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.
Jai Ganesh SRA CHS (Prop.) and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-2016
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are claiming the following declaration:- "(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that: (i) ... (ii) ... (iii) the provisions of the Slum Act will prevail over the provisions of section 36A of the MLR Code insofar as there is any conflict between the provisions; (iv) a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme can be implemented on land declared as a Slum Rehabilitation Area under section 3C of the Slum Act even if such land is owned by a member of a Scheduled Tribe; (v) ... (b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution calling for the records and proceedings relating to the notification dated 7th August, 2012 (at Exhibit B hereto) in so far as it makes redevelopmen...
Sunil Vs. Amravati Zilla Parishad and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-28-2016
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Prayer of 6 petitioners who are employees of Zilla Parishad, Amravati in Writ Petition No.2280/1997, is to quash and set aside their reversion from the post of centre incharge to the post of primary teacher by order dated 10.07.1999 and to continue them on promotional post with all consequential benefits. Petitioner in Writ Petition No.2356/1997 challenges very same order of same Zilla Parishad and a later order dated 22.07.1997. He has prayed for similar reliefs. In Writ Petition No.4035/2010, petitioner - Ramdas is employee of Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur. He seeks setting aside of seniority list prepared by that Zilla Parishad on 26.08.2008 and 24.09.2009, with further direction to said Zilla Parishad to prepare the seniority list as per directions of this Court and to prepare seniority list by accepting date of joining B.Ed. qualification as relevant date. Petitioners in Writ Petition No.2349/2011, are employees of Zilla Parishad, Buldhana and they seek a wr...
M/s. Otoklin Global Business, A Partnership Firm and Others Vs. The St ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-2016
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. 2. By this Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners have sought a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, calling for the records and proceedings of Case No.67/SA/2012 from the file of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay and after examining the legality, validity and correctness of the three orders passed therein dated 6th November 2015, 19th December 2015 and 29th December 2015, the same be quashed and set aside. This relief is sought in the following facts and circumstances. 3. The first Petitioner before us is claiming to be a Partnership Firm, registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. It is engaged in the business of manufacturing various kinds of filters and filtration system used for industrial purposes. It is stated that the Firm operates from the business premises admeasuring 3740 sq.ft., lying and situated a...
Anil Sudam Patil Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Principal S ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-27-2016
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 passed by Respondent No.3/ Education Officer dated 28.12.2015 by which the 5th Respondent has been shown to be senior to the Petitioner and as such, the latter has been placed at Sr.No.2 in the seniority list. 3. I have considered the strenuous submissions of the learned Advocates for the Petitioner and Respondent No.5, as well as the submissions of the learned AGP on behalf of the State Authorities and the Education Department. 4. The undisputed factors are being summarized as under: (a) The 5th Respondent was appointed on 16.07.1985 as an Assistant Teacher by considering his qualification of M.Sc.. (b) In June, 1987, the 5th Respondent acquired the qualification of Diploma in Higher Education (DHE). (c) DHE was given the equivalence of B.Ed. for the period 1983 to 1988 by the State Government. (d) The Petitioner was appointed as an Assis...
Jayashri Nanasahab Rajebhosale @ Bimabai Rauji Rane and Others Vs. Mah ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-27-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule in both the petitions. The learned counsel for the respondents waive service. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. In both these petitions the challenge is to the order dated 4/3/2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Bicholim in Regular Civil Suit No.200/2015. As such, the petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2 a. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the petitions may be stated thus. That on the basis of the complaint lodged by one Bhupendrasinh N. Rajebhonsale, who is the Attorney of the petitioner in W.P. No.431/2016 the Village Panchayat of Maulingem had issued a stop work notice to one Mr. Audumber @ Audhut G. Mandrekar. Subsequently, the Deputy Director of Panchayats, assumed powers under section 66 (5) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (Act for short) and issued a notice of demolition to Audhut Mandrekar on 14/2/2013 in respect of the house standing in survey no.99 of village Maulingem. It appears that the ...
Naresh Gupta Vs. State of Goa, Through Public Prosecutor, Navelkar Arc ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-27-2016
1. Rule. Learned counsel for the respondents waives service. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. The challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C, for short) is to the judgment and order dated 30/10/2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa in Criminal Revision Application no.113/2013. 3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the petition may be stated thus- The petitioner is based at Delhi and is engaged in the import and is a trader of optical lenses and blanks and inter alia amongst other places, has an office at Goa. The respondent no.2, M/s. G.K. Hitec Lenses Pvt. Ltd. is a company registered under the Companies Act. There were business transactions between the petitioner and the second respondent since 1991 in which the petitioner had been supplying optical lenses and blanks to the second respondent. 4. The second respondent has filed a complaint against t...
Maulali Mehboobsab Nadaf and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-2016
Anuja Prabhudessai, J. 1. The appellants in Criminal Appeal No.765 of 2009 were the accused nos.1, 2, 3, whereas the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.753 of 2009 were accused nos.4 to 12 in Sessions Case No.168 of 2009 on the file of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Solapur (hereinafter referred to as accused, as arrayed before the trial court). 2. The accused were tried for the offences under Section 143, 147, 148, 302, 307, 324, 336, 337, 435, 427 r/w. 149 of the I.P.C. and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, and Section 3, 25 of Arms Act and Section 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(iv) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3. By the impugned judgment dated 25.5.2009 the learned Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge acquitted the accused for the offences under Sections 307, 324, r/w. 149 of IPC, 3, 25, 135 of Bombay Police Act and 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(iv) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act) 1989 and held the accused guilty of offence u...
Nilesh Rampher Shahu and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-27-2016
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Deshpande, J.) 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-9, Nagpur, dated 20th of March, 2014, in Session Trial No.41 of 2012, the appellants are before this Court. The appellant no.1 was accused no.1 before the Court below whereas the appellant nos.2 and 3 were accused nos.2 and 3, respectively, during the trial. They will be referred by their original position in the present judgment. By the impugned judgment, the accused no.1 was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. Accused nos.2 and 3 though acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, stood convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 read ...
Maria de Lourdes Filomena Figueiredo de Albuquerque Vs. The Ministry o ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-26-2016
C.V. Bhadang, J. 1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel for the respondent waives service. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The challenge in this petition, is to the communication dated 20/03/2015, whereunder, the respondent has refused to lift the abeyance of the Environmental Clearance (EC) in respect of the Title Concession (TC No.65/51) Pola Dongor Iron and Manganese Ore of the petitioner, on the ground that a part of the mining area, is a forest land. 3. The brief facts, necessary for the disposal of the petition, may be stated thus: That on 18/07/2007, the respondent had granted environmental clearance to the petitioner's Mining Lease (TC No.65/51) under EIA Notification dated 14/09/2006. On 12/07/2010, the Director of Mines and Geology, Government of Goa vide their letter dated 12/07/2010, informed the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests that the State Government has approved the proposal to process the case, for obtaining the clearance under Section 2...
The State of Maharashtra Through The Chief Secretary Government of Mah ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-2016
Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. All the writ petitions are heard by consent as assigned expressly. The issues are common and, therefore, this concluding common decision. Introduction of the controversy 2. The constitutional reservation policy always put the respective State Government in imbroglio. It is going to last long, as no one in the present scenario or otherwise is in frame of mind to compromise. Having once granted the constitutionally recognized reservation in diverse areas including in the state employment, it's total abolition is unwarrantable and without a solution. The legitimate rights once created and settled, since so many years, just cannot be taken away by a stroke of pen. It is not the case of grant of the reservation in service for the first time but question is of its continuance or discontinuance in part or full. Therefore, the crux of the matter is whether existing reservation policy, in the State employment, can be taken away by declaring such Reservation Statute and the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »