Mumbai Court August 2016 Judgments
Aman Abdul Gani Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-2016
P.C. 1. Heard. This is an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The applicant herein is arrested on 4.7.2015 in Crime No.246 of 2015 registered at Singhad Road Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 436, 452, 447 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 28.6.2015, at about 3 a.m. to 4.30 a.m., some two-wheelers and four-wheeler vehicles, including bicycles parked in the parking area of Surya Nagari Building, Swami Narayan Apartment, Akshay Glory Apartment, Avdhut Arcade and Ram Heights were set on fire. The complainant had informed the police station about the said incident and on the basis of his report, offence was registered against unknown persons. In the course of investigation, the police had taken the images from the CCTV footage of the said premises. The accused was arrested on suspicion since he had been prosecuted for similar offences in the past. In the course of investigation, the I.O. had also filed a...
Tag this Judgment!Zuari Industries Limited and Another Vs. Union of India through the Ge ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-29-2016
1. The challenge in this petition is to the judgment and order dated 14/06/2005 passed by the Railway Rates Tribunal of India at Chennai (Tribunal, for short) by which the complaint filed by the petitioners has been dismissed. 2. On hearing the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, it appears that the controversy has narrowed down to a great extent and it would not be necessary to set out the facts in detail. Suffice it to mention that the complainant Zuari Industries Ltd. is manufacturers of fertilizers having their factory situated near Sankval Railway station on the Castle Rock - Vasco section of Hubli Division of the South Western Railway. The bulk of their manufactured fertilizers are transported through railways in rake loads. The factory was set up in the year 1972 and the railway siding was provided at the Sankval railway station for transportation of fertilizers from the factory. The said siding was originally on a Met...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Kewalramji Randive Vs. The Chairman and Competent Authority Vidh ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-29-2016
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 charge-sheet dated 21.04.2016 thereby informing the petitioner about the charges levelled against him. 3. The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner was in employment of the respondents. The petitioner was issued with a show cause notice on 8.3.2016. The petitioner replied to the same on 22.3.2016. However, a communication was addressed to the petitioner on 31.03.2016 informing him that since he would stand retired on 31.03.2016, the provisions of sub-clauses (3) and (4) of Clause 45 of Vidarbha Konkan Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Regulations") are invoked against him. Subsequently a charge-sheet came to be issued to the petitioner on 21.04.2016. It could thus be clearly seen that though the show cause wa...
Tag this Judgment!Chief Executive Officer and Others Vs. Prashant Raghunath Kulkarni and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule in all the above four Petitions, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked against the judgments and orders dated 04/07/2016 passed by the learned I/c. Member of the Industrial Court Pune by which orders, the Revision Application (ULP) No.42 of 2016 and Revision Application (ULP) No.41 of 2016 came to be partly allowed thereby the Petitioners in Writ Petition No.9120 of 2016 and 9121 of 2016 were directed to pay to the Applicants i.e. the Respondents in the said Petitions 25% of the back wages from the date of their dismissal. The order of the Labour Court directing reinstatement of the Respondents in the said Writ Petitions was not interfered with. 3. The Petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.1920 of 2016 and 1921 of 2016 i.e. the Maharashtra State Khadi and Village Industries Board would be referred to as the St...
Tag this Judgment!Rakmabai Pandurang Sonavane Vs. Pandurang Ramkrishna Sonavane and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-2016
1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges judgment and order dated 10 November 2002 made by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik, in criminal revision application no. 451 of 2001. 2. By the aforesaid impugned judgment and order, dated 11 October 2002, the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) has set aside the judgment and order dated 19 July 2001 made by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sinnar (JMFC) in criminal miscellaneous application no. 268 of 1999 awarding maintenance of Rs.500/- per month to the petitioner from the date of institution of the application under section 125 of Cr.P.C. along with costs of Rs.300/-. This judgment and order dated 19 July 2001 made by the JMFC came to be set aside by the impugned judgment and order dated 10 November 2002 by the ASJ solely on the ground that the respondent husband was already married and his first wife was living on the date of solemnization of marriage between the r...
Tag this Judgment!Nuzhatunssae Begum Vs. The State of Maharashtra Through its Police Sta ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-26-2016
Oral Judgment:- 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally at admission stage. 2. By way of this criminal writ petition, the petitioner/original complainant is challenging the order dated 22.7.2015 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Parbhani, below Exh.1 in R.C.C. No. 142 of 2007. 3. Brief facts, giving rise to the present writ petition, are as follows:- a) The petitioner had filed the complaint on 28.7.2005 in Nanalpeth police station, Parbhani against respondent Nos. 2 to 5 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 464, 465, 466, 467, 471 r.w.34 of I.P.C. Since the police authorities had not taken any cognizance, the petitioner was constrained to file an application before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for issuing directions to the police to investigate into the matter. The petitioner had also submitted documents in support of her allegations made in the complaint. Thus crime No. 1/2005 came...
Tag this Judgment!Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Bhaskar Duklya Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. The Writ Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order dated 21-8-2004 passed by the Learned Member of the Industrial Court, Thane by which order the Revision Application filed by the Petitioner came to be dismissed and resultantly the order dated 9-2-2001 passed by the Learned Judge of the 4th Labour Court, Thane, allowing the Complaint ULP No.69 of 1995, came to be confirmed. 2. The facts giving rise to the above Petition can in brief be stated thus: The Petitioner herein is a Road Transport Corporation established under the Road Transport Corporation Act. The Petitioner plies its buses on various routes in the State of Maharashtra. The Respondent herein was working as a conductor. On 21-11-1991 the bus wherein the Respondent was the conductor, was checked at Jambhul Pada and it was found that there was a discrepancy in respect of the payment of fare in respect of 7-1/2 passengers. The Respondent was therefore issued a charge sheet under clause 7a, 7c, 7d,...
Tag this Judgment!Offshore Infrastructures Ltd. Vs. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. and An ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-26-2016
1. Heard Shri Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Bhutada, learned counsel for the non-applicants. 2. The applicant is before this Court seeking modification of the order dated 9-12-2015 passed by this Court in Misc. Civil Application No. 787/2014 and substituting the name of either of three persons who are proposed as arbitrator in the application in place of Shri Lalit Mohan who was initially appointed as an Arbitrator by this Court. This application raises an interesting issue before this Court. The parties were before this Court in Misc. Civil Application No. 787/2014 filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1996') praying for appointment of arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties. Shri Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the applicant referred to agreement between the parties and more particularly, clause 2.21 which provided that the dispute shall be referred to the arbitrator fo...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Noorjehan Safia Niaz and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra Through ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-2016
Revati Mohite Dere, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Learned Counsel waive notice for the respective respondents. 3. Petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent. 4. By this PIL, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, who are social activists, have alleged gender discrimination and arbitrary denial of access to women in the sanctum sanctorum at the Haji Ali Dargah. 5. The petitioners state that they are the office bearers of `Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan' a national secular autonomous mass movement of Muslim Women with over 50,000 members in 15 States. According to the petitioners, since their childhood, they were visiting the Haji Ali Dargah, the Dargah of Pir Haji Ali Shah Bukhari (R.A.), the patron saint and during their visits, were permitted to enter the sanctum sanctorum where the saint lied buried, through a separate entry earmarked only for women to enable them t...
Tag this Judgment!XXX vs. Yyy
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-2016
Oral Judgment: (A.S.Oka, J.) 1. Considering the nature of controversy, the Appeal was heard in camera. We are directing that the names of the parties shall be masked in the title of this judgment. 2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant (wife) and the Respondent (husband) appearing in person. By the impugned decree passed by the learned Judge of the 4th Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai, the Petition filed by the Appellant for a decree of divorce and possession has been dismissed. 3. In the Petition filed by the Appellant, the first prayer was for passing a decree of dissolution of marriage solemnized on 19 May 1991 between the Appellant and the Respondent on the grounds incorporated under clauses i(a) and i(b) of sub-section (1) of section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short "the said Act"). Thus, the decree was sought on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The second prayer in the Petition was for directing the Respondent to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »