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 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-19-2016
CONTENTS A. INTRODUCTION.................................................... 4 B. FACTS..................................................................... 6 C. MAINTAINABILITY...............................................12 D. LIMITATION..........................................................78 E. RELIEFS AND ORDER...........................................87 A. INTRODUCTION 1. The facts of the case are straightforward. The issues they raise, though narrow, are not. A very great deal of learning has been cited on both sides of the debate: some of the precedents are very old indeed. Counsel have argued that later decisions effectively upturn the older ones, even if they do not say so in so many words. There are two principal issues of law: first, limitation; and, second, whether the jurisdiction of a civil court is ousted in claim such as this because of the statutory provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 ( MPTA ) (Earlier the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (Act 29 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-04-2016
Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J. 1. As per the order passed by the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice, this Appeal is placed before us for deciding following questions of law, which are framed by learned Single Judge of this Court [Coram : R.C. Chavan, J.], when the Appeal was placed before him for admission:- (I) Does Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act provide adequate protection to the parties from transfers pendent lite since such transferees are not required to be, or entitled as of right to be, impleaded as parties to the suit and cannot resist execution proceedings in view of provisions of Order XXI Rule 100 of the Code as amended by this Court? (II) Would plaintiffs' registering notices of their suits under Section 18 of the Indian Registration Act (though such registration may not be compulsory) not secure for plaintiffs more than what an injunction could secure since transferees, who purchase property, pendente lite in spite of such registration would be deemed to have n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-19-2016
1. Being aggrieved by both the orders dated 25th August, 2015 passed by the learned District Judge 3, Nashik allowing the application (Ex.5) filed by the respondent (original plaintiff) in Suit No. 1 of 2015 and Suit No. 2 of 2015 inter alia praying for injunction against the appellant, his directors, partners, officers, servants, agents and representatives restraining from using the marks, trade marks or labels that are similar or identical to that of registered trade mark and copyright of the respondent in any manner during the pendency of the suit and for other reliefs, the appellant (original defendant) has preferred these two separate appeals. The parties in this order are described as per their status before the learned trial judge. By consent of parties, both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by a common order. The parties have agreed that reasons as may be recorded by this court in Appeal from Order No.393 of 2016 shall also be applied to Appeal from Or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Oct-25-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the Appellant Original accused no.3, challenging the judgment and Order dated 21.03.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Vaijapur in Sessions Case No.277/2012 (Old No.319/2009), thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC ) and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer S.I. for 6 months. Facts of prosecution case, in brief, are as under: 2. On 30.05.2009, accused no.1 Vitthal lodged the report at Police Station Waluj (Exh.60) alleging that his daughter-in-law deceased Swati has not woke up as usual in the morning, and when he tried to awaken her she was not responding, therefore, he took her to the Hospital where the Medical Officer found her dead. On his report, A.D. bearing No.15/2009 was registered. 3. PSI Suresh Bhale (PW-5) conducted the inquiry of A.D. He sent dead body for post mortem examinati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Jun-07-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Petition takes exception to the impugned judgment and order dated 8th May, 2013, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench at Mumbai [for short 'CAT'] in Original application No.217/2013. There is also prayer for quashing and setting aside the order of termination of the services of the petitioner issued by the Commissioner of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghatan, New Delhi. Further direction is sought to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in the employment. It is further prayed to hold and declare that Article 81 [B] of the Education Code for Kendriya Vidyalaya, is ultra vires to Article 14 of the constitution of India. 2. The CAT has extensively referred the facts of the case in the impugned judgment, and therefore, we do not feel it necessary to reproduce the said facts; as and when it is necessary we will make a reference to the relevant facts from the impugned judgment. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on : Jun-07-2016
V.M. Deshpande, J. 1. Felt aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction passed in Sessions Trial No.4/2009 by which the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge-3, Nagpur convicted the appellant, he is before this Court in this appeal. 2. By the impugned order of conviction, the appellant is directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. He is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and on that count, he was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months. 3. The facts, giving rise to the present appeal, are stated hereunder:- Mohan Makde (PW4) is the Sarpancha of village Welgaon. On 13.08.2008, when he was available at his house, some boys from the village had come to him at 12.30 noon. They inform...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Jun-09-2016
1. This Jail Appeal is by Appellant-original accused (hereafter referred as accused ) against his conviction in Sessions Case No.121 of 2013, awarded by Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule on 26th December 2014. The accused has been convicted to ten years rigorous imprisonment under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( IPC in brief), and fine of Rs.5000/- and in default to suffer further simple imprisonment for two months. He has also been convicted under Section 201 of IPC to rigorous imprisonment of three years and fine of Rs.1000/- and in default, to suffer further simple imprisonment for ten days. Under Section 506 of the IPC, he has been convicted to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently and the fine amount, if realized, has been directed to be paid to the prosecutrix as compensation. Thus, this Appeal. 2. In a nutshell, the case of prosecution can be stated to be as follows: (A) Prosecutrix in this matter is a rustic ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-13-2016
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 Nagpur
Decided on : Jun-30-2016
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Deshpande, J.) 1. These two appellants are before this Court since they are aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction, dated 3rd of April, 2014, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge - 4, Nagpur in Session Trial No.548 of 2009. By the said judgment, the appellants are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and they were directed to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- by each of them and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. 2. The prosecution case which was unfurled during the course of the trial is stated herein under :- The Criminal Law was set into motion on 9th of August, 2009 by Smt.Sk.Jamila wd/o Sk.Abid, first informant, by lodging her report at Exh.62. When first informant had been to Police Station Lakadganj that time Pandurang Rangari, A.S.I., (PW 8) was on duty as a Night Officer. He registered the Crime vide Crime ...
Tag this Judgment!