Mumbai Court August 2016 Judgments
Chordia Food Products Limited Vs. Nitin Prabhakar Gurav
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule in both the above Writ Petitions, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The writ jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the judgments and orders both dated 05/02/2016 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court Pune in Revision (ULP) No.34 of 2014 and Revision (ULP) No.58 of 2014. By the first order the Revision (ULP) No.34 of 2014 filed by the Petitioner herein came to be dismissed and by the second order the Revision (ULP) No.58 of 2014 filed by the Respondent herein came to be allowed, and resultantly the order passed by the Labour Court came to be modified to the extent of setting aside the order granting compensation to the Respondent and substituting the same by the grant of reinstatement and full back wages. 3. It is not necessary to burden this Order with unnecessary details having regard to the final directions that are to be issued. The Respondent herein had filed Complaint (ULP) No.225...
Tag this Judgment!Walmik Devram Patil and Another Vs. Gulab Daga Patil and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-26-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Admit. 3. By consent of both the parties, this appeal is taken up for final hearing and heard finally. 4. The appellants are original claimants in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.456 of 2007, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhule, which came to be dismissed on 3rd November, 2012. 5. Most of the facts are admitted. The appellants' son Vijay died in motor-vehicle accident on 19th December, 2006, at about 06.30 p.m. on a public road. He was riding a motorcycle belonging to respondent no.1 -Gulab Daga Patil. With him, his friend Yogesh was occupying the pillion seat. The accident occurred only due collision of the motorcycle on the road divider. Respondent No.1's motorcycle was insured with package policy, in which extra premium was paid for the covering risk of the owner as well as pillion rider. Respondent No.2 - Insurance Company opposed the claim on the ground that the insurance contract did not contemplate protection to the rider other than owne...
Tag this Judgment!Pramilabai and Others Vs. Shaikh Aslam and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-26-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Admit. 3. By consent of the learned counsel for the Appellants and learned counsel for Respondent No.3, this appeal is taken up for final hearing. Heard finally. 4. This is a Claimants' Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded on account of death of their son in a motor accident. 5. The appellants are challenging the correctness of Judgment and Award in M.A.C.P. No.402 of 2011 dated 18th January, 2014, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aurangabad. 6. The case reflected in the pleadings of the appellants is that their son Manoj died on 23rd February, 2011, in a motor accident, on a public road. He was one of the passengers of a Motor-Car, which suffered collision with a truck resulting into Manoj's death and other casualties. The appellants contended that Manoj was in a private service and was getting salary of Rs.4,000/- per month. In the petition, they did not mention as to with whom Manoj was working. At the time of re...
Tag this Judgment!Shahnawaz Nurul Hassan Khan and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-2016
Prakash D. Naik, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutors waive service in both petitions. 2. The Petitioners in both these petitions have invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and sought to challenge the first information reports (`FIRs') which are subject matter of the respective petitions. The parties in both the petitions have sought quashing of the impugned FIRs on the ground that there has been amicable settlement between them. The parties have lodged cross complaints against each other which are under challenge in the aforesaid petitions and hence the same can be disposed of by a common order. 3. Criminal Writ Petition No.2567 of 2016 assails FIR registered with Kurla Police Station vide CR No.267 of 2016. The FIR was registered on 15 July 2016 at the instance of Respondent no.2 in the said petition for offences under Sections 143, 144, 147, 149, 324, 307 of Indian Penal Code (`IPC'). The Pe...
Tag this Judgment!Vivekant Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-25-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by Government Resolution dt.1.6.2016 to the extent it abolishes the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police on the Vigilance Cell of the Scrutiny Committee established for the purpose of caste verification. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that the said Government Resolution insofar as it deletes the posts of Deputy Superintendent of Police, is in conflict with Rule 12 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 2012"). It is further the contention of the petitioner that the said is also in conflict with the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another vs. Additional ...
Tag this Judgment!Pramod Jamnadas Gokani and Others Vs. Bombay Housing and Area Developm ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Admit. Appeals are heard finally, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties at the stage of admission itself. 2. As all these four Appeals involve common questions of fact and law, they are heard together and are being decided by this common Judgment. 3. These Appeals are preferred by the original plaintiffs against the orders passed by the City Civil Court, Mumbai, thereby rejecting the Notices of Motion preferred by the appellants-plaintiffs vide its orders dated 5th October 2015. The Notices of Motion were preferred seeking the relief of interim injunction restraining the respondents herein from interfering with the suit plot or taking forcible possession thereof or creating third party rights by respondent No.1-MHADA in favour of respondent No.2 or any other third party. Another prayer made in the Notices of Motion was for appointment of Court Commissioner, under Order XXVI Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to visit the suit plots and submit a rep...
Tag this Judgment!Baburao and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-25-2016
1. Criminal Appeal No.482 of 2015 has been filed by the Appellant original accused who has been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli in Special Child Case No.1 of 2013 on 29th April 2015 under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ("the Act" in brief) and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand) and in default of payment of fine to suffer further simple imprisonment for one year. The trial Court directed that if fine is recovered, Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) from the same be paid to the Complainant as compensation. The case of the prosecutrix (without naming, and hereafter referred as "victim") has been referred to the District Victim Compensation Board, Hingoli with recommendation to give adequate compensation to the victim. 2. Criminal Appeal No.181 of 2016 has been filed by the victim seeking enhancement in the compensation to the tune of...
Tag this Judgment!Sussanne Khan Vs. The State of Goa, Through the Public Prosecutor and ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-25-2016
F.M. Reis, J. 1. Heard Shri Nitin Sardessai, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. S. R. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Shirish Gupte, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Respondent no. 3. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, waive service. 3. The above Petition seeks, inter alia, to quash and set aside the FIR bearing no. 119 of 2016 registered with the Panjim Police Station for offences punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Briefly, it is the case of the Petitioner that she is the sole Proprietor of Sussanne Khan House of Design previously known as Sussanne Roshan House of Design, who has been in the business for the last fifteen years and has been engaged in several projects as a Design Company. It is further the contention of the Petitioner that the Respondent no. 3 who is the Complainant, executed a written...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Railway and Others Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-25-2016
V.M. Deshpande, J. 1. The Indian Railways is before this Court in the present writ petition. The challenge in the petition is to the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.1238/1994 dated 16.06.1999. 2. By the impugned judgment, the tribunal had partly allowed the original application filed by the respondent and thereby respondent's dismissal from service was converted into the compulsory retirement with effect from the date of order of dismissal. 3. Such of the facts, which are necessary to address the challenge raised by the petitioner in respect of the judgment impugned borne out from the record are stated hereunder. 4. The respondent herein was working as Travel Ticket Examiner in the South Eastern Railways. On 04.05.1983, a memorandum bearing No.COM/OS/ClIII/TTE/NGP/SR/83/14 was issued to the respondent from the office of Divisional Commercial Superintendent, Nagpur South Eastern Railway. By the said memorandum, it was informed to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Vilas Jijabrao Chavan Vs. Grushneshwar Shikshan Sanstha and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-25-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and the order dated 30/03/2002 delivered by the School Tribunal, Aurangabad by which Appeal No.319/1996, filed by the petitioner, has been dismissed. 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that he was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 08/07/1992. He was granted the charge of Head Master in January 1993. He was granted approval by the Education Officer by letter dated 12/03/1996 w.e.f. 12/08/1994. 3. It is further submitted that in the academic year 1996-1997, the respondent / Educational Institution received 100% grant-in-aid from the State Government and as a consequence of which, the petitioner was terminated orally on 17/09/1996. Subsequently, he was temporarily taken in employment from 05/12/2001 till 06/04/2002. His appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal on 30/03/2002 and immediately the Management terminated the service of the petitioner w.e.f. 06/04/2002. 4. Mr.Deshmukh, learned Advocate for the petitioner/employe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »