Mumbai Court September 2016 Judgments
Adarsh Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-26-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Being aggrieved by the order of issuance of process, dated 28.6.2006, passed by the learned J.M.F.C. Court No.3, Ahmednagar for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as "the said Act"), the applicant original accused, has preferred this criminal application. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present application are as follows:- a) Respondent No.2, a public limited company, has filed a complaint against present applicant for having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the said Act. The learned Magistrate has recorded verification statement of respondent No.2 and pleased to pass order below Exh.1 of issuance of process against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the said Act. Hence, this criminal application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it has alleged in the complaint that the Head Office of respondent No.2 complainant is si...
Tag this Judgment!Arjun Balkrishna Sonavane Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-2016
Oral Judgment: (V.K. Tahilramani, J.) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The petitioner / detenu Arjun Balkrishna Sonavane has preferred this petition questioning the preventive detention order passed against him on 12.10.2015 by the Commissioner of Police, Solapur. The said detention order has been passed in exercise of the powers under Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 (No. LV of 1981) (Amendment- 1996 and 2009) (hereinafter referred to as the "MPDA Act") as the detenu is a dangerous person whose activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The said order of detention is based on one C.R. i.e. C.R.No. 299 of 2015 of Faujdar Chawdi Police Station, Solapur. The said C.R. is under Section 385 read with Section 34 of IPC. In addition, the detention order is based on one non-cognizable case i.e. N....
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Arvind Shephard Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-26-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The Petitioner/ Employee is aggrieved by the judgment dated 02.04.2015 by which the Labour Court has dismissed Application (IDA) No.2/2012 filed by him under Section 33C(2) and (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 3. I have heard the strenuous submissions of Shri Barde and Shri Malte, learned Advocates for the Petitioner and the Respondent, respectively. 4. There is no dispute in between the parties on the following aspects:- (a) On 17.10.2006, the Petitioner was discharging his duties as a Driver and met with an accident. (b) Since he was unable to resume duties, he availed 352 days leave. (c) The Respondent paid Rs.1,33,062/- towards Disablement Leave Salary for 352 days. (d) The above said payment was made under the Service Regulation 50 and Rule A(vii)(a) and (b) under the 17th Schedule of the MSEDCL Employees Service Regulations, 2005. (e) The Petitioner filed Applicatio...
Tag this Judgment!Association of Engineering Workers, Through its General Secretary, San ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-26-2016
1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties. 2. Rule. 3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal. 4. The issue, primarily raised in this petition is as regards, "Whether the employer can seek the cancellation of recognition of a Union under Section 13 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971?" 5. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 3.5.2016, by which, Application MRTU No. 1 of 2016, filed by the respondent / management under Section 13 has been allowed and the recognition granted to the petitioner / Union under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 ( the 1971 Act ) has been cancelled. 6. The petitioner - Union is also aggrieved by the order dated 18.2.2016, passed below application Exhibit U-4 filed by it, by which, the Industrial Court rejected the application, wherein, ...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Pravi Auto Swing Pvt Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kisan More and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. 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 judgment and order dated 21-3-2016 passed by the Learned Member of the Industrial Court by which order, the complaint in question being Complaint ULP No.54 of 2005 came to be allowed resultantly a declaration came to be issued that the Petitioner herein who was the Respondent in the Complaint has engaged in unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act 1971. A further direction came to be issued to the Petitioner to pay the remaining subsistence allowance @ 75% for the period between 90 days to 180 days and thereafter @ 100% for the period beyond 180 days. 3. It is not necessary to burden this order with unnecessary details having regard to the nature of the final directions to be issued. The Respondents herein were in employment with the Petitioner. It seems that on account of ce...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Vs. Arun and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-26-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. In Regular Civil Suit No.836 of 1990, styled as one for partition, possession and mesne profits, the Trial Court passed a decree for possession on 17-2-1994 holding that the respondent-plaintiff shall be entitled to possession of the suit property consisting of southern side of three rooms totally admeasuring 32' x 10' out of Municipal House No.1446 on Plot No.9, situated at Subhash Nagar, Nagpur, from the appellant-defendant. The defendant was directed to deliver the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff and the enquiry was also ordered into the mesne profits. In Regular Civil Appeal No.212 of 1994, decided on 17-7-2003, the decree passed by the Trial Court has been maintained by dismissing the appeal. Hence, the original defendant is before this Court. 2. The dispute in the suit is between the two real brothers, and 15-9-2016: the plaintiff claims that the suit plot No.9, situated at Subhash Nagar, Nagpur, was purchased jointly in the name of the defendan...
