Mumbai Court August 2016 Judgments
Sambhaji Shivaji Mali Vs. The Honourable Vice Chancellor Shivaji Unive ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
1. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the order and judgment dated 19th April 1999 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Pune Shivaji University and College Tribunal in Appeal No.38 of 1996 thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner and seeks writ of mandamus for quashing and setting aside the order dated 27th October 1995 passed by the Tehsildar, Miraj and for other reliefs. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this writ petition are as under:- 2. The petitioner belongs to Lingayat Community. The petitioner is M.A.(English) and LL.B.(Special). On 23rd June 1968, the petitioner was appointed as a lecturer in the college run by the respondent no.1 as an open category candidate and was posted at Sangli College, Sangli. On 23rd July 1971, the petitioner was confirmed in the post of lecturer w.e.f. 23rd July 1971. On 30th June 1989, ...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Akram Ali Vs. Rubinabegum
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned respective Counsel. 2. Present revision is questioning the judgment and order delivered by the learned Family court, Aurangabad, in Petition No.E-98 of 2008 preferred by the respondent-wife claiming maintenance. Learned Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad, awarded maintenance of Rs.1,200/- p.m. to the respondent-wife w.e.f. 26th March, 2008 i.e. from the date of application. 3. The facts as are necessary for deciding the present revision application are as under : 4. The applicant claimed to have married with respondent on 6th May, 2007, which fact is not in dispute. It is then claimed that the petition No.E-98 of 2008 came to be moved by respondent-wife and Petition No.A-3-10 of 2009 filed by respondent-wife for dissolution of marriage under Section 2(2) of Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, 1939. 5. It is the case of applicant that on 26th May, 2008, a compromise was entered into between the parties vide compromise pursis dated 26th May, 2008. It is alleg...
Tag this Judgment!CIPLA Limited Vs. Krishna Dushyant Rana
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
P.C.:- 1. This is one of those matters where the court is anguished with the conduct of the defendant who despite being given repeated opportunity has repeatedly abused the liberty granted by the court. It is rather unfortunate that the defendant, who is probably in his 30's at least from the appearance, if let off to continue with his behaviour, it will erode the faith that the public have on judiciary. The rule of law is premised upon the faith reposed by the people in the justice delivery system. To prevent erosion of that faith contemptuous behaviour in the face of the court needs a strict treatment. 2. The plaintiffs, who are the applicants, filed a summary suit against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,25,25,687/- together with interest @ 18% p.a. on the principal sum of Rs.2,84,04,480/-. The plaintiffs also took out a summons for judgment. 3. The defendant Krishna Dushyant Rana is the sole proprietor of a concern to whom the plaintiffs sold, supplied and delivered ...
Tag this Judgment!Dashrath Ramlal Garandwal and Others Vs. M/s. Ahmednagar Forgings Ltd. ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. In the first petition, the Petitioners are the Workers, who are aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the Industrial Court dated 31.03.2016 by which Complaint (ULP) No.35/2014 has been dismissed and their transfer orders dated 08.02.2014 are sustained. 3. In the second petition, the Petitioner is the Employer who has prayed for refund of the money which has been paid to the Workers by way of an interim arrangement by the order passed by this Court on 27.08.2015 in Writ Petition No.8728/2014 in between these parties. The said amount was paid to the Workers with the direction that the issue of payment of salary from the date of transfer till the decision in the complaint would be subject to the pleadings of the parties and the decision of the Industrial Court. It is, therefore, prayed by the Employer that the amount deposited and/or paid to the Workers, should be refunded to the Employer. 4. For t...
Tag this Judgment!The Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. and Another Vs. Entertainment ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
1. By these two petitions filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the said Act ), both the petitioners have impugned part of the arbitral award dated 6th December 2011. By consent of the parties, both the arbitration petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding these arbitration petitions are under:- 2. The petitioner in Arbitration Petition No.341 of 2012 was the original respondent in the arbitral proceedings whereas the petitioner in Arbitration Petition No.1017 of 2012 was the original claimant. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the aforesaid proceedings are described as they were described in the arbitral proceedings in the later part of this judgment as the claimant or the original respondent as the case may be. 3. The claimant is engaged in the business inter alia of operating private FM Radio Stations in various cities in pursuance of the lic...
Tag this Judgment!Salim Gulab Mulla Vs. The State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
1. Rule. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent waives service. By consent of parties, the petition is heard finally. 2. By this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has impugned the order passed by the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Satara holding that the respondent no.4 is senior in service to the petitioner in the cadre of Assistant Teacher in the secondary school run by the respondent no.3 Society and directing the respondent no.3 to submit proposal of the respondent no.4 as Head Master to the Education Officer. The impugned order has been passed by the Education Officer in exercise of power under Rule 12 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (for short the said MEPS Rules ). Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:- 3. The petitioner was born on 14th September 1960 and has passed M.A. B.Ed. and is duly qualified to be appoi...
Tag this Judgment!Vithalrao Sharanappa Jalde Vs. Shankarrao Manikrao Deshmukh
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Even though, this Court has marked the absence of the counsel for the applicant on 24.8.2016 and adjourned the case for today as last chance, counsel for the applicant is not present even today. Learned counsel for respondent is also absent. 2. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and order dated 28.2.2005 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nilanga, District Latur in Criminal Revision Application No.47/2003, the original accused has filed present Criminal Application. 3. Brief facts, giving rise to the present criminal application are as follows :- The respondent-original complainant had filed a criminal case bearing STCC No.814/1998 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nilanga against the petitioner for having committed an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nilanga on 27.10.1998 took cognizance of the complaint and issued process against the petitioner-accused. The l...
Tag this Judgment!Prajwala Bhatu Khalane and Others Vs. Mahatma Phule Vidya Prasarak San ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
1. Heard. 2. Rule. 3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 4. In the first petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 31.12.2014, delivered by the School Tribunal, by which, her Appeal No.77 of 2012 has been dismissed. 5. In the second petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 31.12.2014, by which his Appeal No.79 of 2012 has been dismissed by the School Tribunal. 6. In the third petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 31.12.2014, by which her Appeal No.78 of 2012 has been dismissed by the School Tribunal. 7. In all these Appeals, the petitioners were working as 'Shikshan Sevaks' and on the stroke of the completion of their probation period, all of them have been terminated. 8. The respondent / management is the same educational institution and the same college. Hence, by the consent of the parties, all these matters have been heard together. 9. For the sake of brevity, all t...
Tag this Judgment!Sambhaji Babaji Sakure Vs. The Collector Ahmednagar and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
1. Both the petitions are filed to challenge the motion of no confidence passed against the petitioners and also the order of dismissal of the appeals filed by the two petitioners to challenge the motion of no confidence. The petitioner from Writ Petition No.7896 was the village Sarpanch and the petitioner from other proceeding was the Upa-Sarpanch of the village. 2. The village Panchayat consists of 9 members and they got elected in the general election of 2015. The petitioner-Sarpanch belongs to Other Backward Class but she was elected to the post of the Sarpanch when the post of the Sarpanch was for open category. The first requisition was given by six members out of 9 members on 30-3-2016 but the Tahsildar did not call the meeting and so one more requisition was given on 11-4-2016. The Tahsildar called the meeting on the basis of the requisition dated 30-3-2016 and in that meeting no confidence motion was passed against both the Sarpanch and the Upa-Sarpanch. This decision was chal...
Tag this Judgment!Ambadas Vs. Kintetic Engineering Ltd., Through it's Chairman
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-31-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment dated 16.03.2013 delivered by the Labour Court by which his Complaint (ULP) No.37/2010 was dismissed. The Labour Court concluded that the punishment of dismissal from service for a proved misconduct of sleeping on duty was not shockingly disproportionate. 3. The Petitioner is also aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.02.2016 delivered by the Industrial Court by which Revision (ULP) No.1/2014 filed by the Petitioner has been dismissed. 4. The Petitioner has strenuously criticized the impugned judgments. It is not in dispute that the part-1 judgment dated 21.04.2012 delivered by the Labour Court by which the enquiry was held to be fair and proper and the findings of the Enquiry Officer were sustained, was not challenged by the Petitioner/ workman before the Industrial Court as well as before this Court. 5. The submissions of the Petitioner c...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »