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.
Raivathari Madhupati Singhania and Others Vs. Madhupati Vijaypat Singh ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-2016
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Oka, J.) 1. Heard learned senior counsel appearing for the Appellants, the learned senior counsel appearing for the third Respondent and the learned senior counsel appearing for the fourth Respondent. 2. In terms of the order dated 5th February 2016, the Appeal is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. The Appeal is filed by the original Plaintiffs. The original Plaintiffs are aggrieved by the order dated 21st August 2015 passed by the learned Single Judge by which a Notice of Motion taken out by them for various interim reliefs has been dismissed. We have heard the submissions of the learned senior counsel appearing for the Appellants on merits of the Appeal. The learned senior counsel appearing for the third Respondent as well as the fourth Respondent have submitted that the issue of bar of limitation was raised by way of reply to the Notice of Motion and their contention in this Appeal is that as the suit was barred by limitation, the Notice of M...
Ashok Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary of Village D ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-01-2016
Oral Judgment: (S.S. Shinde, J.) 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage. 3. Petitioner is serving as clerk in Village Panchayat, Kurha, Tq. Muktainagar, Dist. Jalgaon since 1987. Respondent no.4/Zilla Parishad prepares seniority list of employees, who are serving in Gram Panchayat every year. Seniority list is prepared with a view to absorb 10% of employees from Village Panchayat in the services of Zilla Parishad on suitable post from Class III and Class IV categories. It is the contention of the petitioner that by-passing his claim in the seniority list, employees juniors to him in the seniority list have been taken in employment in Zilla Parishad. Age limit prescribed for absorbing candidates in Zilla Parishad service is stated to be 45 years. However, it has been pointed out by the petitioner that the employees who have crossed 45 years of age have also been absorbed in Zi...
Prabhakar Vs. The State of Maharashtra through Secretary Agriculture a ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-01-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and heard finally with the consent of the parties. 3. This Petition takes exception to the departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner as per the Memorandum bearing No. Admn/PAD/2013/8709 dated 20.11.2013 issued by respondent no.3 Deputy General Manager (Admn.), and also to the show cause notice dated 05.08.2015 issued by respondent no.3 pursuant to the enquiry report dated 31.12.2014. 4. The facts giving rise to the present Writ Petition as disclosed by the petitioner are as under: It is the case of the petitioner that he has rendered more than 32 years of service with unblemished record. He got promotion in the year 2012 to the post of Incharge Regional Manager for Nanded Region. His performance has been appreciated by respondent nos. 2 and 3. When he was working as Regional Manager at Nanded, he could achieve remarkable sale of Rs.125.00 crores during the year 20-12-2013 and respondent no.2 Managing Directo...
Ravi Anandrao Gurpude Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-01-2016
V.M. Deshpande, J. 1. The appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 3(a) punishable under Section 4 and for the offence under Section 5(j)(ii) and 5(l) punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, by the learned Special Judge, Warora on 21.04.2014 in Special (POCSO) Case No.2/2013 and directed that the appellant shall suffer imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appellant is further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 506 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. The prosecution case as it is unfolded during the course of trial is narrated hereunder: (a) On 09.09.2013, Siddhanand Mandavkar (PW7) was discharging his duties as Police Inspector at Police Station, Bhisi. On the said day at 2.00 p.m. the prosecutrix along with her father Bhagwan Gongal (PW5) came to Police Station. The prosecutrix lo...
Sandoz Private Limited and Another Vs. The Union of India, through the ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-2016
Oral Judgment: (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. These petitions involve common questions of fact and law. They are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Rule in both the petitions. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. Since both sides relied on the pleadings in Writ Petition No.2927 of 2015, we would take the facts and events from that petition. 4. The petitioner in this petition claims to be a 100% Export Oriented Unit ( EOU for short) engaged, inter alia, in the manufacture of goods falling under Chapter 30 of the Schedule to the Central Tariff Act, 1985, and for that purpose they have a factory, inter alia, at the address mentioned in the cause title. They also have another factory in District Raigad, particularly in the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation ( MIDC for short) area at Mahad. Respondent No.1 is the Union of India and respondent Nos.2 to 4 are officers exercising powers under the Foreign Trade (Dev...
Inland Water Transport Employees Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. and Others ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-01-2016
1. In this case, rule was issued on 24/07/2015 and hearing was expedited. Accordingly, this petition is taken up for final hearing at the instance of the petitioners, as the Assistant Registrar was proceeding to hold election of the Board of Directors of the petitioner no.1- society. 2. I have heard Shri Amonkar, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri Faldessai, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents and Shri Mulgaonkar, the learned Counsel for the intervenor. 3. The brief facts are that the petitioner no.1 is a Credit Society registered under the Goa Co-operative Society Act, 2001 (the Act, for short). 4. By the impugned order dated 31/03/2015, the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, in the exercise of powers under Sections 61(a) and 72(2) of the Act (the Act, for short), has declared the Board of Directors of the petitioner society, having incurred disqualification for a period of 5 years from the date of issue of the order. 5. The Assistant ...
M/s. Swift Couriers, Represented by its partner, Tejinder Singh Vs. Th ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-01-2016
1. The challenge in this petition, is to the order dated 12/02/2009 of the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (Appellate Tribunal, for short) by which the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and the order dated 20/05/2004 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Goa (Commissioner) under Section 7A of the Employee's Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, (Act, for short) has been confirmed. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the petition may be stated thus: That the petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of courier services. The Provident Fund Enforcement Officer (Enforcement Officer), had visited the establishment of the petitioner on 25/07/2002 to examine the issue of the coverage of the said establishment, under the Act. He verified certain records, including a petty cash book and found that the strength of the employees in the establishment is twenty, from 1/12/2001 and establishment is cov...
Deorao Vs. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Marketing an ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-01-2016
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 contention of the petitioner that he was initially appointed as a clerk in Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Majalgaon, by an order dated 3rd October, 1981. After completion of five years satisfactory service, he was appointed as Cashier. He was further promoted as Statistician on 1st October, 1994 and worked on the said post satisfactorily. On 12th January, 2005, he was given additional charge of Secretary. Respondent no.4 passed unanimous resolution in its administrative meeting on 24th February, 2005 and decided to appoint him as Secretary. Accordingly, the appointment order was issued on 6th September, 2005. Considering his experience, Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Parli-Vaijanath passed resolution on 13th May, 2015 to appoint him as Additional Secretary for six months. It is the case of the petitioner that under Service...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›