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.
Anita and Others Vs. Shrikrishna Construction Company and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-22-2016
1. Heard. 2. Admit. 3. By consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the appeal is taken up for final disposal. 4. The Appellants have filed the present appeal seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Latur, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.119 of 2011. 5. The Appellants had filed the aforesaid claim petition under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") seeking compensation on account of death of one Netaji Jeevan Bhong, who died in a vehicular accident on 7th March, 2011, having involvement of a Bajaj motorcycle and a Telco Tipper bearing registration No.MH.24.A.3963. The Appellants had claimed the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. As was averred in the claim petition, the age of deceased Netaji at the time of his death was 35 years and his income was stated to be Rs.5,000/- per month. The learned Tribunal after having assessed the oral and documentary evide...
Abhayraj Vs. Karun @ Vishakha
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-22-2016
Oral Judgment: (S.V. Gangapurwala, J.) 1. The present appellant had filed a petition for divorce U/Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of desertion and cruelty. The same is dismissed on the ground that the petition is not maintainable, as earlier the appellant had filed a petition for divorce on the same grounds. The said petition was dismissed for non prosecution U/O IX Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "C.P.C.") and as per Order IX Rule 9 of the C.P.C. subsequent proceedings on same cause of action are barred. 2. Mr. Godsay, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that, the learned Judge of the Family Court failed to consider the subsequent events that had taken place after dismissal of earlier petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The learned counsel submits that, desertion is continuing cause of action, so also cruelty. According to the learned counsel, subsequent proceedings were absolutely maintainable. The criminal proceedi...
Girjamata Labour Co-operative Society Ltd., Kannad, through its Chairm ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-22-2016
S.V. Gangapurwala, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioner assails the Government Resolution dated 24.4.2015, stipulating e-tender process in allotment of contracts to the Labour Cooperative Societies above Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lacs). 3. The petitioner is a Labour Cooperative Society consisting of labourers residing in vicinity of Kannad, District Aurangabad. The Labour Cooperative Societies are granted several concessions by the Statement Government since 1948. The Government vide Resolution dated 30.3.1979, laid down the procedure while providing works to Labour Cooperative Societies. The concession granted by the Government Resolution dated 30.3.1979 were modified subsequently by various Government Resolutions. The limit of granting the work was increased from time to time. The Labour Cooperative Societies were given work up to Rs.5,00,0000/- (Rupees five lacs) without inviting tenders. Each La...
Sushil Jayant Nanodkar Vs. Dnyaneshwar Vithoba Raut and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-22-2016
1. This is an appeal challenging judgment and award dated 26.02.2010, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal, for short) at Panaji in Claim Petition No. 48/2004. By the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the appellant/ claimant in respect of permanent partial disablement, resulting out of a vehicular accident. 2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal may be stated thus: On 22.01.2004, the appellant was proceeding from Panaji towards Bambolim on his motorcycle bearing no. GA-01-Y-1943. When he reached Santa Cruz, Merces Junction, a truck bearing no. GA-01-Z-2782 came from the opposite side and dashed against the motorcycle, as a result of which the appellant sustained grievous injuries. The appellant was treated in Goa Medical College Hospital (GMC) till 13.02.2004 and thereafter shifted to Jaslok Hospital, Bombay for specialised treatment. According to the appellant, he was required to undergo several surgeries an...
Janshakti Shikshan Sanstha, Pandharkawada, Distt. Yavatmal through its ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-22-2016
Whether an appeal under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to the Act for the sake of brevity) could be filed by an employee against an order of termination before the date on which the termination is to take effect, is the question that is required to be answered by this Division Bench. Though a writ petition challenging the order of the University and College Tribunal in an appeal under Section 59 of the Act needs to be placed before the learned Single Judge for hearing in view of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, the occasion for placing this matter before the Division Bench is referable to the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 22.8.2000. After disagreeing with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, in the judgment, reported in 1998 (1) Mh.L.J. page 707, the learned Single Judge hearing this petition on 22.8.2000 requested the Hon'ble, the Chief Justice, that the matter should be placed before the Divisi...
Somnath Vs. Dipakbhai Chimanbhai Patel and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-22-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the Appeal is taken up for final hearing at admission stage. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. This Appeal challenges judgment and Award dated 8th October, 2014, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangamner, in M.A.C.P No.18 of 2011. 4. The facts that came on record and which are relevant for deciding the Appeal, in short, can be stated as under :- 5. Appellant Somnath is a claimant before the lower Court. On 18th May, 2010, at about 08.00 p.m., the appellant and his friend were driving the motorcycle on public road which was going towards Nasik from Pune. The appellant was the rider and his friend was pillion-rider. The appellant was riding the motorcycle on the left side of the road, and despite of this, he collided on a vehicle which was standing on the left side of the road. Due to collusion, the appellant sustained injuries and his friend i.e. pillion-rider died due to head...
Anupama Kishor Khanolkar Vs. Abhinav Education Society and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-2016
1. By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari and writ of mandamus for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 30th March, 2002, passed by the School Tribunal, Mumbai dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner (110 of 1999) and seeks an order and direction against the respondent nos.1 and 2 to reinstate the petitioner as Headmistress of the respondent no.2 school with benefit of seniority, full back wages and all other benefits. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under: 2. The petitioner has passed B.A. and B.Ed. On 12th June, 1989 the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the respondent no.2 school. In the month of July, 1994, there was a vacancy in the post of Headmistress. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner being senior most, as per rules though she ought to have been promoted as the Headmistress in the respondent ...
Finolex Cables Limited and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-2016
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek a declaration that section 41D of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 amended by way of insertion by the Maharashtra Act No. XVI of 1995 called the Maharashtra Tax Laws (Levy and Amendment) Act, 1995 as also Rule 31AAA of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959 as ultra vires the constitution of India being beyond legislative competence of the Maharashtra State legislature, void and of no legal effect. 2. The declaration is claimed, according to the petitioners, because these provisions curtail/restrict/withdraw the sale tax incentives by way of deferral availed by the petitioners. 3. In the alternative and in the event this court were to uphold the constitutional validity of the above provisions, then, they ought to be read down so as not to affect the sales tax incentives by way of deferral as availed by the petitioners. They would pray that this court should, therefore hold that ...
Mahesh Bajrang Dalvi Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-2016
Prakash D. Naik, J. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of both the parties. 2 Learned APP waives service of notice for Respondent - State. 3. The petitioner herein have challenged the externment order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ichalkaranji on 17th August, 2015. The said order of externment has been initiated in exercise of powers under Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Maharashtra Police Act (for short "the said Act"). 4. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer had issued a notice dated 25th December, 2014 to the petitioner under Section 59 of the said Act. In the said notice, it was stated that it was proposed to initiate externment proceedings against the petitioner and an inquiry is being conducted vide Section 59 of the said Act. It was further mentioned that the externment proceedings are proposed to be invoked against him under Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of the said Act. The notice refers to seven cases pending against the petitioner. The notice als...
Subhash and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-20-2016
1. The petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by ex-members of 9 Village Panchayats to challenge the orders made by Returning Officer appointed by Collector to hold elections to Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee of Pathardi. The names of petitioners are deleted from final voters list by the Returning Officer and the names of newly elected candidates are entered in the final voters list and so, the orders are challenged. This Court had allowed both ex-members and newly returned members of Village Panchayats to vote in the elections. The voting is over, but the results of four constituencies to which the petitioners and newly elected members were entitled to vote are withheld. The State has supported the orders made by the Returning Officer. Heard both the sides. 2. By the notification dated 17.6.2015 issued by respondent No. 3, the elections to A.P.M.C. Pathardi was declared. On 18.6.2015 provisional voters list was published. The objections taken to t...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »