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.
Madhukar Ganpatrao Wankhede (since deceased through its legal heirs) a ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-18-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. In Regular Civil Suit No. 2005 of 1986, the trial Court on 20.02.1988 passed a decree for partition and directed an appointment of Commissioner to effect the partition. The parties are held entitled to their shares as specified in paragraph 11 of the judgment, which is reproduced below. "11. The defendants No. 7 is the widow of deceased Ganpatrao and in view of provision of Hindu Succession Act, after the death of Ganpatrao, she is also entitled to the share in the suit house as described in plaint para 5. The plaintiff is entitled to the share in the suit house 5/12 and defendant No. 6 and 7 1/12 and defendants No. 1 to 5 in common they have to share in 5/12 and all defendants 1 to 5 have equal right in 5/12 share, therefore, my findings to issue No. 1 and 3 are in affirmative, and pass the following order. ORDER 1. The suit is decreed. 2. Looking to the relations of the parties, there is no order as to costs. 3. A Commissioner be appointed in this case to effect par...
Mohinibai Badriprasad Agrawal Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Another Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-18-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. On 16.08.2016, after extensively hearing the learned Advocates for the respective sides and considering the request of the learned Advocates, I have passed the following order: 1. I have heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides at length on 27/07/2016, 11/08/2016 and again today. 2. After the conclusion of their submissions and before I could begin the dictation of the judgment, I intimated to the litigating sides that the right of the Management to conduct an enquiry would be sustained subject to placing the respondent/ employee under suspension from the date of alleged oral termination 21/06/2010 and on payment of subsistence allowance as per rules, keeping in view the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph Nos.8 and 9 of Vidya Vikas Mandal and Anr vs The Education Officer and Another, 2007(3) Mh.L.J. 801 = 2007(11) SCC 352. 3. Mr.Brahme submitted on ...
Tushar Gajanan Savlajkar and Others Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-2016
G.S. Kulkarni, J. 1. These two petitions raise common issues of law and facts, the prayers are also similar therefore, both the petitions are being adjudicated by this common judgment. 2. For the sake of convenience, as also the parties having advanced submissions on Writ Petition No.4495 of 2016, we refer to the pleadings in this Writ Petition. 3. The Petitioners have interalia prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent Corporation to absorb the Petitioners in service as permanent employees and to grant benefits of permanency to the Petitioners. The next prayer is for a writ of certiorari seeking to strike down part of the clause in the engagement letters issued by the Respondent-Corporation, to the Petitioners, restricting the renewal of the contract for three terms. The third prayer is that this Court should read down the terms of engagement and declare that the Petitioners are entitled to continue in the service of Respondent-Corporation as permanent employees on the ba...
Regal Tea Depot through its Partners Vs. Altaf Abumiya Tamboli and Ano ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-2016
1. Heard Mr. Jahagirdar, learned Senior Counsel for the applicants and Mr. Kale, learned Counsel for respondents at length. 2. By this Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, applicants, hereinafter referred to as 'defendants', have challenged the judgment and decree dated 13.10.2008 passed by the learned District Judge-12, Pune in Regular Civil Appeal No.481 of 2007. By that order, the learned District Judge quashed and set aside the judgment and decree dated 20.04.2007 passed by the learned Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune in Civil Suit No.208 of 2003 and decreed the Suit instituted by the respondents, hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiffs' for recovery of possession of shop admeasuring about 324 sq.ft. situate on the ground floor of Cantonment House No.1923, Blundell Road, Pune Camp, Pune 411 001, as more particularly described in paragraph 1 of the plaint (for short 'suit premises') on the ground of bonafide and reasonable requirement as contemplated by Sectio...
Ramesh Gajanan Nigudkar Vs. The Bank of Baroda
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-2016
G.S. Kulkarni, J. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Respondents waives service. By consent of the parties taken up for final hearing. 2. This is an unfortunate case wherein the petitioner who retired after 39 years of unblemished service with the 1st respondent, has been deprived of the benefits of pension under the Bipartite Settlement/Joint Note dated 27 April 2010, when admittedly he is held eligible for pension, the reason being that the petitioner did not deposit within three days, some amount as stated under the 1st Respondent's acceptance letter. In nutshell the facts are: 3. The petitioner joined service of the 1st respondent as a subordinate staff on 4 March 1967. After thirty nine years of service, the petitioner superannuated on 31 October 2006. 4. It is the petitioner's case that the 1st respondent had earlier entered into a settlement with the Bank employees and accordingly a Circular/Notification was issued under which employees who retired post 1995 (29 September 1995) were ...
Pankaj Vs. Santosh and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-18-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent of learned counsel for respective parties, heard finally. 2. Being aggrieved by the order passed by learned J.M.F.C. Court No.3, Rahuri, district Ahmednagar, below Exh.27 in S.T.C. No.196 of 2013, the original complainant has preferred this writ petition. 3. Brief facts, giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows:- The petitioner-original complainant has filed complaint which is registered as S.T.C. No.196 of 2013 before the learned J.M.F.C. Rahuri against the respondent accused for having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. On appearance of respondent-original accused, in due course, the petitioner-original complainant has filed his affidavit of evidence and on 16.5.2015 filed an application Exh.27 seeking permission to lead secondary evidence in respect of the cheque, which is subject matter of the complaint, on the ground that the petitioner-original complainant lost ...
M/s. Aditya Developers, Through its Partner, A.S. Ananthakrishnan Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-16-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. Heard finally with consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. By this writ petition, the petitioner, who was the judgment debtor before the Consumer Forum, has challenged the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Consumer Forum on 19/08/2014, thereby rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for dismissing the application filed under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the respondent, the grounds of which were that no penalty could be imposed upon the petitioner, the decree dated 17/01/2007 had been rendered inexecutable and that cognizance of the offence could not be taken, as the application for imposition of the penalty was filed after the expiry of the limitation period. 4. It is seen from the impugned order that even though two specific grounds were taken for challenging the action of the Consumer Forum in taking cognizance of the application filed under Section 27 of the ...
The Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. M/s. Bhima Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-2016
Oral Judgment:- (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. This reference by the tribunal vide its order dated 24th November, 2006 seeks, according to the tribunal, opinion and answer by this court on a question of law. That question, as framed in the order of reference dated 24th November, 2006 in Reference Application Nos. 105 and 106 of 2006 reads as under:- Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the sale of 'bagasse' is a tax free sale under section 5 of the Bombay Act covered under schedule entry A-44? 2. Since this question is common to both these references, we would take the facts from Sales Tax Reference No. 6 of 2009. 3. The tribunal had before it two appeals being Second Appeal Nos. 558 and 869 of 2005. It delivered a common judgment therein on 24th February, 2006. 4. The Revenue sought a reference of the above question because, according to it, the respondent dealer is a co-operative society manufacturing sugar. It is duly regis...
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Another Vs. Syed Sahe ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-16-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner/Corporation is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 31/10/2014 by which Complaint (ULP) No.12/2007 filed by the respondent/employee has been allowed and the impugned order of punishment dated 12/03/2005 directing stoppage of 3 increments permanently, has been set aside. Costs of Rs.5,000/- has been awarded to the respondent. 3. I have heard Mr.Bagul, learned Advocate for the petitioner/Corporation and Mr.Muley, learned Advocate for the respondent at length. 4. The respondent/employee was working as a Driver with the petitioner/Corporation. He was charge sheeted on 06/09/2002 on the basis of a complaint that he had outraged the modesty of a lady passenger during the night journey in the bus. After conducting a departmental enquiry, the order imposing punishment was issued and the respondent was awarded the punishment of permanent stoppage of 3 increments. By ord...
Namdeo Nivrutti Marane Vs. Vilas Bhikaji Marane
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-2016
1. By this appeal filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellant (original defendant) has impugned the judgment and decree dated 21st February, 2015 passed by the learned District Judge -2, Pune dismissing the Civil Appeal (322 of 2014) filed by the appellant. In the said appeal, the appellant had impugned the judgment and decree dated 31st March, 2011 passed by the 4th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune by which the suit filed by the respondent for possession was partly decreed with cost. By the said judgment and decree, the learned trial judge directed the respondent herein to deposit a sum of Rs.1,08,000/- in the Court of Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division and directed the appellant herein to handover the vacant possession of the suit land to the respondent on or before 30th June, 2011. The learned trial judge accordingly granted liberty to the appellant herein to withdraw the said amount if deposited by the respondent. 2. By an order dated 27th Ju...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »