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.
ATMA Employee's Welfare Association (Maharashtra State) Vs. The Union ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-24-2016
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 is an association of the Employees of Agricultural Technology Management Agency popularly known as ATMA and hereinafter referred to as ATMA only. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the contents of the petition as well as rejoinders dated 30th January, 2016 and 15th April, 2016 submits that respondent no.1 Union of India sponsored a scheme called ATMA to support the State Extension Agricultural Programmes in the year 2010. The said programmes were to operate at District and Block Levels for implementation of the said scheme. Various posts were created such as Block Technology Manager (for short, BTM ), Subject Matter Specialist (for short, SMS ) which subsequently renamed as Assistant Technology Manager (for short, ATM ) and Computer Programmer (for short, CP ). The Apex Body namely ATMA Governing Board w...
Shubham Dattatray Netake Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-2016
P.C. 1. Heard. This is an application under section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Applicant herein is apprehending his arrest in crime No.106 of 2015 registered at Khed Police Station for offence punishable under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 8, 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 2. On August 19, 2016, when the matter had come up for hearing, the learned counsel for the Applicant had made a statement that the parties are in the process of exploring the possibility of amicable settlement and that the complainant desires to file an affidavit to that effect. Taking into consideration the said submission, the matter was adjourned. The Applicant has arraigned original Respondent No.2. Today, the father of Respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit. Affidavit is taken on record and marked as article 'X' for the purpose of identification. The father of the Respondent No.2 is present before the Court. It is contended in the affidavit as ...
M/s. Punjab Chemicals and Crop Protection Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Antibioti ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-2016
P.C. 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails the judgment and order dated 1st November 2011 passed by the learned District Judge, Pune, whereby the appeal of the petitioner under section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short the Public Premises Act) has been rejected, confirming an eviction order. 2. The petitioner claims to be the successor of one M/s.Excel Phospho Chemicals (Excel for short), which according to the petitioner came to be amalgamated in proceedings in Company Petition No.533 of 2005 under an order dated 28th October, 2008 between one STS Chemicals and the Petitioner herein. The order passed by the High Court and the amalgamation scheme is placed on record in the paper book of this petition. 3. The respondent No.1 Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd., (for short Respondent) is a Government Company. There is no dispute that the premises in question belonging to the respondent are public premises within t...
The Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. M/s. Bajaj Tempo Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-2016
B.P. Colabawalla J. 1. By this Reference, the First Bench of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal at Mumbai (for short, the MSTT ) has referred the following questions of law for a decision of this Court under section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (for short, the BST Act ):- (I) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a true and correct interpretation of the definition of the word 'Purchase Price' in section 2(22) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 read with Explanation-I added to the said definition, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the word 'Purchase Price' referred to in sub-rule 3(a) of rule 41D will not include the amount of Customs Duty paid or payable under the Customs Act, 1962 by the Respondent? (II) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a true and correct interpretation of Explanation-I to section 2(22) added with effect from 1/9/1990 when the sub-clause 2 of sub-rule 3 of Rule 41D specifically provide...
Vishnu Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-23-2016
A.V. Nirgude, J. 1. The delay caused in filing Criminal Revision Application is condoned for the reasons stated in the Criminal Application. Criminal Application No.6431 of 2014 for condonation of delay is allowed. 2. Both the Criminal Appeal and the Criminal Revision Application can be disposed of by this common judgment, as they arise from judgment dated 10.07.2014 delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, in Sessions Case No.184 of 2013 convicting accused -Vishnu for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- with a default clause. Accused - Vishnu was further convicted for offence punishable under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- with a default clause. The Criminal Appeal is filed by the accused for seeking his acquittal; whereas the original complainant has filed Cri...
Amee Sharan Desai Vs. Sharan Sanjeev Desai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. This writ petition arises from an interim maintenance proceedings under section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. By the application at Exhibit-17 filed in MJ Petition No.C-4 of 2013, the Petitioner-wife claimed interim maintenance @ Rs.2,50,000/- per month for herself and @ Rs.1,50,000/- per month for the minor daughter of the couple. By the order impugned in the petition, the Family Court, Mumbai at Bandra has refused to grant any interim maintenance to the Petitioner-wife, however, daughter of the couple is granted interim maintenance @Rs.15,000/- per month. 2. Briefly, the facts are that the Petitioner and the Respondent got married on 25th November 2005. During the wedlock, on 31st December 2008 daughter Samara was born to Petitioner and Respondent. It is the case of the Petitioner that on 15th November 2012 she was constrained to leave her matrimonial home and come to reside at Mumbai with her mother. The Petitioner thereafter on 30th November...
Datta Education Society, Talne Vs. The State of Maharashtra Through it ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-23-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. This Petition takes exception to the impugned order dated 11.09.2014 passed by respondent no.3 Deputy Director of Education, Latur, confirming the approval granted to the appointments of respondent nos. 5 and 6 on the post of Shikshan Sevak in respondent no.7 school on 10.08.2012. It is further prayed that the appointment orders dated 29.02.2012 of respondent nos. 5 and 6 on the post of Shikshan Sevak in respondent no.7 school and the approval dated 10.08.2012 be quashed and set aside. 3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Managing Committee belonging to the group of which the petitioner is member, was elected in the year 2009, and since then they are looking after the affairs of the trust. The new Committee is again elected in June, 2012, for further period of three years. Accordingly, all respondent authorities were informed that ...
Tulshidas Bablo Gaude @ Pokle Vs. Kanta Bablo Gaude @ Pokle and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-23-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the respondents waives service. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner is the original plaintiff. The petitioner has filed Regular Civil Suit No. 20/2009/A against the respondents/defendants, which is pending before the learned Civil Judge Senior Division at Ponda. That suit, is filed for permanent and mandatory injunction on the allegation that somewhere in February, 2009, the original defendant no. 3 alongwith other defendants came to the suit property and demolished the portion of the workshop of the petitioner. It was further alleged that on 17.02.2009, the original defendant no. 1 with the help of the other defendants started doing illegal construction in the suit property. It is also contended that the defendants have removed some portion of the mangalore tiles due to which there was seepage, more particularly in the north eastern corner of the house of the petitioner. The petition...
Prem Siddha Co-op. Housing Society and Others Vs. The High Power Commi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-2016
S.C. Gupte, J. 1. The question raised in this reference is : Whether the Prothonotary and Senior Master has power to set aside an order of dismissal passed by him under Rule 986 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980? 2. Writ Petition (L) Nos.3016 of 2014 and 672 of 2014 were dismissed by the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court under Rule 986 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980 for non-removal of office objections. On oral requests, the Prothonotary set aside the orders of dismissal and restored the petitions to the file. When the petitions came up before the Court, a Division Bench (V.M. Kanade and Dr. Shalini PhansalkarJoshi, JJ.) was of the view that there is a conflict between two Division Bench decisions of this Court on the question as to whether the Prothonotary and Senior Master has the power to restore a suit or a writ petition dismissed by him under Rule 986. The learned Judges, in the premises, directed the petitions to be placed befor...
Andheri Education Society, Through its Secretary and Another Vs. Sherl ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-2016
1. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 16th October 2015 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Mumbai thereby allowing the appeal filed by the respondent no.1 under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (for short the said MEPS Act ) and setting aside the order of termination dated 14th July 2014. By the said judgment and order, the petitioners are directed to reinstate the respondent no.1 in the petitioner no.2 school on her original post of Headmistress with continuity of service and back wages from the date of termination till date of reinstatement within three months from the date of the said order. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »