w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Pallavi Shriram Disle v/s The State of Maharashtra & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- MAHARASHTRA CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = L71100MH1982PLC028750

    Writ Petition No. 9228 of 2013

    Decided On, 29 July 2015

    At, In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDRA V. GHUGE

    For the Petitioner: P. Gude Madhav, Advocate. For the Respondents: R2, D.S. Bagul, Advocate.



Judgment Text

1. Heard.

2. Rule.

3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal.

4. Shri Gude, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that a false charge was levelled upon the petitioner and based on the same, the charges set out in the charge sheet dated 10.6.2010 are held to be proved. A second show cause notice, along with the Enquiry Officer's report, proposing the punishment of dismissal from service was served upon the petitioner.

5. The petitioner, therefore, filed Complaint (ULP) No. 58 of 2010 before the Labour Court, Latur under Section 28(1) read with items 1(a), (b), (d) and (f) of Schedule IV of the the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 ('the said Act'). An application for interim relief under Section 30(2) of the said Act was filed. By the order dated 11.1.2012, the Labour Court allowed the interim application Exhibit U-2 and stayed the second show cause notice, dated 29.11.2010, thereby, preventing the respondent MSRTC from awarding any punishment to the petitioner.

6. The MSRTC preferred Revision (ULP) No.24 of 2012 before the Industrial Court, challenging the interim order of the Labour Court. By its judgment and order dated 10.10.2013, the Revision Petition was allowed and the interim order of the Labour Court was set aside. The application for interim relief was, therefore, rejected.

7. Shri Gude submits that the evidence on record is not sufficient to conclude that the charges have been proved against the petitioner. The Bus passengers, who had stated a particular weight of their luggage for which the petitioner issued luggage tickets, have not been examined in the enquiry. In the absence of any evidence from the passengers, the charge of misappropriation on the ground of issuing lesser luggage tickets, disproportionate to the fare applicable for the weight of the luggage, cannot be said to have been proved.

8. He further submits that there are seven family members, dependent upon the petitioner. Her employment as a Bus Conductor is the only source of income. Under the ex-parte ad-interim orders of the Labour Court, she was protected. Subsequently, by the interim order dated 11.1.2012, the proposed punishment was stayed. Even after the Industrial Court allowed the Revision Petition of the respondent MSRTC on 10.10.2013, she was protected. By order dated 7.11.2013 in this petition, passed by the Vacation Court, the petitioner was further protected. Shri Gude, therefore, submits that this protection be continued and the Labour Court be directed to decide the Complaint within one month.

9. Shri Bagul, learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent MSRTC submits as under:-

(a) That the petitioner was appointed as a Bus-Conductor on 9.7.2009 at the age of about 21 years.

(b) In the third month of her appointment on 12.10.2009, she was charged with having committed a misconduct and was inflicted with the punishment of fine of Rs.100/- by order dated 29.10.2009.

(c) In the sixth month of her employment, she was charged with misappropriation on 21.1.2010, having sold used tickets. Her three annual increments were permanently stopped by an order of punishment dated 31.3.2010.

(d) On the same date 21.1.2010, despite being a lady Bus Conductor and not having been appointed as a Bus Driver, she drove the MSRTC Bus. She did not even have a driving license. By order of punishment dated 30.1.2010, fine of Rs.50/- was imposed on her.

(e) In her eighth month of service on 12.3.2010, she was charged with misappropriation. By order of punishment dated 30.4.2010, she was issued with a severe warning.

(f) On 6.5.2010 and 5.6.2010, she was charged with misappropriation.

(g) The punishment order is yet to be issued as she was again charged with misappropriation by charge sheet dated 10.6.2010, which is subject matter of this litigation.

10. Shri Bagul, therefore, submits that in less than one year of her appointment, she was punished for four misconducts and the seventh misconduct is a subject of this litigation.

11. Shri Bagul further submits that the Reporter of the MSRTC recorded the statements of three passengers, who were travelling from Beed to Paranda. The petitioner claims that she issued such tickets, which were commensurate to the fare to be charged for the luggage as declared by the passengers. Shri Bagul submits that it was the duty of the petitioner to measure the luggage and issue an appropriate luggage ticket. The petitioner or for that reason any Bus Conductor is not expected to rely on the mere statement of the passenger and issue the luggage ticket. It was noticed in the surprise check that was carried out 5.6.2010 that the petitioner had an excess of Rs.117/- with her.

12. He then submits that the Reporter was examined in the enquiry and who has corroborated the statement of the passengers which were recorded. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of this petition.

13. It is undisputed that the petitioner is charged with misappropriation. It is the seventh episode in her service of eleven months with the respondent MSRTC.

14. The Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. Ashok Vishnu Kate and others [AIR 1996 SC 285], while concluding that the Labour Court has the jurisdiction under item 1 of Schedule IV of the said Act to entertain a challenge to the proposed punishment even at the penultimate stage, has struck a note of caution. Paragraph No.53 of the said judgment reads as under:-

'53. Before parting with this case, however, we must strike a note of caution, as has been done by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court. It could not be gainsaid that the employers have a right to take disciplinary actions and to hold domestic enquiries against their erring employees. But for doing so, the standing orders governing the field have to be followed by such employers. These standing orders give sufficient protection to the concerned employees against whom such departmental enquiries are proceeded with. If such departmental proceedings initiated by serving of charge-sheets are brought in challenge at different stages of such proceedings by the concerned employees invoking the relevant Clauses 7 of item I of schedule IV before the final orders of discharge or dismissal are passed, the Labour Court dealing with such complaint should not lightly interfere with such pending domestic enquiries against the concerned complainants. The Labour Court concerned should meticulously scan the allegations in the complaint and if necessary, get the necessary investigation made in the light of such complaint and only when a very strong prima facie case is made out by the complainant appropriate interim orders intercepting such domestic enquiries in exercise of powers under Section 30(2) can be passed by the Labour Courts. Such orders should not be passed for mere askance by the Labour Courts. Otherwise, the very purpose of holding domestic enquiries as per the standing orders would get frustrated.'

15. It is, therefore, evident that the Labour Court, before interfering with the proposed punishment, is expected to meticulously scan the allegations in the Complaint and if necessary get the necessary investigation made in the light of such complaint. Only when a very strong prima facie case is made out, it may intercept the domestic enquiry even while exercising powers under Section 30(2) of the said Act. The Apex Court has observed that, 'Such order should not be passed for mere askance by the Labour Court. Otherwise the very purpose of holding domestic enquiry as per the Standing Orders would get frustrated.'

16. Upon going through the order of the Labour Court, dated 11.1.2012, I am constrained to observe that the Labour Court has disregarded the note of caution issued by the Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Lever (supra). From the impugned order it does not appear that the Labour Court can be said to have meticulously scanned the enquiry proceedings. There is no reference to the past service record of the petitioner, which is highly blemished. The Labour Court has also lost sight of the fact that the petitioner has put in only one year of service.

17. This Court in the matter of Bajaj Auto Limited Vs. Kalidas Deoram Patil [1999 (3) Mh.L.J. 857], has considered the effect of a clean past service record and a blemished past service record. In the instant case, the past service record is self explanatory.

18. In the above backdrop, the Labour Court was obliged to consider whether a very strong prima facie case has been made out by the petitioner before it could have allowed application Exhibit U-2. As such, the Industrial Court has rightly arrived at a conclusion in the impugned judgment that the conclusions of the Labour Court are perverse and unsustainable.

19. This Court, in the matter of Usha Nagorao Phad Vs. Divisional Controller, MSRTC, Latur - Writ Petition No.4001 of 2014, vide its judgment dated 6.5.2014 has considered a similar case. The ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Janatha Bazar (South Kanara) Vs. The Secretary, Sahakari [AIR 2000 SC 3129] , was also considered and the respondent / employer was, therefore, permitted to proceed in accordance with law in relation to the disciplinary proceedings concerning the petitioner. Paragraph Nos. 6 to 8 of the Janatha Bazar judgment (supra), reads as under:-

'6. As stated above, the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench in writ appeals confirmed the findings given by the Labour Court that charges against the workmen for breach of trust and misappropriation of funds entrusted to them for the value mentioned in the charge-sheet had been established. After giving the said findings, in our view, the Labour Court materially erred in setting aside the order passed by the Management removing the workmen from the service and reinstating them with 25% back wages. Once act of misappropriation is proved, may be for a small or large amount, there is no question of showing uncalled for sympathy and reinstating the employees in service. Law on this point is well settled. [Re.: Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh v. Krishnan Behari and Ors. [1996 2 SCR 827]. In U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Basudeo Chaudhary and Anr. : (1997) 11 SCC 370 this Court set aside the judgment passed by the High Court in a case where a conductor serving with the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation was removed from service on the ground that alleged misconduct of the conductor was attempt to cause loss of Rs. 65/- to the Corporation by issuing tickets to 23 passengers fro a sum of Rs. 2.35 but recovering @ Rs. 5.35 per head and also by making entry in the way-bill as having received the amount of Rs. 2.35, which figure was subsequently altered to Rs. 2.85. The Court held that it was not possible to say that Corporation removing the conductor from service has imposed a punishment which is disproportionate to his misconduct. Similarly in Punjab Diary Development Corporation Ltd. and Anr. v. Kala Singh and Ors. (1997) IILLJ 1041 SC, this Court considered the case of a workman who was working as a Diary Helper-cum-Cleaner for collecting the milk from various centers and was charged for the misconduct that he inflated the quantum of milk supplies in milk centers and also inflated the quality of fat contents where there were less fat contents. The Court held that "in view of proof of misconduct a necessary consequence will be that Management has lost confidence that the workman would truthfully and faithfully carry on his duties and consequ

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ently the Labour Court rightly declined to exercise the power under Section 11A of the I.D. Act to grant relief with minor penalty. 7. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, the High Court materially erred in confirming the directions given by the Labour Court in reinstating the respondent-workmen with 25% back wages. For giving the aforesaid direction, the Labour Court considered that there is no evidence regarding past misconduct by the employees and, therefore, it can be observed that they have rendered several years of service without any blemish and to some extent, there was lapse on the part of the Management. 8. In case of proved misappropriation, in our view, there is no question of considering past record. It is the discretion of the employer to consider the same in appropriate cases, but the Labour Court cannot substitute the penalty imposed by the employer in such cases.' 20. In the light of the above, I do not find that the impugned judgment of the Industrial Court could be termed as being perverse or erroneous. The Industrial Court has rightly set aside the interim order of the Labour Court dated 11.1.2010. This petition is, therefore, devoid of merits and is dismissed. 21. Rule stands discharged accordingly. No order as to costs.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

19-06-2020 Vishwas Utagi & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-06-2020 Komal Hiwale Versus State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India
12-06-2020 Mahesh Sambhaji Chafle Versus The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station Officer, Akheda Balapur, Tq. Kalamnuri, Dist. Hingoli In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
09-06-2020 M/s. Thakur Stone Quarries through its Partner Munesh Hotilal Thakur Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-06-2020 Vishnupant Motba Kesarkar Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-06-2020 Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Versus Principal, College of Engineering, Pune High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-06-2020 Sahyog Homes Ltd. Versus State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
02-06-2020 Sachin @ Satish Versus The State of Maharashtra & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
01-06-2020 Citizen Forum for Equality, a registered NGO, vide registration no:-MH/645/11, through its President Madhukar Ganpat Kukde Versus The State of Maharashtra, through its Chief Secretary, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
29-05-2020 The State of Maharashtra through Public Prosecutor, High Court, Bench at Aurangabad Versus Prabhakar Karbhari Ghatmale & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
26-05-2020 State of Maharashtra Versus Mangesh & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
26-05-2020 Bhagtam & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
26-05-2020 Abhinav Bharat Congress & Another Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
26-05-2020 Ms. X Versus State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
22-05-2020 Mohiuddin Vaid Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
22-05-2020 Grant Medical Foundation Ruby Hall Clinic, Pune Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
15-05-2020 Yogesh Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Chief Secretary, School Education & Sports Department, Mantralaya & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
15-05-2020 A.P. Suryaprakasam Versus Superintendent of Police, Sangli District, Maharashtra & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
15-05-2020 The State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Agriculture, Animal Hubandary, Dairy Development & Fisheries Department, Mantralaya & Another Versus Madhukar Suryabhan Ingale In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
15-05-2020 Amalner Municipal Council, Amalner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
08-05-2020 Chandrakant Kotecha Charitable Trust Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
08-05-2020 Pratik & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Mahur Dist. Nanded & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
05-05-2020 Zafar Jamal Khan Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-05-2020 Shekhar @ Mukesh Sanadi Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-05-2020 Shobha Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya Annexe, Mumbai & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
04-05-2020 Pradeep Gandhy Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others Supreme Court of India
03-05-2020 Mohammad Nishat Versus The State of Maharashtra through its Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
30-04-2020 Mohan Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through : The Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
30-04-2020 Syed Salim & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantrayalay & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
30-04-2020 Shivray Kulkarni & Others Versus State of Maharashtra &Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-04-2020 Sardar Manjieeth Singh Jagan Singh Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
30-04-2020 Babu Bhairu Ovhal & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-04-2020 Gajanan Shahu Keripale Versus The State of Maharashtra Through The Secretary, School Education & Sports Dept, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-04-2020 Natural Sugar and Allied Industries Limited & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary for Co-operation, Marketing & Textile Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
30-04-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Baban Gangaram Chirate & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
27-04-2020 Shankar Sarvotam Pai & Others Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
27-04-2020 Abuzar Shaikh Abdul Kalam Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
27-04-2020 Ajay Versus State of Maharashtra, through PSO In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
27-04-2020 Aishwarya Atul Pusalkar Versus Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority & Others Supreme Court of India
24-04-2020 Arvind Singh Versus The State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India
23-04-2020 High Court on its own motion Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
21-04-2020 Deodutta Gangadhar Marathe Versus The State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
15-04-2020 The Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
15-04-2020 Pankaj Rajmachikar Versus State of Maharashtra & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
15-04-2020 Mohammad Zakir Mohammad Bashir Solanki Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
08-04-2020 Nilesh Shriniwas Baswant Versus The State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India
08-04-2020 C.H. Sharma & Another Versus State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
08-04-2020 Sarva Hara Jan Andolan through Ulka Mahajan & Another Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
08-04-2020 Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University, Nagpur, Ravindranath Tagore Marg, through its Registrar & Another Versus State of Maharashtra, Department of Higher and Technical Education, Mantralaya, through its Secretary & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
08-04-2020 Shahid Bhagat Singh Cooperative Housing Society Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
27-03-2020 Azam Khan Versus The State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India
20-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Shankar Khandu Thombare & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
20-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Kondiba Bahiru Thambare High Court of Judicature at Bombay
20-03-2020 Professor Smt. Manorama Prakash Khandekar Versus The State of Maharashtra, Higher and Technical Education Department, through its Secretary, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