Tag this Judgment!Jijabai Bahiru Tatale and Others Vs. Raghunath Ramchandra Avhad and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Rule. 3. With consent of the parties, the Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage. 4. The Petitioners, who are the members of the Village Panchayat Belgaon Tarale, Taluka: Igatpuri, District: Nashik are objecting to the order passed by the Additional Collector, Nashik in Dispute No.41 of 2016 decided on 26.8.2016. The Respondent No.1 was elected as Upa-Sarpanch of Village Panchayat in the year 2014. A motion for expressing 'No Confidence' on the Respondent No.1 was moved on 22.6.2016 by 6 members of Village Panchayat out of total strength of 9 members. A special meeting for consideration of the motion was convened by the Tehsildar, which was scheduled to take place on 28.6.2016. In the meeting held on 28.6.2016, the motion of 'No Confidence' was passed against the Respondent No.1 by majority 6 members voting in favour of the motion of 'No Confidence' out of 7 members present at the meeting. The decision taken in the meeting dated 28.6....
Tag this Judgment!Yogesh Madhukar Sonwane Vs. Alka Haribhau Dhumal
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-23-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 3.12.2005 passed below Exh.35 in SCC No.9038/2004, the original accused has filed present criminal application. 2. Brief facts, giving rise to the present application are as follows:- Respondent has filed a complaint bearing SCC No.9038/2004 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aurangabad against the applicant-original accused for having committed an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In due course, the said SCC No.9038/2004 was taken up for hearing. Respondent-original complainant has submitted her examination-in-chief in the form of affidavit before the Magistrate and she was also subjected to cross examination by the applicant-accused. Thereafter, respondent-complainant has filed an application Exh.35 stating therein that the demand notice has not been exhibited. The applicant accused has strongly resisted the said application by filing his say wherein it has contended that the responden...
Tag this Judgment!Anant Gunvantrao Sable Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through the Minis ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-23-2016
1.In view notice for final disposal, the learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length by issuing Rule and making the same returnable forthwith. 2.The question that arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is : Whether the petitioner, by virtue of having let out premises jointly owned by him to the respondent no.4 Co-operative Bank, can be said to be disqualified to hold the post of Director under the provisions of Section 73CA (1) (vi) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 [for short, referred as the said Act ]? The aforesaid question arises in view of the following facts:- 3.The petitioner has been elected as a member of the Managing Committee of the respondent no.4 the Amravati District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. It is the case of the respondent no.5 that on 6th March, 2010, the Managing Committee of the said Bank passed a resolution by which it was resolved to shift the Surji Branch of the Bank to Anjangaon. The Branch was shifted to a building o...
Tag this Judgment!Housabai Baburao Karjule (Died) Through her L.Rs. Vs. Vijay Janardhan ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-22-2016
1. Heard. The present Appeal is filed against the Judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmednagar (for short the "Tribunal") on 4th March, 1996 in M.A.C.P.No.119/1985. 2. The aforesaid claim petition was filed by one Ansabai Kishanrao Pokale, claiming compensation on account of death of her son namely Maruti Pokale in a vehicular Accident happened on 13th July, 1985 having involvement of a motor-cycle bearing registration No.MTH-4620 owned by present Respondent No.5 and insured with present Respondent No.6. Deceased Maruti Pokale was proceeding towards Beed along with one Ghansham Jasud (Respondent No.4) on the aforesaid motor-cycle as a pillion rider. In Aathwad Ghat the motor-cycle colluded with ST bus coming from the opposite direction and in the accident so happened, Maruti Pokhale suffered grievous injuries and ultimately died because of the said injuries. 3. In the claim petition filed by mother of deceased Maruti Pokhale, it was her contention that th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »