Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
U.D. Salvi, J. 1. These appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 31.12.2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-4, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No.307/2009. 2. Learned Additional Sessions Judge-4, Aurangabad convicted and imposed sentences on the appellants/ accused in Criminal Appeal No.19/2011 on different counts as under: i) The appellants/ accused in Criminal Appeal No.19/2011 were sentenced to suffer R.I. for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- each, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for six months each for commission of the offence punishable under Section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. ii) The appellant/ accused No.1 in Criminal Appeal No.19/2011 was sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, and in default of payment of fine to undergo further S.I. for one month for commission of the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. iii) The appellant/ accused No.2 in Criminal ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1.By this petition under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 petitioner seeks an order of injunction restraining the respondent in any manner utilizing the amount of Rs.14,59,19,989/- received by the respondent from encashment of the bank guarantee and for a direction to the respondent to secure the petitioner to the extent of the said amount by depositing the same in this court. The respondent has raised a preliminary objection about territorial jurisdiction of this court to entertain, try and dispose of the present petition filed under section 9 of the Act in its affidavit in reply. This court has thus directed both the parties to address this court on the preliminary objection raised by the respondent. Some of the relevant facts on this issue are as under: 2. By Piece Rate Work Contract executed on 16th June, 2010 at Chennai by and between the petitioner and respondent, the petitioner was awarded the project of construction of automotive test tracks at GARC, Chen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. By this petition under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 petitioner seeks an order of injunction restraining the respondent in any manner utilizing the amount of Rs.14,59,19,989/- received by the respondent from encashment of the bank guarantee and for a direction to the respondent to secure the petitioner to the extent of the said amount by depositing the same in this court. The respondent has raised a preliminary objection about territorial jurisdiction of this court to entertain, try and dispose of the present petition filed under section 9 of the Act in its affidavit in reply. This court has thus directed both the parties to address this court on the preliminary objection raised by the respondent. Some of the relevant facts on this issue are as under: 2. By Piece Rate Work Contract executed on 16th June, 2010 at Chennai by and between the petitioner and respondent, the petitioner was awarded the project of construction of automotive test tracks at GARC, Che...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: By this Summons for Judgment, the Plaintiff seeks to recover a sum of Rs.3,39,852/- with interest. The suit is based on Bill of Exchange drawn by the Defendant and is dishonoured on presentation. 2. The Plaintiff had granted this discounting facility to M/s.Biotor Industries Ltd. (Biotor) to the tune of Rs.50 crores so as to facilitate the payment to its vendors towards its supply of raw material and the goods. The Defendant had sold goods to the said M/s. Biotor. The Defendant and M/s.Biotor had agreed that in respect of such goods supplied by the Defendant to M/s. Biotor, the Bill of Exchange would be drawn by the Defendant, would be accepted by the said M/s. Biotor and thereafter would be discounted with the Plaintiff. Accordingly Plaintiff drew the Bill of Exchange on 23rd March, 2009 in the sum of Rs.3,39,852/. The said Bill of Exchange was accepted by M/s. Biotor. It is not in dispute that the said Bill of Exchange was thereafter discounted by the Defendant with th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: By this Summons for Judgment, the Plaintiff seeks to recover a sum of Rs.3,39,852/- with interest. The suit is based on Bill of Exchange drawn by the Defendant and is dishonoured on presentation. 2. The Plaintiff had granted this discounting facility to M/s.Biotor Industries Ltd. (Biotor) to the tune of Rs.50 crores so as to facilitate the payment to its vendors towards its supply of raw material and the goods. The Defendant had sold goods to the said M/s. Biotor. The Defendant and M/s.Biotor had agreed that in respect of such goods supplied by the Defendant to M/s. Biotor, the Bill of Exchange would be drawn by the Defendant, would be accepted by the said M/s. Biotor and thereafter would be discounted with the Plaintiff. Accordingly Plaintiff drew the Bill of Exchange on 23rd March, 2009 in the sum of Rs.3,39,852/. The said Bill of Exchange was accepted by M/s. Biotor. It is not in dispute that the said Bill of Exchange was thereafter discounted by the Defendant with th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. Rule. Counsel appearing for the respective respondents waive notice. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. The petitioners, by this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have prayed for order or direction restraining Respondent No.1 from holding the selection process for the post of Director by excluding them in the said selection process. 3. The petitioners are employed as professors in the respondent Veermata Jijabai Technological Institute. Respondent No.1 Institute is a premier Engineering College in the State of Maharashtra. The Institute is affiliated to the University of Mumbai. It has been conferred autonomous status for a period from 2011-2012 to 2016-2017 in accordance with the provisions contained in the Statutes 593 to 642 regarding grant of autonomous status to Affiliated College / Recognised Institution / University Department / University Institution. This is reinforced from the communication dated...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
N.M. Jamdar, J. 1. These petitions arise from the proceedings undertaken for validation of Caste Certificates. The two points that we have framed for our consideration are common in all these petitions and thus, these petitions are grouped together and are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The two points that arise for consideration are: A) Whether the composition of the Scrutiny Committees constituted by the State of Maharashtra by Government Notification dated 30.07.2011 for verification of caste certificates, is in consonance with the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of MadhuriPatil (I), 1994 (6) SCC 241 and Madhuri Patil (II), 1997 (5) SCC 437 and what is the legal status of the validity certificates granted by these Committees. B) Whether it is mandatory for the Scrutiny Committees to call for a field inquiry report from the Vigilance Cell constituted under the provisions of the Act and Rules, before granting validity certificates to the candidates and what is the lega...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. The fight over ownership of the shares of an airline, whose aircrafts ply at high altitude at sub zero temperatures, has generated a lot of heat and litigation which has led to the filing of these appeals. Both the Appeals are filed for challenging the Judgment and Order dated 4th May, 2011 passed by the Learned Single Judge (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J) in Execution Application No. 161 of 2009 with Chamber Summons Nos. 551/09, 729/09, 603/10 & 477/11 and Notice No. 734 of 2009 in Arbitration Award dated 12 April 2007. The Appellants in Appeal No. 345 of 2011 (Jet Airways (India) Limited) was the first Claimant, whereas the Appellants in the cross-Appeal No. 456 of 2011 (Mr. Subrata Roy Sahara & ors.) were the second Claimants in the proceedings of Arbitration to which a reference would be made in due course. 2. Initially, the second Claimants being the Appellants in Appeal No. 456 of 2011 (Appeal (Lodg.) No. 293 of 2011) had alone filed their Appeal and on 6th May, 2011, we had passed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the present matter is taken up for final hearing and disposal at the stage of admission itself. 2. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 01.11.2010, passed by the learned Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad, in Revision Petition NO. 6/B/2010/AN. 3. The particulars and events which are disclosed by the petitioner in this petition are as under. . The agricultural land bearing Gut No. 680(Old Survey No. 296) admeasuring 4H.23 R situated at village Telangshi, Tq. Jamkhed, District Ahmendagar, was initially owned and possessed by one Maruti Babu Jaybhaye. Maruti Babu Jaybhaye died on 13.7.1955 and the name of his legal heir, namely, Bhagwan @ Ganpati S/o Maruti Jaybhaye was recorded in the 7/12 extract vide mutation entry No.2300. . It is further contended that the said Bhagwan @ Ganpati is the father of petitioner and he was in actual possession ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
1. The tenant has questioned order dated 02.05.2011 passed in Misc. Civil Application No. 434/2011 and the judgment dated 28.02.2011 in Writ Petition No.132/2011, delivered by the learned Single Judge of this Court. Writ Petition was filed by the appellant / tenant challenging concurrent judgments and decrees of his eviction passed by the Small Causes Court, under Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1999 Act" for short) and the Appellate Court confirming it. The learned Single Judge accepted the contentions of tenant that both the Courts below have not considered whether partial eviction of tenant from premises would meet the needs of respondent / landlord. This requirement of Section 16[2] of the 1999 Act, is found to be not satisfied, hence the matter came to be remanded to the Appellate Court for recording additional evidence, if any, and to decide it after giving parties due opportunity. 2. This judgment dated 28.02.2011 was then questioned in Misc. ...
Tag this Judgment!