Court : Mumbai
V.K. Tahilramani, J. 1. Rule. Respondent waives service. By consent rule made returnable forthwith. 2. A very short question is involved in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is directed against the Notification issued by the Home Department dated 23.02.2012. By this Notification, Rule 4 of the Furlough and Parole Rules was amended and after sub-rule (10), sub-rule 11 to 19 were added. 3. The petitioner was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune under Sections 364, 302 and 201 of IPC by Judgment and Order dated 24.5.2013 passed in Sessions Case No. 105 of 2011. In our opinion, the only relevant fact is that the conviction and sentence has been interalia recorded for the offence punishable under Section 364 of IPC i.e kidnapping. 3A. The case of the petitioner is that he preferred an application for furlough, however, in view of the notification dated 23.02.2012, he took it back. The petitioner took his application for furlough back becaus...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari and after setting aside adverse orders, a direction to the respondents to apply Irrigation Potential Restoration Charges (hereinafter referred to as IRC), as per Government Resolution dated 21.02.2004 with respect to the water allocated to the petitioner, based on deficit in water for irrigation as per the latest report. The prayers have been amended and a prayer to restrain the respondents from recovering interest as per demand letters dated 17.01.2013 and 04.02.2013 has been added. Hiwever, no arguments are advanced on this interest aspect. 2. It appears that the petition was presented at Bombay as Writ Petition No. 1487 of 2013 and there, on 05.05.2014, this Court noted that ad interim order / arrangement was operating as per statement of respondents made before it on 26.02.2013. On 17.06.2014, the Court noticed that the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: 1. The petitioners question propriety, legality and validity of order passed by respondent No.1 - Collector, Nanded dated 31-01-2015 in the case bearing No.2013/MCA/K1/T1/CR-34, invoking provisions of Section 3(1)(b) of Maharashtra Local Authorities Members Disqualification Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "MLAMD Act"), whereunder petitioners have been held to be disqualified to continue as councillors for the remainder of the term of Mahur Nagar Panchayat (hereinafter, 'MNP'). 2. General elections to seventeen-members Nagar Panchayat of Mahur were held on 11-12-2011. In said elections to MNP, petitioners among others, were set up as candidates of Nationalist Congress Party (NCP). About eight candidates of NCP were declared elected as councillors of MNP on 12-12-2011. Party wise strength of seventeen-member MNP had been as under: Congress (I) 04 Shiv Sena 04 NCP 08 Independent 01 3. After hearing learned counsel for parties, it appears to be a case, wherein, post-po...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. By this Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner challenges the order passed on 26th November 2012 by Respondent No.1. 2. By the impugned order, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, (IPAB), has passed an order on Miscellaneous Petition Nos.232 and 233 of 2012 in the case of an original registration and directed expunging of the impugned trademark. It has also directed payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- by the Petitioner to the successful Respondent No.3. 3. It is the claim of the Petitioner that they are a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. The predecessor of the Petitioner was a Proprietary Concern of Mr. V.S. Abdul Karim, who carried on business under the trade name of "Creative Enterprises" from the year 1979 and then changed the name to "Creative Travel and Tours" in 1992. In 1997, the Petitioner was incorporated under the corporate name, namely, "Creative Tours and Travels (India)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
1. This appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short, Arbitration Act ) arises from an order dated 29.10.2014 passed on Section 9 Arbitration Act application by the Principal District Judge, Panji, Goa refusing to exercise his authority under Section 9 on the ground that the Court has no territorial jurisdiction in the matter. 2. The appellant No.1 is a partnership firm and appellant Nos.2 and 3 are its partners. The respondent No.1 is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and engaged in the business of offering various Spa and Saloon services. The respondent No.2 is the director of the respondent no. 1-company. The appellant No.1 being interested in marketing Spa and Saloon services in the State of Goa, executed two agreements with the respondent No.1, both dated 31st October, 2012. By these agreements, the respondent No.1 was appointed as Master Franchisee and was given exclusive right in the entire State of Goa to market the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. Rule. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents waive service. The facts in the aforesaid three writ petitions being identical and being inter-connected, were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. 2. By Writ Petition No.4470 of 2015, the petitioner no.1-Management which runs the petitioner no.2-School has impugned the order dated 23rd February 2015 passed by the respondent no.3-the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Sangli thereby vacating the stay granted to the individual approval to the so-called appointments of the respondent nos.4, 5, 6 and 8 and approval to the promotion of the respondent no.7 and continuing the order of their approvals and seeks a writ of mandamus to cancel and/or withdraw his orders dated 15th September 2012 and 15th October 2012 by which the respondent no.1 granted the individual approval to the appointments of the respondent nos.4, 5, 6 and 8 and approval to the promotion of the respondent no.7. 3. By Writ Petition No....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. Admit. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents waive service. By consent of parties, appeal is heard finally. 2. By this appeal filed under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (for short the said 'Arbitration Act'), the appellant has impugned the order and judgment dated 21st January, 2015 delivered by the learned District Judge 14, Pune allowing the application filed by the respondents partly filed under section 9 of the Arbitration Act and temporarily restraining the appellant from carrying out construction of 'E' Building in terms of prayer clause (A) of the application, till further orders. The appellant herein was the original opponent in the proceedings before the learned District Judge 14, Pune whereas the respondents herein were the applicants. 3. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this appeal are as under:- 4. The respondents desired to acquire residential accommodation for themselves and their family members. The appellant is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule in both the above Petitions, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked against the order dated 06/10/2015 passed by the learned Principal Judge of the Small Causes Court, Pune by which order the Election Petition being No.9 of 2012 filed by the Respondent No.2 herein came to be allowed and the Petitioner Shri Vijay Waman Deshmukh in Writ Petition No.11334 of 2015 (i.e. the Respondent No.4 in the Election Petition) came to be unseated as a Corporator of the Pune Municipal Corporation from Ward No.44 B, Hadapsar, Pune. In so far as Writ Petition No.10730 of 2015 is concerned, the same has been filed by the Election Petitioner Shri Vijay Zumbar More (i.e. the Respondent No.2 in Writ Petition No.11334 of 2015), challenging the same order i.e. the order dated 06/10/2015 in so far as it rejects the prayer of the said Petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
R.G. Ketkar, J. 1. By administrative order dated 25.08.2015 passed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, this Special Bench was reconstituted for hearing of above Petition and other connected matters from the Division Benches available at Original / Appellate Side. In pursuance thereof, we have heard Mr. Navroz Seervai, learned Senior Counsel for petitioners, Mr. R. S. Apte, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1, Mr. Daraius Khambata, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.6, Mr. Shailesh Shah, learned Senior Counsel for respondents No.7 and 8 and Mr. Toor, learned Counsel for BEST at length. At the request and by consent of the parties, the Petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. This Petition is instituted by Adarsh Co-operative Housing Society Limited (for short 'Adarsh Society') and one of its members under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against respondent No.1 - Union of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests (for short 'MOEF'), respondent No.2 - Mr. Jayram Ram...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
R.G. Ketkar, J. 1. By an Administrative Order dated 25.8.2015 passed by the Honourable Chief Justice, this Special Bench was reconstituted for hearing of the above petition and other connected matters from the Division Benches available at Original/Appellate Side of this Court. In pursuance thereof, we have heard Mr. Daraius Khambata, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Shailesh Shah, learned senior counsel for respondent no.1, Ms. Kiran Bhagalia, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and Mr. Navroz Seervai, learned senior counsel for respondent no.4 at length. Rule. Learned counsel for the respective respondents waive service. At the request and by consent of the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is instituted by the Union of India through the Indian Army, Head Quarters, Maharashtra Gujarat and Goa Area through the General Officer Commanding (for short, 'GOC...
Tag this Judgment!