All Cases

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1836 OF 2009 Kashi Mitha Tandel. .. Petitioner. vs. Chief of Police, Nani Daman, & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr. Uday Warunjikar for the petitioner. Mr. R.M. More, APP., for the Respondent/State. CORAM : J. N. PATEL & A. A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 23RD NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C. : Issue notice to respondents returnable two weeks. Notice be sent by registered post A.D., in addition to usual mode of service. S.O. to 7.12.2009. ( J. N. PATEL, J.) ( A. A. SAYED, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No.1836/2009 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's Orders Mr Manoj Shirsat i/b Uday P. Warunjikar for the Petitioner. Mr D.A. Nalavade – for Union of India for Respondent No.1. Mr S.N. Gawate, A.P.P.,for the State. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE & A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 23RD MARCH, 2010 P.C. :- Mr Nalavade, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent, seeks three week's time to file reply affidavit. He may do so with an advance copy thereof to the advocate for the petitioner. Stand over to 12th April, 2010. (A.R.JOSHI,J.) (D.B.BHOSALE,J.)

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Writ Petition No.1836 of 2009 1 Smt.Kashi Mitha Tandel Petitioner Vs. Chief of Police, Nani Daman, Union Territory & ors. Respondents Mr.R.M.More i/b. Mr.U.P.Warunjikar for petitioner. Mr.J.P.Yagnik, APP for State. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. June 17, 2010. P.C. We are informed across the bar that Mr.Nalawade has been hospitalised and though affidavit of the police office is filed, a copy of the same has not yet been served on the learned counsel for the petitioner by Mr.Nalawade. Stand over for two weeks. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.) srk

Order - Status 17: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1836 OF 2009 Smt. Kashi Mitha Tandel ....Petitioner. Vs. Chief of Police, Nani Daman, Union Territory & Ors. ....Respondents. Mr. Uday Warunjikar a/w Mr. Rahul More for the Petitioner. Mr. D.A. Nalawade, Special P.P. for U.O.I. Mr. J.P. Yagnik, APP for the State. CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE : 8th July, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard Mr. Warunjikar a/w Mr.Rahul More, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. Nalawade, the Special P.P. for the Respondents. We have perused the affidavit in reply filed by Shri K.B. Mahajan, P.S.I., Khanvel in the Union Territory of Dadara and Nagar Haveli. 2 The affidavit clearly states that the report received from the Government Examiner, GEQD, Hyderabad dated 15/02/2010 supports, prima facie, the complainant's case. 3 Mr. Nalawade, further states that the affiant Shri K.B. Mahajan has been transferred and in his place Mr. M.R. Rohit, P.I. from Daman Police station, is the I.O.. We direct the I.O. to take further steps as required under the Criminal Procedure Code including filing of chargesheet under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Competent Court as expeditiously as possible and preferably before 7th August, 2010. 4 The Petition is disposed off in terms of the above directions. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.)

