The marriage solemnized on 15th February, 1998 between the appellant (wife) and the respondent (husband) herein was dissolved by a decree of divorce. The Family Court further passed an order rejecting the prayer of the respondent - husband for custody of the child. The Family Court also directed the husband to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.3,000/- per month ...
M/s. Mana Constructions Vs. Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Kat ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-07-2016
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. The same petitioner challenges allotment of works to same Respondent No. 2 in tender floated by Respondent No. 1 Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (A.P.M.C.). 2. In Writ Petition No. 1745 of 2016, Respondent No. 2 has submitted lowest offer while the petitioner is at Sr. No. 4. Rates of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 stand at Sr. Nos. 2 and 3 respectively. The tender has been invited for construction of Grain Auction Hall Nos. 3 and 4, Entrance Gate and Compound Wall in the Principal Market Yard (Orange) of A.P.M.C. 3. In Writ Petition No. 1746 of 2016, Respondent No. 2 has submitted lowest offer while the petitioner is just above it. That tender is for construction of Traders Shop No. 7 + 7A and 8 + 8A in the Principal Market Yard (Orange) of A.P.M.C. 4. In both these matters, this Court has issued notice on 10.03.2016 and though the respondents were allowed to complete other procedural formalities, issuance of work order has been stayed. This interim order c...
Shrikant Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-07-2016
Sangitrao S. Patil, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, heard finally. 2. The disqualification of the petitioner for the post of Technician-3 on the ground that he produced the certificate of passing I.T.I. trade which was issued after the last date for filing online application for the said post, has been challenged in this petition. 3. Relying on the contents of the petition, rejoinder and the documents produced on record, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the advertisement dated 20th August, 2014, respondent No.2 invited online applications on or before 10th September, 2014 from the eligible candidates for the post of Technician-3 through the website of the Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Limited. On that day, the petitioner was not possessing the passing certificate in Electrician trade though he had appeared for the All India Trade Test for Craftsmen Training Scheme held in the ...
Resources International Vs. John Fillipe Costa and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-07-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule, made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 waives service. Service to respondent no.3 (original defendant no.2) is dispensed with. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The first and the second respondents had filed a suit for possession and mesne-profits against the petitioner and the third respondent. The suit was decreed in the year 2007, which is the subject matter of challenge in Regular Civil Appeal No.26/2010 before the learned District Judge at Panaji. It appears that an application for amendment of the Written Statement was filed by the petitioner at the appellate stage, which was rejected on 27/02/2014. However, by an order dated 29/11/2014, the Appellate Court reviewed the order dated 27/02/2014 and permitted the petitioner to amend the written statement. That was unsuccessfully challenged by the respondent nos.1 and 2 before this Court in Appeal from Order No.4/2015, which was dismissed on 20/02/2015. A ...
Alhad R. Vaidya and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-2016
1. The primary challenge in this petition is to the judgment and order dated 28 January 2002 made by the Secretary and Officer on Special Duty (Appeals), Revenue and Forest Department, Government of Maharashtra. 2. The petitioner No.1 alongwith some others, proposed the formation of "Samudra Manthan Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.", in order to apply for and obtain the allotment of a Government plot of land and eventual construction of buildings/apartments thereon. The petitioner No.1 was styled as Chief Promoter of such proposed society. The record does indicate that the petitioner No.1 alongwith others took steps to obtain allotment of plot and thereafter, even submitted a list of the proposed members of the society, who could ultimately be beneficiaries of the apartments and matters connected therewith. Even before, all formalities with regard to allotment could be complete, there arose disputes and differences between the proposed members of the society. The petitioners, led by th...
Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust Operation Department Container Terminal Vs ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-2016
G.S. Kulkarni, J. 1. This appeal by the Appellant (original Respondent before the learned Arbitrator) under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act'), is directed against the judgment and order dated 9th March,2016 whereby the learned Single Judge has rejected the Appellant's Petition filed under Section 34 of the Act, assailing the arbitral Award dated 10th December,2014 of the learned sole Arbitrator. In nutshell the facts are: 2. The Appellant had issued a tender notice inviting bids for hiring services for operation of 58 tractors / trailers for transportation of ISO freight tenderers within the container terminal of the Appellant. The Respondent was a successful bidder and accordingly, a contract was awarded to the Respondent. An agreement dated 6th September,2000 came to be entered between the Appellant and the Respondent. The contract period was for three years i.e. from 1st September,2000 to 31st August,2003. As per the tender conditions a s...
Jayshree Ramakant Khadilkar Pande Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-2016
M.S. Karnik, J. 1. Heard Mr.Mihir Desai, learned Senior Counsel appointed Amicus Curiae, Mr.A.Y.Sakhare, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1, Mr.M.P.Jadhav, learned AGP for respondent no.2, Mr.Shekhar Naphade, learned Senior Counsel for respondent no.3, Mr.Aspi Chinoy, learned Senior Counsel for respondent no.4, Mr.Chirag Dave, learned Counsel for Respondent no.5, Mr.G.W.Mattos, learned Counsel for respondent no.8. Respondents no. 6 and 7 are not represented, in any case, their presence is not necessary for deciding the present controversy. 2. This PIL was first moved on the 27/05/2016 before the Vacation Court. By an interim order dated 27/05/2016, the contracts awarded by respondent no.1 to the respondents no. 3 and 4 are stayed. The said ad-interim order is made operative for a limited period i.e. till the regular Bench hears the matter. 3. Thereafter it was heard for admission on 09/06/2016 when the objection was raised as regards locus of the petitioner. Instead of going in...
Pratibha Devendar Singh Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-05-2016
V.M. Deshpande, J. 1. The appellant has been charged that she has committed homicidal death of one Smt. Jaitula Pralhad Dongre on account of vacating the rented room. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-5, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No.494/2012 found that the charge is established by the prosecution and, therefore, convicted her for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and directed that she should suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Hence this appeal. 2. Such of the facts, which are necessary for the appeal are stated hereunder. Shantaram Jadhav (PW11) was discharging his duties as Police Sub Inspector at Police Station, Jaripatka. On 14.07.2012 at around 11.30 pm. On 15.07.2015, Manoj Dongre (PW1) came to Police Station and lodged a complaint. The said complaint is at Exh.-20. On the basis of the said, Shantaram Jadhav registered accidental death report No.64/2012. As per the complaint Ex...
Fine Platinum (India) Limited and Others Vs. Indusland Bank Limited an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-2016
Naresh H. Patil, J. 1. Rule, Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 3071/2015 and the petitioners in Writ Petition (L) No. 3096/15 have prayed for writ of certiorari or order or direction seeking to set aside the impugned order dated 11th September, 2015 passed by the learned Chairperson of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai in M.A. No. 147/2015 in Appeal No. 82/2015. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3071/2015 - Fine Platinum (India) Limited submits that petitioner no.1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Petitioner no.2 is an Indian Citizen and Director of petitioner no.1 - company. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 are Banks carrying on business of banking. Respondents nos. 3 and 4 are companies under the Companies Act, 1956 and respondent no.5 is an Indian inhabitant. The brief facts as stated by the petitioners are that by a sanction letter dated 3rd February, 2006, respondent no.1 c...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »