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.
Baban Vs. The Estate Manager, Maharashtra State Farming Corporation Lt ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-11-2016
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 of the Appellate Authority dated 21/03/2016 delivered in Appeal (PGA) No.263/2016. 3. Mr.Shelke, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the issues which deserve consideration are as to whether the weekly holidays can be added to the days actually worked while calculating completion of 240 days in a calendar year for payment of gratuity, whether the revision in the pay scale with retrospective effect would entitle the petitioner for additional gratuity and whether interest component needs to be added in this case since the respondent has failed to pay the gratuity. 4. I have heard Mr.Shelke and Mr.Barde, learned Advocates for the petitioner and the respondent at length on 08/08/2016 and again today. 5. There is no dispute that a chart at page No.36 indicates the days actually worked by the petitioner. There is also no dispute th...
Vikrant @ Vikki and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra through Police ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-10-2016
1. The appellant Nos.1 to 6 (original accused Nos.1 to 6, hereinafter referred accordingly) have filed this appeal against their conviction and sentences passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani in Sessions Trial No.74/2012 on 27.10.2015. The appellants have been convicted under Sections 452, 354, 294, 504, 506, 323, 306 and 143, all read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (I.P.C. in brief). Different sentences of different terms of imprisonment have been awarded. 2. The case of prosecution in short may be stated to be as follows: (a) On 18.4.2012, offence came to be registered at Police Station, Purna, District Parbhani vide Crime No.52/2012 on the complaint of Ahemadbee Syed Imam (P.W.1). She reported that, she along with her family was residing at Sidharth Nagar, Purna, District Parbhani. The F.I.R. gives details about family members who were residing with her including Rizwana, her married daughter, but who was staying with her since last 8 years, having three chi...
Mohanchandra Bhairab Joshi Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-2016
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Oka, J.) 1. This Petition on final hearing cause list was called out on 10 June 2016. On that day, none appeared for the second Respondent-First Informant. Therefore, the Application was adjourned till 1 July 2016. On that day, the learned Counsel appearing for the second Respondent stated that the second Respondent has not given her any instructions. On 15 July 2016, the Investigating Officer made a statement through the learned APP that he was unable to trace the second Respondent. Today, the learned Counsel appearing for the second Respondent states that she has not received any instructions. 2. The prayer in this Application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "CrPC") is for quashing the First information Report registered on 9 August 2012 at the instance of the second Respondent-wife with Meghwadi Police station, Mumbai. 3. The offence alleged is under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. We have perused the statement of the...
Fanindrakumar Laxman Baghele Vs. Zilla Parishad, Bhandara, through its ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-10-2016
Oral Judgment:(B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. In this Writ Petition two questions fall for determination. First one is whether the petitioner an employee on contract basis since 2010-2010 can be treated as employee previously in Zilla Parishad service so as to enable him to claim extended age of 45 years while applying for the recruitment. Second question is whether the application submitted for the employment by the petitioner was in accordance with the stipulation in Clause 11 of the recruitment advertisement dated 31-10-2015. 2. The last date for submission of application was 13-11-2015 and the petitioner applied on 06-11-2015. Insofar as the provision for age is concerned, it is contended by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner though belonging to Other Backward Class category has applied in open category and therefore the age of recruitment for the petitioner is 33 years and if he is above 33 years his application cannot be looked into. The learned Advocate for ...
The General Manager (HR and Admn. B.S.N.L.) and Another Vs. M.P. Patan ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-2016
M.S. Sonak, J. 1. The petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 22 February 2012 made by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in Original Application Nos. 823 and 824 of 2010 instituted by the respondents. 2. By the impugned judgment and order, the CAT has directed the following: 22. The Original Applications are therefore, disposed of in the following terms. (a) The Corporate Office of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. shall constitute a Committee of three experts in the subject to consider whether or not the applicants are entitled to get any proportionate marks for the answers given by them to Question No.1 in Paper No.V. (b) The Committee shall also consider whether or not the applicants are entitled to be given any marks either in full or proportionately for Question No.2 since the Question Setter had himself committed the error and issued clarification/fresh key after the examination was over. 23. The Corporate Officer shall constitute the Committee of Experts expeditiously...
