Mumbai Court September 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.
Manoj Pransukhlal Sagar Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Through Senior ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-2016
G.S. Kulkarni, J. 1. The Applicant is the original Plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No.133 of 2004 filed against the Respondents-original defendants. The suit came to be decreed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Satara (the Trial Court) by judgment and order dated 7 April 2009 against which the Respondents in this application (original defendants) have filed the above First Appeal. The First Appeal is pending final hearing. In this first appeal the Applicant (Plaintiff) has filed the present Civil Application on 10 July 2015 under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure inter alia for the following prayers: (a) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to record the Compromise at Exhibit C and to pass a decree in accordance with the Compromise in Special Civil Suit No.133 of 2004 and in First Appeal No.780 of 2009; (b) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass such orders and directions as are necessary for disposal of the Special Civil Suit No.133 of 2004 and First Appeal No.780 of 2...
Gajanan Vs. Kirtikumar Mitesh Bhangdiya and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-02-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. This election petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 80 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short, the said Act) challenging the election of the respondent No.1 as a Member of the Legislative Assembly from 074 Chimur constituency. 2. The election of the respondent no.1 has been challenged principally on the ground that the respondent no.1 is a Government Contractor undertaking civil contracts and on the date of filing his nomination paper these contracts with the Government were subsisting. According to the petitioner, the respondent no.1, therefore, stands disqualified by virtue of provisions of Section 9A of the said Act. The other ground of challenge is that the respondent no.1 while submitting his nomination form had filled in the same as per his name appearing in the electoral roll. However, when the results of the election were declared, the name of the returned candidate was shown differently. This according to the petitioner res...
Rabindra A.L. Dias Vs. Eliza D'Silva and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-02-2016
1. Heard. 2. Admit. 2 A.O. no.59 of 2015 3. Shri C. A. Coutinho, learned Advocate waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent no.1. 4. This is an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(u) of Civil Procedure Code ( C.P.C. for short) assailing the judgment and decree dated 11/09/2015 passed by the District Judge-II, Margao whereby the learned Appellate Court had remanded the matter to the trial Court with the direction to refer the issue of mundkarship to the Mamlatdar for adjudication. Shri J. J. Mulgaonkar, learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that he had filed the suit to restrain his mother from alienating the suit property and to restrain the respondent no.1 from interfering in the suit property which was dismissed by the trial Court by the judgment and decree dated 24/03/2015. He had preferred an appeal before the District Court but which had gone at a tangent to the issue of mundkarship and to remand the matter to the trial Court with a direction to refer the issue of mu...
Vyankatesh Trading Company Vs. Food Corporation of India, through Gene ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-02-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. Civil Application No. 1964 of 2016 for intervention is allowed. The applicant is permitted to intervene. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner. 4. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have published a tender notice for appointment of Regular Handling and Transport Contractor at FCI, FSD Wardha for the period of two years. In response to the said tender notice, the petitioner submitted his tender online. The tender was to be in two parts. Part one contains the technical bid regarding the financial and experience qualification of the tenderer and the second part contains the price bid. The petitioner was communicated on 3.8.2016 that the technical bid of the petitioner was rejected. The reason given for rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner was that the petitioner had ...
Namdeo Goma Patil Vs. Competent Authority, Chembur Patalganga Pipe Lin ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. The Applicant has challenged the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Raigad, below exh.29 in Land Acquisition Reference No. 2 of 1996, dismissing the reference as barred by limitation. 2. The short issue that arises for consideration in this Civil Revision Application is whether the reference made by the Applicant to the Court in respect of the acquisition proceedings under the Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline Act, 1962 was within the period of limitation. 3. The Applicant is the owner of the Gat No.68, Hissa No.8 situated at Mouje Ajivali, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad. Out of this land, an area admeasuring 600 sq. mt. was acquired for the purpose of Chembur Patalganga Pipeline under the provisions of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline Act, 1962 ( the Act ). A notification under Section 3 of the Act was issued on 17 November 1990 and a notification under Section 6 was issued on 23 February 1991. The award was declared on 18 July 1995. Possession of...
Sachin Shripati Patil (Mahkavekar) Vs. State of Maharashtra Urban Deve ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-2016
M.S. Karnik , J. 1. The Petitioner is challenging the order dated 9th May, 2016 passed by Respondent No.2 Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee No.2, Kolhapur thereby invalidating the caste claim of the Petitioner as Hindu-Kunbi which is a Scheduled Caste. 2. The Petitioner is also challenging the consequential disqualification order dated 9th May, 2016 passed by the Municipal Commissioner, Kolhapur Municipal Corporation viz., the Respondent No.3. 3. The Petitioner was elected from reserved Ward No.34 as the Councilor of the Kolhapur Municipal Corporation. The Petitioner's caste claim was referred for verification to Respondent No.2 Committee. The Respondent No.2 forwarded the Petitioner's case for local inquiry to the Vigilance Cell. The Vigilance Cell after conducting the local inquiry submitted the report which is in favour of the Petitioner. 4. It is the submission of the Petitioner that the Petitioner's Cousin Vaibhav's caste certificate was validated by the Caste Certificate Scruti...
M/s. Satish Motors Limited Vs. Syed Ashrafali Syed Maqsadali
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-01-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The issue to be decided in this petition is as to whether a cause of action would survive for the Labour Court to exercise jurisdiction U/Item 1 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971, after the respondent employer declares by an affidavit / written say before the Labour Court that there is no oral termination or termination of any kind or that the complainant is not terminated. 3. The respondent is said to have been working with the petitioner/Management at its Automobile Workshop from 1991. On 21/08/2003, he preferred Complaint (ULP) No.135/2003 under Section 28(1) of The MRTU and PULP Act, 1971. An application for interim relief u/s 30(2) was also filed. Contention was that some accountant/Officer of the petitioner orally refused employment to the respondent w.e.f. 20/08/2003 and therefore, it would amount to termination U/Item 1 of Schedule IV. 4. The petitioner/Managem...
The Special Land Acquisition and Another Vs. Pauline Barreto @ Pual Ba ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-01-2016
1. Heard 2. Admit. 3. Shri M. P. Almeida, learned Advocate waives notice on behalf of the respondents in all the appeals. 4. These are the appeals at the instance of the Special Land Acquisition Officer ( the LAO for short hereinafter) coming up for disposal today challenging the Judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court dated 31.7.2007 pursuant to which the learned District Judge-I as the Reference Court had partly allowed the reference and fixed the market rate in respect of the acquired area at Rs.68/- per square metre alongwith all the statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( the Act for short hereinafter) and the costs of the proceedings. The Parties would be referred to in their original status for brevity's sake hereinafter. 5. Admittedly the Government had acquired the land belonging to the respondent bearing Survey No.164/6 admeasuring 435 square metres pursuant to the Notification issued under Section 4 of the Act for the construction of the br...
Yuvraj Vs. Haji Naim Kha Siddiq Kha and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-01-2016
1. The petition is filed to challenge the order made by learned District Collector Jalgaon in Disqualification Petition No.15/2014. Present respondent No.5 had filed an application for allowing him to intervene in the matter and for allowing him to prosecute the matter of disqualification and this application is allowed. The original petitioner Haji Naim Kha, present respondent No.1, had given in writing that he had no intention to prosecute the matter. Heard both the sides. 2. The facts of the case pending before the Collector show that the general elections of the Municipal Council Bhusawal, District Jalgaon were held in the month of December 2011 and political party, Nationalist Congress Party had contested the seats. 24 candidates of this party were elected as councillors and so the party decided to contest the elections for the posts of the President and the Vice President. The candidates of these posts were selected and then whip was issued by the party to all the councillors of ...
Deepak Khubchand Bajaj Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through the Anti- ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-01-2016
1. The applicant, who is a secretary of the Sindhu Education Society, Jaripatka, Nagpur, a registered minority educational institution having under its wing in all 12 educational institutions, was arrested on 12.11.2015 on the allegation that he amassed huge wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income during the check period of about 25 years i.e. between the year 1990 and 2015 and, in doing so, he with the help of his wife (accused No.2) resorted to various contraptions, like threatening his employees with termination of their services, if they failed to pay the monies demanded by him or failed to obey his orders, indulging in deceptions and cheating as well as preparing of false documents and using them as genuine and also misappropriating the money of the institution. 2. During the pendency of the investigation, the applicant moved a bail application before the Special Court (ACB) Nagpur, but it was rejected by it. The applicant also moved this Court under Section 439 of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »