Mumbai Court August 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.
M/s. Armor's Developers Pvt. Ltd., through its Director's and Another ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-11-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. In view of notice for final disposal, the learned Counsel for the parties have been heard at length. 2. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 4-12-2015 passed by the trial Court whereby the respondents herein were permitted to deposit the balance amount of consideration in terms of the decree for specific performance passed in Special Civil Suit No.706/2003 by extending the period of such deposit by one month. 3. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the respondents are the original plaintiffs who had filed suit for specific performance of agreement dated 1-9-1997. The trial Court on 6-1-2012 decreed the suit and granted relief of specific performance. The respondents were directed to deposit the balance consideration of Rs.96,000/- within a period of two months from the said judgment. The petitioners were consequently directed to execute the sale deed of plot no.13 within a period of two months of the said judgment. ...
Bhagwan Vs. The State of Maharashtra School Education Department and O ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-11-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Respondent No.4 school on 15th July, 1983 and promoted to the post of Headmaster on 18th September, 2013. Crime No.3041/2015 came to be registered against him at Police Station, Pathri for the offences under sections 7, 12 r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was arrested on 30th April, 2015 and was released on bail on 2nd May, 2015 by the Competent Court. Respondent No.3 by letter dated 2nd May, 2015 sought permission from Respondent No.2 to place the petitioner under suspension. The said permission was granted on 14th July, 2015 on the condition of conducting departmental enquiry. However, respondent no.3 placed the petitioner under suspension on 15th May, 2015 i.e. two months prior to granting of such permission by Respondent No.2. 3. It is further...
Sanjay Kumar Rai Inspector (Dismissed) Vs. Union of India represented ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-2016
G.S. Kulkarni, J. 1. The petitioner who was in the service of the Central Industrial Security Force has filed the present petition challenging the communication dated 11/10/2012 by which representation made by the petitioner for reinstatement in service, in view of the acquittal in the criminal case, has been rejected by the respondents. 2. Admittedly, the petitioner was dismissed from service after a full fledged departmental enquiry by an order dated 18/2/2005. The dismissal order was challenged by the petitioner in a departmental appeal and then a revision. However, the same was confirmed. Thereafter the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No.297/2005 before this Court which came to be rejected by the Division Bench by an order dated 7/11/2006. Further Review Petition No.25/2007 was also filed seeking review of the orders dismissing the Writ Petition. This Court dismissed the Review Petition by order dated 11/12/2007. The petitioner thereafter had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court...
Rehana Sultana Begum and Another Vs. Hashmi Syed Mujib
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-11-2016
1. Present petition is by wife and daughter seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as their attempt to get maintenance through the proceedings initiated before learned Magistrate has resulted into denial of the same, however, the request for grant of maintenance came to be allowed to the extent of Rs.3000/- per month for petitioner No. 2 daughter Sayeeda. 2. The petitioner-mother and daughter, both preferred a revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir, Camp at Ahmedpur, which came to be dismissed. 3. The facts as are necessary for deciding the present writ petition are as under:- The petitioner No. 1 Rehana got married to respondent Hashmi on 15/05/1996 at Udgir and out of the said wedlock, daughter Sayeeda came to be born. 4. As the respondent-husband doubted the chastity of petitioner No. 1-wife and it is claimed by the petitioner-wife that there was demand of dowry. It is further claimed that as there was threat to kill petitioner...
Sandeep and Others Vs. Sushant and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-11-2016
Common Judgment: (S.S. Shinde, J.) 1. Heard. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, heard finally. 2. The above numbered Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the same judgment dated 28.01.2015 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Aurangabad (in short MAT ) in Original Application No. 383/2013, hence they are being decided by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to by their respective nomenclatures as given in the cause title of Writ Petition No.1494/2015. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that respondent no.1 had no locus standi to challenge the selection of the petitioner before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. He submits that respondent no.1 had secured only 39 marks and minimum benchmark was of 40 marks for being called for interview. Since respondent no.1 did not qualify on the basis of his marks sco...
