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 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 Nagpur
Decided on : Jun-06-2016
1. This revision application has been filed to seek copies of the record of C.A. No.U-3733/ E-122 R.No.122 dated 4-4-2016, which, according to the applicant, was filed in Criminal Application (APPP) No.1081 of 2015 by the office of the Government Pleader. Normally, the application would either be allowed or dismissed for the reasons to be stated in the order to be passed. There would also not be any objection for the Court if the applicant wanted to withdraw the revision application. This could have been permitted by this Court if it had been a simple revision application without making any serious allegations assailing the record of this Court and without mud-slinging the sitting Judges and the officers of this Court. The revision application along with the documents and pursis on record contain all sorts of wild allegations amounting to scurrilous attack on the sitting Judges, the officers of this Court, including the Government Pleader, and the record of this Court. Such allegations...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : May-06-2016
P.C.: 1. The applications are moved for pre arrest bail as the applicants/accused are facing charges for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B) and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3, 5 and 6 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 and Section 3 of Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments Act) in C.R. No. 316 of 2013 registered with Oshiwara police station, Mumbai. The offence is registered at the instance of one Gurupreetsingh Anand on 16th August, 2013. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that in the year 2000 one Vijay Ishwaran and Joseph, the founders of QI Group formed a company under the name and style Gold Quest International Private Limited . The applicants/accused also joined the said group in 2006. Gold Quest International Private Limited used to sale gold plated coins. In the year 2000 the rate of gold was Rs. 5,000/- per 10 gms., however, they used to sale the gold plated coins for Rs. 30,0...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : May-06-2016
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. A vital issue emerges in this petition:- "Whether under Rule 16(2) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 ( MEPS Rules for short), issuance of a notice to the temporary / probationer employee before arriving at a conclusion that he/she has voluntarily abandoned employment would be a necessity?" 5. Considering the conspectus of the matter, I had invited the learned Advocates practicing in service law to render their assistance in this matter. I have thus heard the learned Advocates for the litigating sides, as well as, those learned Advocates. 6. The petitioner / management has challenged the judgment and order dated 24.9.2015, delivered by the School Tribunal, Aurangabad, by which, Appeal No. 5 of 2013, filed by the appellant / employee Respondent No.1 herein, has been allowed an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : May-06-2016
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
Decided on : Apr-13-2016
G.S. Kulkarni, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 19th August, 2013 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Konkan Division, Thane (for short 'Caste Scrutiny Committee') whereby the application of the petitioner for validation of her caste certificate, certifying that she belongs to 'Halba scheduled tribe' has been rejected invalidating the caste certificate issued to the petitioner. 2. Conspectus of facts as would fall for our consideration are thus : The petitioner is a student of Bachelor of Dental Sciences course. In June 2012 at the time of filing of the petition the petitioner was studying in the first year in respondent No.3-Institution. The petitioner claimed to belong to the 'Halba' tribe which is listed as a schedule tribe in the Presidential Order. A caste certificate was issued to the petitioner by the Deputy Collector and Special Land Acquisition Officer, Mumbai Suburban District dated 30th Ju...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-23-2016
Anoop V. Mohta, J. Index Sr.No.ContentsPage No.1Judgment Title.12Events-9 The Petitioner-Borrower-Blue Coast Hotels Limited (BCHL)'s case.9IFCI-Respondent No.1's case.12ITC Limited-the Purchaser's case.173High Court Proceedings.234Relevant provisions of SARFAESI Act.25 The Security Interest Enforcement Rules, 2002.36 Transfer of Property Act, 1882.445The submissions and Judgments by BCHL in WP No.222 of 2015.486Events and submissions of BCHL in Writ Petition No.1150 of 2015 referring to Section 14 Application.517Submissions and Judgments in Writ Petition No.2486 of 2015, to set aside the auction and the sale.578Judgments in opposition, and in additional in above Writ Petition No.2486 of 2015 by ITC.599Basic submissions of IFCI/ITC and supporting Judgments.59 COMMON REASONS 10Scheme and object of the Act.6511BCHL prayers and reliefs in respective petitions revolving around the property (Park Hyatt Hotel).7712 Description of the Immovable Properties including of Agriculture and moveable ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Decided on : Mar-17-2016
F.M. Reis, J. 1. Heard Mr. G. Agni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. P. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 and Mr. D. Lawande, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 3 and 4. 2. The above Writ Petition seeks for a direction inter-alia to quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 10.07.2014 and 30.10.2014 and the impugned notices dated 31.10.2011 and 20.11.2013 issued under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (herein after referred to as the SARFAESI Act ) being illegal and bad in law. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case as stated by the petitioners are that the petitioner no.1 appointed one Mr. Ajay Verma, proprietor of M/s. Aesquire Estates to develop a plot of land belonging to the petitioner no.1. The said Mr. Ajay Verma availed a loan from the respondent no.1 by offering a security of the petitioners' land with building. The...
Tag this Judgment!