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.
Government of Goa, through its Chief Secretary and Others Vs. National ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-02-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Ms. Linhares, learned Additional Government Advocate for the petitioners. None appears for the respondent. 2. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 10.01.2007 passed by the Executing Court in Execution Application No. 4/2006, by which the claim of the petitioners for adjustment has been rejected and the execution is directed to proceed. 3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the petition may be stated thus: That, under an agreement, between the parties, the respondent/decree-holder, had under taken execution of construction work for the petitioners/judgment-debtors. As disputes and differences arose between the parties, the matter was referred to the sole Arbitrator, who passed an award on 31.03.1992, holding that the respondent was entitled to recover Rs.55,75,268, while the petitioners, who had raised a counter claim were entitled to Rs.21,89,937/-. It was thus, found that the net amount payable to the respondent was Rs.33,85,331/- alo...
Mahadev Vs. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Depart ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-02-2016
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 the petitioner's father was working in the Government service and expired in the year 1994, when the petitioner was of 17 years old. The application was made by the mother of the petitioner to appoint the petitioner in Government service on compassionate ground. The said application was considered and the Commandant, State Reserved Police Force (SRPF) replied on 2nd December, 1994, stating that there is no mention of exact post on which appointment is sought. Further it is stated that the person, who is seeking compassionate appointment in government service, should have completed 18 years of age and follow-up should be done regarding this matter, after the petitioner attains the age of 18 years. When the petitioner attained age of 18 years, the petitioner had even applied for a certificate in respect of non a...
Ramdas and Another Vs. SMS Infrastructure Limited and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-02-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Smt. M.P. Munshi, Advocate for the petitioner-original plaintiffs, Shri A.V. Bhide, Advocate for the respondent No.1-original defendant No.1 and Shri H.R. Dhumale, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.2 and 3-original defendant Nos.2 and 3. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. The plaintiffs have assailed the order passed by the trial Court rejecting the application (Exhibit No.55) filed by the plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission to amend the plaint. 4. The application is rejected by the learned trial Judge on the ground that the trial has commenced and the plaintiffs have not been able to show that inspite of due diligence they could not bring on record the pleadings sought to be brought on record by the proposed amendment. The issues are framed, however, recording of evidence has not yet started. The learned trial Judge has committed an error in relying on the proviso below Rule 17 of Order ...
The Chief Executive Officer, The Ahmednagar District Central Co-operat ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-02-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. The respondent / employee has filed Civil Application No.10732 of 2016 for seeking leave to withdraw the entire amount of Rs. 7,88,569/-, which has been deposited by the petitioner / management in this Court. 2. Considering the conspectus of the matter, I called upon the learned Advocates to address the Court on the petition itself. I have thus heard the learned Advocates on 29.7.2016 and again today. 3. The petitioner / management is aggrieved by the judgment of the Industrial Court, dated 23.8.2012, by which, Revision (ULP) No.90 of 2012 filed by the respondent was allowed and, by setting aside the judgment of the Labour Court dated 7.9.2011, the Industrial Court awarded 75% backwages from the date of termination till the date of superannuation of the respondent on 30.4.2011. 4. The respondent herein was an employee of the petitioner, having joined services on 27.2.1982 as a Bank Clerk. He was served with a charge sheet dated 22.3.2005 listing out ten misconducts ag...
Vasant Maluji Chichghare Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-02-2016
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 petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for grant of furlough. 3. The application is rejected only on the ground that the petitioner did not surrender on the due date but was required to be arrested and was brought back to the prison after a period of 54 days. 4. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sitaram Rajaram Deokar Vs. Deputy Inspector General of Prison, East Nagpur and another reported in 2014 ALL MR (Cri) 1309 has held that an arrest of the prisoner does not operate as an absolute bar for his being entitled to be considered for release on furlough in future. It has been held that the case has to be decided on the facts and circumstances of each case. 5. We find that that in several cases even if the prisoner could not report back for 100 days, 200 days or 300 days, they...
Akashaditya Harishchandra Lama Vs. Ashutosh Gowarikar and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. There is an unfortunate trend in this Court, increasingly frequent. At the eleventh hour, a few days or, at most, a few weeks before a major film s scheduled theatrical release, some party rushes to this Court with a claim that his or her creative work has been plagiarized by the film s director and producers. The present case is but the latest example. 2. What perhaps sets this one apart from others that went before is that this is quite possibly the most egregiously ill-conceived claim that I have yet encountered. As the following narrative will show, it is impossible to discern from the plaint or any of the Affidavits that have been filed by the Plaintiff, what it is that he claims has been infringed. His is an ever shifting stand. He is constant only in his inconstancy, and while I agree that a foolish consistency is often the hobgoblin of little minds, the very least an application for an urgent interim injunction demands is certainty in the claim made. 3. No pla...
Ramrao Mahadeorao Dahapute Vs. Ramkrishna Shivramji Ghoyar and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-02-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. The trial Court passed a decree in Regular Civil Suit No.850 of 1989 on 31.01.1996, restraining the defendants permanently from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit field. Both the defendants preferred separate appeals, being Regular Civil Appeal No.70 of 1996 and Regular Civil Appeal No.71 of 1996 and the lower appellate Court dismissed both the appeals on 19.06.2002. Hence, the defendants are before this Court in these second appeals. 2. The matter was admitted on the following substantial question of law on 15.09.2005. Whether a decree of declaration and permanent injunction concerning of possession can be passed in favour of one of the co-owners and against the other co-owner of the suit property? 3. Undisputedly, the plaintiff along with Smt. Kausalyabai and Smt. Reotabai were having undivided share and interest to the extent of 1/3rd each in Survey No.504, admeasuring 3 acres of land. By registered sale deed dated 15.12.1986, Smt.Kausal...
Trimbak Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Department of ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-02-2016
Sangitrao S. Patil, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is heard finally. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking directions against respondent nos. 2 to 4 to release his pensionery benefits with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of his retirement i.e. 31st July, 2008 till the actual payment thereof. 3. The petitioner was appointed as a Professor in the subject of Electronics with Shri Guru Gobindsinghji College of Engineering and Technology at Nanded in the year 1984. The approval to his appointment was granted by the then Marathwada University vide order dated 30th September, 1984. The said college became an Autonomous Institute in the year 2005. Accordingly, its name came to be changed as Shri Guru Gobindsinghji Institute of Engineering and Technology . The petitioner came to be designated as the Director of the said college. The...
SBI Global Factors Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-2016
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Oka, J.) 1. As the regular Bench presided over by the Hon'ble Justice Shri N.H. Patil has declined to take up this Petition, as per the general standing order of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, the present Petition has been placed before this Bench. 2. Rule. Advocate on record for the second Respondent waives service for the second Respondent. Learned APP waives service for the first Respondent. By consent, forthwith taken up for final disposal. 3. The second Respondent filed a complaint in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 4th Court at Girgaon, Mumbai seeking an action under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C."). It is not in dispute that the verification of the second Respondent on the said complaint was recorded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 2 March 2011 and on the very date, an order was made directing investigation in terms of Section 202 of Cr.P.C.. By order dated 16 March 2012...
Milind Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-01-2016
1. The appellant - original accused (hereafter referred to as "accused") has been convicted in Sessions Case No.17/2003 on 1/10/2003 by IV Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Beed. He has been convicted under Sections 363, 366-A, 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (I.P.C. in brief) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for terms as mentioned in the judgment, along with fine. 2. The case of prosecution in short is as under: The accused was known to the family of complainant (P.W.1), who resides at Khilad, Taluka Ashti, District Beed. [I will not name the complainant, the father of prosecutrix as well as his wife (P.W.2) and the prosecutrix (P.W.3). I will refer to P.W.2 as the mother of victim and P.W.3 the prosecutrix as victim to conceal their identity.] The facts in nutshell are that, the accused being known to the family of victim, used to visit them. On 14.9.2002, the mother of victim was not well when the accused went to their house in the afternoon. He proposed to ta...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »