Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(4)ALLMR46; 2004(1)BomCR88; 2003(4)MhLj423
C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. Rule. Mr. A.S. Rao, learned Counsel, appears and waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondents. In the facts and circumstances, the matter is taken up for final hearing.2. This petition is filed by the petitioner for quashing and setting aside proceedings initiated by the respondents against the petitioner, vide charge-sheet dated January 12, 2001 issued by the Commissioner of Kalyan-Dombivli Municipal Corporation, respondent No. 2 herein, as the same are illegal, unauthorized, without jurisdiction and non est.3. The case of the petitioner is that he is holding the post of Assistant Municipal Commissioner in respondent No. 2 Corporation. Several allegations had been levelled against him and 17 charges were framed. An inquiry was initiated by respondent No. 2 who appointed enquiry Officer to conduct departmental enquiry against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report to respondent No. 2 on 9th January, 2003 and final notice as to why the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1959Bom320; (1959)61BOMLR220; ILR1959Bom952
Chagla, C.J.1. This appeal raises several important questions concerning the provisions of the new Companies Act of 1956. The facts which are necessary to state are very few. The appellant, who is also the petitioner, is the managing agent of a limited company called the Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. On 15-11-1954 the Registrar of Companies called for an explanation from the Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd., and the Registrar stated in his letter that it had been represented to him under Section 137(6) of the Indian Companies Act that the business of the company was carried on in fraud and he had therefore to call upon the company to furnish the information which he required which was set out in the latter part of the letter. On 15-4-1955 the Registrar made a report to the Central Government. This report was made under Section 137(5) of the old Companies Act and the report was that the affairs of the company were carried out in fraud of contributories and he was of the opinion that the affairs ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1970Bom413; (1970)72BOMLR320; 1970MhLJ780
1. These two appeals arise out of almost identical facts and raise a common question of law for decision. They arise out of two applications filed by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') before the Employees' Insurance Court, Bombay, (hereinafter referred to as the 'E. I. Court'), under Section 75(2) of the Employees' 'State Insurance Act, 1948 (Act 34 of 1948, hereinafter referred to as 'The Act'). The application leading to A.O. No. 5 of 1968 was against Messrs. Popular Process Studio and its proprietor Mukund Kashalkar for the recovery of Rs. 1567.63 as employees' contribution for the period from August 19, 1959, to August 31, 1964, and was filed on. January 25, 1965, while the application leading to A.O. No. 6 of 1968 was against Messrs. Dawn Mills Co. (Ltd.) and its Director Ramniwas Ram Narayan for the recovery of Rs. 7252.13 as employees' contribution for the period from October 3, 1954, to March 31. 1960, and was filed on Jun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1975Bom143; (1974)76BOMLR455; 1974MhLJ698
Tulzapurkar, J. 1. The question that has been referred to us for our decision by the Division Bench is as follows:'Whether the Officers on Special Duty appointed under the Maharashtra Government Notifications dated 11th March, 1969 are Courts within the meaning of the Contemplated of Courts Act, while discharging their duties under the Act'.2. The question arises in these circumstances: Respondent No. 3 Kumbhi Kasari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. is a Co-operative Sugar Factory of which the petitioners and respondents Nos. 4 to 16 are the members. Triennial election to the Board of Directors of respondent No. 3 was held on 18-11-1970 under the Election Rules framed in that behalf at which two of the petitioners and respondents Nos. 4 to 14 were the contesting candidates. The result of that election was declared on 19-11-1970 in the General Body Meeting of respondent No. 3 held on the date and respondents Nos. 4 to 13 held on that date and respondents Nos. 4 to 13 were declared elected ...
Tag this Judgment!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 impugned judgment and order dated 9.7.2013, by which his Complaint (ULP) No.5/2008 has been dismissed. 3. The petitioner is a Civil Engineer. He has been issued with a show cause notice on 30.3.2007. He retired on 1.4.2007 on attaining the age of superannuation. A chargesheet setting out the charges against the petitioner is dated 24.7.2007, which is obviously issued after the retirement of the petitioner. 4. The issue, therefore, raised before this Court is as to whether disciplinary proceedings can be initiated after the retirement of an employee. The issue raised is no longer res integra in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of UCO Bank and another v. Rajinder Lal Capoor (AIR 2007 SC 2129). 5. Considering the above, having heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides at length on 7.12.2015 and again today, I am to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1997(1)BomCR303
B.U. Wahane, J.1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Shirishkumar Rangrao Patil, has questioned the legality, propriety, justifiability and bona fides of the order dismissing the petitioner from the post of Civil Judge, Junior Division/Judicial Magistrate, First Class, passed on 2-3-1994, by the respondent No. 1.2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner after obtaining the Degree of Bachelor of Law from Marathwada University at Aurangabad, enrolled himself as an Advocate and started legal practice at Parola in District Jalgaon from 9th June, 1980 till 19th February, 1984. He was appointed as Police Prosecutor and worked as such from 20th February, 1984 to 30th April, 1988 in Jalgaon District in the courts at Yawal and Ravel as also in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate at Jalgaon. On being selected by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission for the post of Civil Judge, Junior Division-cum-Judicial Magistrat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2005CriLJ2714
ORDERN.A. Britto, J.1. Heard. Admit. By consent heard forthwith.2. This revision is directed against the Order dated 18-11-2004 of the learned Special Judge , Margoo, by which the learned Special Judge has ordered the framing of the charge against the applicant/accused under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.3. The accused is a public servant who, at the relevant time was working as a Garrison Engineer, Project (P), Naval Works (NW), Vasco. The allegations against the accused is that on or about 19-8-2002 the accused demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 5000/-from Shri Umesh Salgaonkar, partner of M/s. S. K. Salgaonkar and Bros., Vasco, Goa, as motive or reward for recommending the extension period for completion of the works of construction for the Navy at Nofra, Goa, and, on 20-8-2002 accepted same, pursuant to the said demand.4. At the time of framing of the charge by the learned Special Judge in Special Case No. 5/2003, the accused...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1985Bom136; 1985(1)BomCR108; (1983)86BOMLR506; 1985MhLJ54
Dharmadhikari J.1. the petitioner had applied for an appointment to the post of Honorary Paediatruician in the District Hospital at Dhule in pursuance of an advertisement issued by the Government of Maharashtra on 27th February 1984. According to him, the State of Maharashtra had constituted a Selection Board as per the rules contained in the Maharashtra Honorary Medical Officers ( Recruitment and Condition of Service) Rules, 1976. The Selection Board scrutinised the applications of three candidates viz. the petitioners, respondent No.2 Dr. Mudholkar and one Dr. Vikas Sonawane. They were also called for interview on 30th April 1984. The petitioner was selected by the said Selection Board and was thereafter appointed to the said post, vide appointment letter, sated 12th April 1984. He joined his duties as an Additional Honorary Medical Officer on 13th April 1984. Thereafter he received another letter from the Government of Maharashtra, dated 17th April 1984, informing him that in view o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1956Bom483
ORDERCoyajee, J.1. This petition is presented against an order of the Government of Bombay dated 11-3-1955 directing removal of the petitioner who was a Superintendent of Excise on suspension, from Government service with effect from that date. With that order was appended the approval of the Public Service Commission.The petitioner joined the Excise Department in 1934 and he had served with a certain amount of efficiency and had risen to the rank of a Superintendent by 1948. On 4-2-1948 he was served with an order suspending him from service until further orders. There is no doubt that no preliminary enquiry was held prior to his suspension. But it has been held that no serious challenge can be made to the order suspending him pending further enquiry.It appears however that apart altogether from this suspension on 11-3-1948, that is when he wag under suspension, he was arrested by the Police and investigations were ordered against him. After nearly 14 months of investigation the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(1)MhLj97
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.Introduction1. Marcus Tullius Cicero, a great orator and Roman Attorney said, 'The solidity of a State is very largely bound up with its judicial decisions'. The stability of State governance is relatable to the status of public law and order in the State. Protection to person and property of State subjects is the primary obligation of the State and this is the great significance of administration of criminal justice delivery system. Criminal jurisprudence governing the law of crime primarily has two concepts like any other legal jurisprudence:(i) Substantive criminal law; and(ii) Procedural criminal law.Provisions of substantive criminal law which are primarily penal in nature are subjected to rule of strict interpretation, while those relating to procedural law are guided by rules of plain and liberal interpretation. The Court, in the present cases, is concerned with the application of rules of interpretation to the procedural law particularly relating to the fie...
Tag this Judgment!