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8650 OF 2003 Union of India & Ors. ...... Petitioners. v/s Chandrabhan R. Shinde & Anr. ...... Respondents. Mr. Y.S. Bhate with Mr. N.R. Prajapati i/b Mr. K.B. Rao for the Petitioners. Mr. Saikumar Ramamurthy for respondent No.1. ----- CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & V.M. KANADE, JJ. DATE : 24th March, 2008. P.C.: By this Petition, the Petitioner - Union of India is challenging the judgment and order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.734 of 2001 whereby the application filed by respondent No.1 is allowed and the order dated 17/09/2001 which was passed by the Petitioner was quashed and set aside and it was held that the applicant/respondent No.1 was entitled to receive pension in view of revision of pension by the Vth Pay Commission. Brief facts in nutshell are as under:- The respondent No.1, initially, was working as Labour Officer in Western Railway with effect from 24/10/1952 to 20/09/1963. Thereafter, he worked as Labour Officer under the Chief Labour Officer and as Assistant Labour Officer from 1963 to 1979 and, thereafter, he joined the International Airport Authority which is a Public Sector Undertaking and came to be absorbed therein with effect from 02/04/1979. Some time in February, 1984 the respondent No.1 was sanctioned pro-rata pension of Rs 297/- per month by the Ministry of Labour with effect from 02/04/1979. Initially, the applicant opted to commute 1/3rd of his pension in February, 1984 i.e. Rs 99/- out of Rs 297 and received an amount of Rs, 14,671.80. On 24/03/1984, he again opted to commute balance 2/3rd of the monthly pension i.e. Rs 198/- and received Rs 29,343.60. Respondent No.1's services in Western Railway, however, were allowed to be counted for the purpose of pension and, consequently, pension was revised to Rs 498/- with effect from 02/04/1979 vide order dated 02/07/1985. Thereafter, in view of the IVth Pay Commission his pension was again revised with effect from 01/01/1986 to Rs 1138/- deducting Rs 297/- which he had commuted in 1984. After the Vth Pay Commission, the respondent No.1's pension was further directed to be revised vide order dated 29/07/1999 and it was revised to Rs 3,443/-. However the respondent No.1's pension was suddenly stopped by the order dated 04/10/2000 and, 2 therefore, he filed Original Application No.861 of 2000. The said Original Application was allowed by order dated 19/03/2001 and a direction was given to the petitioner to issue notice to the respondent No.1 and, thereafter, take a decision. Accordingly a fresh notice was issued to the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 filed his representation and, thereafter, the impugned order was passed against the petitioner. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner - Union of India submitted that the Tribunal had clearly erred in passing the impugned order. He submitted that the respondent No.1 having commuted his entire pension on 24/03/1984 was not entitled to get the revised pension. He invited our attention to Rule 6 of Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981 and also Rule 10 of the said Rules. The submission made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner cannot be accepted. It is apparent that what was commuted by the respondent No.1 was pension to the tune of Rs 297/- only and not the entire pension of Rs 498/-. The Tribunal has reproduced the application dated 24/03/1984 and on the basis of this application, the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the respondent No.1 never had any intention of commuting the revised pension of Rs 498/- per month. In our view, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. The 3 Tribunal, after having considered the relevant rules and the facts of the case, has recorded a finding in favour of respondent No.1. It is a well settled position in law that while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court is not entitled to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal of competent jurisdiction even if a wrong finding is given. In the present case, we are of the view that the finding recorded by the Tribunal has to be confirmed in view of the admitted position that the respondent No.1 had commuted total amount of Rs 297/- out of the revised pension of Rs 498/- per month and, as such, the respondent No.1 was entitled to the revision made by IVth Pay Commission and Vth Pay Commission on the said balance amount and the impugned order passed by the Petitioner - Union of India was, therefore, rightly set aside by the Tribunal. Hence, there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Under the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4666 OF 2005 Sangli Miraj Kupwad Cities Municipal ) Corporation, Sangli and another ).. Petitioners Versus Mahapalika Kamgar Sabha ).. Respondent Mr.N.V.Walawalkar for the Petitioners. Mr.S.M.Dharap with Mr.Helekar for the Respondent. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 21ST JULY 2005 P.C.: . Leave to amend. This Petition is directed against the order dated 4th April 2005 passed below Exhibit U-13 in Reference (IT) No.6 of 1996 by the Industrial Tribunal, Sangli. According to the Petitioners, the Reference was made between the Miraj Municipal Council and the Miraj Kamgar Union. However, the Miraj Municipal Council is now functioning as a Municipal Corporation and, therefore, according to the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, some of the demands which have been referred may not be applicable and cannot be decided by the Tribunal. He submits that, for instance, Demand No.8 is in respect of the permanency of workmen. The Corporation will now have to decide the seniority based on all employees and not just of Miraj Municipal Council. The Corporation is made up of several Municipal Councils and, therefore, seniority of all the employees will have to be determined. This submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners cannot be accepted. Permanency is a dispute which is between those specific employees and the Council which is now functioning as a Municipal Corporation. After these workmen are made permanent, it is always open for the Corporation to decide the inter-se seniority of all the workmen including that of other Municipal Councils who are now their employees. The other submission made on behalf of the Petitioners is that the Tribunal cannot decide the Reference in view of the new Corporation coming into existence by the merger of three Municipal Councils. It is submitted that the scope of the Reference is enlarged by incorporating the Petitioners as a party to the Reference. The Industrial Tribunal has considered the provisions of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 and has rightly not accepted this submission of the Petitioners. Hence, Writ Petition rejected.

Order - Status 5: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 8432 OF 2024 a/w INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 8433 OF 2024 IN FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 13269 OF 2024 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's order appearance, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's orders CORAM : SHRI S. R. AGRAWAL REGISTRAR (JUDL -II) DATE : 09/07/2024 Adv. Hafan Shaikh i/by S K Legal Associates LLP present for Applicant. Await service of notice for 06 weeks for respondent nos. 1 to 4. Sd/- REGISTRAR (JUDL-II) sat-R(J-II)-09.07.2024

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BEFORE THE NATIONAL LOK ADALAT CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.13269 OF 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.8432 OF 2024 IN FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.13269 OF 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.8433 OF 2024 IN FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.13269 OF 2024 The Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai ….Appellant Versus Shobha Arun Poojari And Ors. ….Respondents ********* Ms Swati Sawant, i/b. SK Legal Associates LLP, for the Appellant. Mr BM More, for the Respondents. ********* CORAM : : N R.N. LADDHA, J., HEAD OF THE PANEL H.M. BHOSALE, REGISTRAR, (JUDICIAL-I), MEMBER D.V. KUTE, DEPUTY REGISTRAR PERSONNEL, MEMBER DATE : 27th JULY, 2024. - P.C. : . In this appeal, the appellant seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 26 July 2023 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai, in Application No.2232 of 2016, whereby the appellant was directed to pay Rs.47,99,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum towards compensation to the respondents. Ms Swati Sawant, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr BM More, the learned Counsel representing the respondents, in unison, submit that during the pendency of the appeal, the parties have settled the dispute amicably and executed consent terms dated 27 July 2024, which have been placed on record. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had deposited Rs.72,48,816/- before the competent Court and has no objection to the respondents withdrawing Rs.50,00,000/- towards the settlement of their claim. Further, the learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents have agreed to settle their claim by accepting Rs.50,00,000/- and have no objection to the appellant withdrawing Rs.22,98,816/- deposited before the competent Court and Rs.25,000/- along with interest accrued thereon deposited before this Court towards statutory deposit. The consent terms are taken on record and marked as 'X' for identification. Given the foregoing, the present appeal is disposed of in terms of the consent terms. As agreed between the parties, the sum of Rs.50,00,000/- deposited by the appellant before the competent Court is permitted to be released in favour of the respondents. Likewise, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs.22,98,816/- deposited before the competent Court and Rs.25,000/- along with the interest accrued thereon, if any, deposited before this Court. In view of the disposal of the First Appeal, pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Accordingly, the Court fees be refunded as per rules. Deputy Registrar (Personnel) Member (D.V. KUTE) (H.M. BHOSALE) (R.N. LADDHA, J.) Registrar (Judicial-I) Member Head of the Panel