20-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Shivaji Shankar Bhintade High Court of Judicature at Bombay
18-03-2020 Manglam Roongta & Others Versus State of Maharashtra & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
18-03-2020 Ritesh Rajendra Thakur Versus State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra (Through – PI of Chavani Police Station, Malegaon, District - Nasik) Versus Dr. Baban Lahanu Gangurde & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-03-2020 Chetan Prabhakar Rajwade Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Tribal Development Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-03-2020 Rajendra & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
17-03-2020 Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited Through its Superintending Engineer, Admn. Versus M/.Pranavditya Spinning Mills Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-03-2020 CEAT Limited (formerly known as Ceat Tyres of India Ltd.) Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-03-2020 Jeevan Niwas Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra through Department of Co-operation & Textiles, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-03-2020 Bhavna Kisan Uradya & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, School Education Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
13-03-2020 Ram Pralhad Khatri & Others Versus State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
13-03-2020 Chirag Sundarlal Gupta Versus The State of Maharashtra (through Kurar Village Police Station High Court of Judicature at Bombay
13-03-2020 Nagrik Samanvya Samiti & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
13-03-2020 Sheetal Medicare Products Pvt. Ltd., Maharashtra Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Maharashtra & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-03-2020 Rajendra & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
11-03-2020 Ishwar & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Co-operation and Textile Department, Maharashtra State Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
11-03-2020 Nivrutti Versus The State of Maharashtra & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
11-03-2020 Dnyaneshwar Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education & Sports Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
11-03-2020 Sayyad Azim Sayyad Mnazur & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra Through Police Inspector In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
11-03-2020 New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Maharashtra & Another Versus Mohd. Nazir & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
09-03-2020 Milind Bhimsing Shirsath Versus The State of Maharashtra Through its Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-03-2020 Sanjay Devaji Ramteke Versus The State of Maharashtra, through PSO In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
09-03-2020 Kumari Shaikh Shashim Mhamulal Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-03-2020 Lahu Bhausaheb Sonwane Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Inspector & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
09-03-2020 Jaggu Sardar @ Jagdish Tirathsing Labana @ Punjabi Versus The State of Maharashtra (Through the Office of the Government Pleader, High Court, A.S. Mumbai) & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-03-2020 Hasina Siraj Shaikh Versus State of Maharashtra Secretary through Department of Secondary & Higher Secondary Education Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
06-03-2020 Dr. Nishigandha Ramchandra Naik Versus State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs Department Mantralaya & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
06-03-2020 Manohar Bhimraoji Mahalle & Others Versus State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
05-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Balaso Gulab Pendhari & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-03-2020 Vikrant Vikas Raikar, Proprietor of M/s. Elegant Constructions Versus State of Maharashtra, through Government Pleader & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-03-2020 Gopal Versus State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
05-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Shaikh Jabbarlal Mohamad High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-03-2020 Devyani Versus The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
05-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Anant Dattatraya Pashilkar High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-03-2020 Mohammed Aslam Azad Shaikh Versus The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary Home Department (Special) Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-03-2020 Dr. Anil D. Garje Versus The State of Maharashtra Through its Principal Secretary Higher & Technical Education Department Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-03-2020 Radhabai Gabaji Rokade Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-03-2020 Kishor Laxman Lonari, Convict No. C/52 Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Prison – 3, State of Maharashtra, Home Department, Mantralaya In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
04-03-2020 Ravindra Manik Shinde & Another Versus State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-03-2020 Haseena Babu Sanadi @ Haseena Rasul Tadwal Versus State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Social Justice & Special Assistance Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
03-03-2020 Sainath Annasaheb Waghchaure & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
03-03-2020 Dadarao & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
03-03-2020 Priyanka Versus The State of Maharashtra Through the Principle Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
02-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Shivaji Daulu Patil & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
02-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Mansing Shankarrao Mane & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
28-02-2020 Vikrant Prataprao Gaikwad & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary School Education Department Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay


LawyerServices is a Premium Legal Tech solution.


Lawyers, Law Firms, Government Departments and Corporates rely on us for, Workflow Automation, Data Aggregation, Timely Updates, Case Management, Intelligent Research, Latest Legal Data Updates and a LOT more!

If you are a legal professional, CONTACT US, in order to see how our UNIQUE solution can benefit your organization.

Features Intro Close Box