Maharashtra Medical Education and Research Centre and Another Vs. Unio ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-2016
Anuja Prabhudessai, J. 1. Rule, With consent of parties matter taken for hearing. 2. The petitioners, being aggrieved by order dated 5.1.2016 issued by the respondent no.4 Maharashtra University of Health Sciences- Nashik, have sought direction to the respondent no.4 to grant affiliation to the two seats of Ilmul Quabalat-Wa-Amraz-E-Niswan, Post Graduate Unani course from the academic year 2015-2016. 3. The petitioner no.1 is a public trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The petitioner no.2 is a private partly aided Unani Medical College run by the petitioner no.1 trust since the year 1984-85. The petitioner no.2 was desirous of starting a post graduate Unani course in the subject of Ilmul Qabalat-Wa-Amraz-E-Niswan, (hereinafter referred to as Post Graduate course ). The petitioner submitted the application to the respondent no.2 Central Council seeking permission to start the said post graduate course for the academic year 2015-16. On the basis of the recommendati...
Vidyasagar Educational and Cultural Society Chunchale Vs. The Union of ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-10-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. This Petition is filed challenging the impugned communication dated 27th June, 2014 issued by Respondent No.4 rejecting the proposal sent by the petitioner seeking permission to start Electro-Homeopathy diploma course. The direction is also sought to the Respondents to allow the petitioner to conduct the course of Electropathy Electro-homeopathy. The petitioner is also seeking directions to Respondent no.1 to introduce the draft legislation titled as The Recognition of New System of Medical Bill in the ensuing session of the Parliament. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since several foreign systems of medicines, such as allopathy, homeopathy, acupuncture are recognized, it is necessary to recognize Electropathy and Electro-homeopathy, as alternative systems of medicines, which are otherwise prevalent in India. The p...
Ramchandra Gangaram Sangole, deceased through his heirs: and Others Vs ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-10-2016
1. The appeal is filed against judgment and decree of Regular Civil Appeal No. 233/1983, which was pending in the Court of 2nd Additional District Judge, Jalgaon. The appeal of original plaintiffs against judgment and decree of Regular Civil Suit No. 89/1975 is allowed by the First Appellate Court and decree of possession is given by the District Court in favour of original plaintiffs. Both the sides are heard. 2. In short, the facts leading to the institution of the appeal can be stated as follows:- The suit was filed in respect of agricultural land bearing Survey No. 32 (Gat No. 107) admeasuring 3 H. 45 R. situated at village Khirwad, Tahsil Raver, District Jalgaon. It is the case of plaintiffs that the suit property was ancestral property of their father Eknath. Eknath was husband of plaintiff No. 2. It is contended that Eknath was addicted to bad habits like consuming liquor and gaming Satta. 3. It is the case of plaintiffs that defendant No. 1 is shrewd and cunning businessman, bu...
Yeshwant Raia Lad Vs. M/s U.K. Printers and Stationers and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-10-2016
1. The challenge in this petition is to the judgment and order dated 26/11/2010 passed by the Administrative Tribunal in Eviction Appeal No.30/2009, by which the Administrative Tribunal has set aside the order of eviction, passed by the learned Rent Controller and has remanded the matter, for deciding it afresh. 2. The brief facts, necessary for the disposal of the petition, may be stated thus : That Shop No.13 in a building 'Birzamola Bebquegal' situated at Curchorem is the subject matter of dispute. The petitioner is the owner/ landlord of the suit shop, which was let out to the respondent no.2 Shamsundar Kakodkar (since deleted) on a monthly rent of Rs.60/- for a period of five years from the date of the commencement of the agreement dated 05/03/1963. According to the petitioner, by mutual understanding, the rent was increased to Rs.90/- per month. 3. The petitioner filed an application under Section 22(2)(b) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease Rent and Eviction) Control Act,...
Sham Pundlalik Dhumatkar and Another Vs. Pushpa Mohanlal Talreja and O ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Admit. Having regard to the challenge involved heard forthwith. 2. The above First Appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 06.05.2014 passed by the Learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai, by which order, the suit in question being SC Suit No.7748 of 1998 (High Court Suit No.940 of 1998) came to be decreed. Consequently, the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are directed to specifically perform the Agreement i.e. the Memorandum of Understanding dated 18.09.1997 within two months subject to the Plaintiffs depositing the balance consideration of Rs.1,50,000/- within a period of four weeks from the date of the judgment with the Court Receiver. It is further provided that if the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 failed to carry out the directions as contained in clause (1) then the Court Receiver shall execute the sale deed in favour of the Plaintiffs and hand over possession of the suit premises to the Plaintiff and do such acts as may be necessary. 3. The Appellant...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »