Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment dated 16.03.2013 delivered by the Labour Court by which his Complaint (ULP) No.37/2010 was dismissed. The Labour Court concluded that the punishment of dismissal from service for a proved misconduct of sleeping on duty was not shockingly disproportionate. 3. The Petitioner is also aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.02.2016 delivered by the Industrial Court by which Revision (ULP) No.1/2014 filed by the Petitioner has been dismissed. 4. The Petitioner has strenuously criticized the impugned judgments. It is not in dispute that the part-1 judgment dated 21.04.2012 delivered by the Labour Court by which the enquiry was held to be fair and proper and the findings of the Enquiry Officer were sustained, was not challenged by the Petitioner/ workman before the Industrial Court as well as before this Court. 5. The submissions of the Petitioner c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Oka, J.) OVERVIEW AND INTRODUCTION 1. These Petitions raise two issues of public importance. In PIL 173 of 2010, the issue is whether pandals/temporary booths can be allowed to be erected on streets and footways or foot-paths for celebrating the religious or other festivals. The contention of the Petitioner in PIL No.173 of 2010 is that such pandals/temporary booths cannot be allowed to be erected in such a manner that it will obstruct free flow of vehicular traffic on streets or it will obstruct free movement of pedestrians on footways or foot-paths. It is pointed out that in the cities in the State, such pandals and temporary booths are causing obstruction to vehicular traffic and movement of pedestrians. Such obstruction causes enormous inconvenience to the citizens apart from infringing their right to have roads and foot-paths in a reasonable condition. The second issue raised in PIL No.173 of 2010 and in other connected matters is about the failure of all the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Deshpande, J.) 1. The appellant is before this Court since he has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.06.2014 in Sessions Trial No.28/2012 by which he was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. He was also convicted for an offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for 15 days. He was also convicted for an offence punishable under Section 3(a) of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month. 2. The prosecution case, as it is unfurled d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
GENERAL 1. These are four Notices of Motion under Order 39 Rule 2A and 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( CPC ). All are filed by the Plaintiff ( CTR ), alleging that the Defendant ( Sergi ) is in repeated and contumacious breach of restraint orders passed in CTR s patent infringement suit. This common judgment disposes of all four Notices of Motion. 2. I heard Mr. Seervai for CTR and Mr. Chagla for Sergi at some length. They took me through this record; no easy task, I might add, for not only do the Notices of Motion overlap, but they are also tied hand and foot to, and share a history with, CTR s principal Notice of Motion No. 497 of 2014 for injunctive relief. That Notice of Motion is now separated from this group, since I decided it by a judgment dated 23rd October 2015. There, I held for CTR and against Sergi on the issue of infringement of CTR s patent, one that relates to an explosion and fire detection technology for use in electrical transformers. Sergi is in appeal. It...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the record of the decision Annexure I-4 to the writ petition and after scrutinising the legality, validity and correctness thereof to quash and set aside the same. The next relief is that of issuance of a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, directing respondent No.1 to forthwith and/or in such time as this court deems fit and proper to issue in favour of the petitioners a certificate styled as "A" certificate in respect of the film "Udta Punjab", without the same being subjected to any of the cuts/conditions set out in the said decision. 3. This writ petition was placed before us on 8th June, 2016. It was adjourned to 9th Jun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
A.S. Oka, J. 1. As per the administrative order dated 17th November 2015 passed by the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice, this group of Petitions has been specifically assigned to this specially constituted Bench. OVERVIEW 2. The challenge in this group of Petitions is to various provisions of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976 (for short Animal Preservation Act ) as amended by the Maharashtra Animal Preservation(Amendment)Act,1995 (for short the Amendment Act ). The Amendment Act received the assent of the Hon'ble President of India on 4th March 2015. By the Amendment Act, in addition to existing prohibition on the slaughter of cows, a complete prohibition was imposed on slaughter of bulls and bullocks in the State. A ban was imposed on possessing the flesh of cow, bull or bullock slaughtered within and outside the State. Moreover, by introducing Section 9B, at the trial of certain offences, a negative burden was put on the accused. 3. Before we deal with the facts of each P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. By this petition filed under Article 226 read with Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner - wife of the deceased and his brother claim a direction to Respondent No.3 - Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to carry out investigation into the death of Biju Maharu Kolla and to submit a report to this Court. A direction to register First Information Report (FIR) against the concerned Police officers who killed Biju, for offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), is also sought. A mandatory compensation of Rs. One crore is also prayed for. 2. Petitioner No.1 is wife of the deceased - Biju while petitioner No.2 is his real brother. They state that Biju had purchased a Tractor on bank loan and used to let it out for agricultural work. At relevant time, his tractor was at work at village Kerkatta, at a distance of 25 kms from village -Vikaspalli where he and his family resided and had about 3 Acres of agricultural land. To supervise the wo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: 1.This is the 1st Defendant s application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The prayer made is that all the disputes between the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 be referred to arbitration in terms of the Arbitration Agreement contained in a Term Sheet dated 13th June 2012. That Term Sheet was between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant. I must note that Defendants Nos. 2 to 8 all claim to have used the copyright-protected material in question under a sub-licence from Defendant No. 1. None of the Defendants are using any of that material now. Defendants Nos. 2, 7 and 8 are separately represented. Defendants Nos. 2 to 6 have all filed Affidavits supporting the 1st Defendant and inter alia agreeing to have that disputes referred to arbitration. Defendants Nos. 7 and 8 have confirmed this as well. 2.The Suit itself was first mounted as a copyright action. Some facts are necessary. The Plaintiff produces, distributes and exhibits feature films throu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
K.R. Shriram, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioner is attributing direct negligence on the part of the respondents regarding the performance of respondents' duties, which, according to the petitioner was the proximate cause for losing the fingers of his right hand. The petitioner, therefore, is praying for (a) direction to the respondents to take action against the employees, agents and doctors responsible for the condition of the petitioner, (b) direction to the respondents to provide to the petitioner employment and (c) direction to the respondents to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs.10 lakhs as compensation. 2. The facts in brief are as under:- On 1st October, 2002 around 0.55 A.M., pursuant to an attack of convulsion, the petitioner, who at the time the petition was filed was about 21/22 years of age, was admitted in Medical Unit-III of Rajawadi Hospital under Dr. S.R. Oraskar, Senior Honorary Physician. The respondent no.2, i.e., Bombay Municipal Corporation, has established an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: (Dr. Shalini Phansalkarjoshij, j.) 1. The appellant “ original accused, who stands convicted, by judgment and order dated 29th June, 2005, in Sessions Case No.619 of 2003, of Additional Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months, by this appeal challenges his conviction and sentence. 2. Brief facts of the appeal can be stated as follows: Deceased Bharati was the wife of appellant. Their marriage had taken place on 25th April, 2002 at Madh village. After the marriage, they were residing together in the same village. As per prosecution case, appellant was suspecting the fidelity of his wife Bharati and on that count there used to be frequent quarrels. On the day of incident, on 13.7.2003, in the morning, the appellant quarrelled with the deceased and then left the hou...
Tag this Judgment!