Datta Shankar Unhale and Others Vs. Gokarnabai
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-11-2016
Oral Judgment 1. The trial Court dismissed Regular Civil Suit No. 327 of 1999 (old Special Civil Suit No. 406 of 1996) on 10.04.2000 for passing a decree for rectification of instrument i.e. gift deed dated 16.06.1967 executed by one Sadashiv in favour of his daughter-in-law and for possession of the suit property alongwith future mesne profit. The lower appellate Court allowed Regular Civil Appeal No. 152 of 2000 by its judgment and order dated 30.07.2003 and the suit has been decreed after setting aside the decision of the trial Court. The lower appellate Court granted a decree for rectification of gift deed dated 16.06.1967 and directed delivery of possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. The enquiry into mesne profit has also been ordered. The original defendants are before this Court in this second appeal. 2. The basic question involved before the Courts below was whether the plaintiff is entitled for rectification of registered gift deed dated 16.06.1967 marked as Exh.47...
Sardarkhan Dilawarkhan Pathan Vs. Divisional Controller, Maharashtra S ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-11-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. The petitioner is before this Court for challenging the denial of back wages by the Labour Court vide its award dated 30/04/1993 in Ref. (IDA) No.16/1983. 2. I have heard Mr.Warad, learned Advocate for the petitioner at length and Mr.Goyanka, learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent/Corporation. 3. The petitioner joined the employment of the Corporation as a Driver in 1978 and within 2 years, caused an accident on 25/08/1980 in broad day light, which resulted in the death of 3 persons, who were riding a motor cycle and injuring 7 persons. 4. Grievance is that the Labour Court, while reinstating the petitioner with continuity of service, did not grant back wages. The thrust of the petitioner's argument is that the respondent/corporation appeared in Criminal Case No.558/1980 as well as in MACP No.15/1981 filed by the legal heirs of the deceased and took a stand that the petitioner was not driving in a rash and negligent manner. The accident occurred because there wa...
The Comedy Store Vs. Horseshoe Entertainment and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-2016
1. By these petitions filed under Sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Arbitration Act ), the petitioner has impugned the orders dated 12th April 2016 and 14th ay 2016 terminating the arbitration proceedings and seeks appointment of a sole arbitrator in substitution of erstwhile arbitral tribunal. 2. There is no dispute that the parties had entered into a Share Subscription and Shareholder's Agreement dated 13th November 2008 and a Trademark License Agreement dated 25th November 2008. The dispute arose between the parties. The petitioner invoked the arbitration agreements recorded in both the aforesaid agreements. On 26th September 2013, the erstwhile tribunal was constituted. The tribunal directed for an advance payment from the parties towards their fees and other administrative charges to the tune of USD 25000 each under both the agreements respectively. 3. On 30th May 2014, the respondent filed an application under Section 38 of the Arbitr...
Shilpi Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-11-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The applicants have basically approached this Court for quashing and setting aside the First Information Report No.3 of 2012 and the consequent charge-sheet in Sessions Case No.150/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 304, 201, 209 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and for the offences punishable under Section 146 read with Section 196, Section 133 read with 187, Section 39(1), Section 61(1) read with Section 192(1) and Section 197 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 3. It appears that one student Virath Jhade who was the student of the Central India Public School, Kapsi (Khurd), Nagpur had died in an accident. As such on 9.1.2012 Crime No.3 of 2012 came to be registered by Hudkeshwar Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304-A of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of the school bus bearing registration N...
Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. THE UNION OF ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-2016
G.S. Patel J. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction........................................................................ 4 II. Constitutional and Legislative Framework........................... 8 III. Facts in the Monsanto Petition ..........................................14 IV. Submissions and Findings in Monsanto............................... 20 V. Facts in the Subway Petition ............................................. 50 VI. Submissions and Findings in SubwaY...................................53 VII. Conclusion.........................................................................65 I. INTRODUCTION 1. These two Writ Petitions came to be tagged together presumably because they both raise issues of whether, in respect of the transactions that arise in each, the Petitioners are liable to a levy of service tax or sales tax. As it turns out, the facts are materially distinct; and as the following judgment shows, the two cases seem to us to be mirror images of each other: if one fa...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »