Advanced Search Results

Mahindra and Mahindra Vs. Suryabahn Avhad

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Labour and Industrial

Acts : Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - Sections 14A and 44; Evidence Act; Industrial Disputes Act - Sections 11A; Public Law; Constitution of India - Article 226

Reported in : 2007(4)BomCR118; 2007(6)MhLj436

Advocate for Respondent : Gayatri Singh, Adv.

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Rule. Respondent waives service. 2. By consent of parties, Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged an order dated 2.12.2006...

Empire Industries Ltd. (Garlick Engineering Division) a Company Incorp ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Labour and Industrial

Acts : Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2, 9A, 10(1), 10(3) and 25N; Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labor Practices Act; Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules; Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules; Revised Leave Rules; Civil Service Regulations; Civilians in Defence Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules

Reported in : 2005(5)BomCR308; (2005)IIILLJ313Bom

Advocate for Respondent : Gayatri Singh, Adv. for Respondent No. 3

D.B. Bhosale, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 9.2.2001 rendered by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the Writ Petition No. 6051 of 1995, filed against the order dated 23.9.1992...

Mahindra and Mahindra Limited Vs. Dwarkanath Babaji Dalvi and Mahindra ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Labour and Industrial

Acts : Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - Sections 44; Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2; Constitution of India - Articles 136, 226 and 227

Reported in : 2006(3)BomCR805; [2006(109)FLR747]; (2006)IIILLJ177Bom; 2006(4)MhLj88

Advocate for Respondent : Gayatri Singh and ;Apoorva Kaiwar, Advs.

V.C. Daga, J.1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the Industrial Court, Mumbai dated 25th October, 2005 dismissing the revision application preferred by the petitioner-...

Seth Industries Ltd. and ors. Vs. Aaifr and ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : SICA

Acts : Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 - Sections 3(1)

Reported in : [2009]149CompCas672(Delhi)

Advocate for Respondent : Gayatri Singh and ; P. Ramesh Kumar, Advs. for Aparna Bhat, Adv. for Woolen Kamgar Sanghatana, ;

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This writ petition challenges the order dated 25th May, 1990 of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (in short 'BIFR') and the order in appeal dated 27th May, 1992 passed by the...

M/S. Subhash Silk Mills Ltd. Vs. Mill Mazdoor Sabha and Others

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Labour and Industrial

Acts : Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - Sections 24, 28, 32, 59; Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227; Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1947; Evidence Act, 1872

Reported in : 2000(3)ALLMR424; 2000(4)BomCR226; (2000)2BOMLR639; [2000(86)FLR760]; (2000)IILLJ716Bom; 2000(4)MhLj246

Advocate for Respondent : Sailesh C. Naidu, Adv. i/by ;Manish Desai, ;Colin Gonsalves and ;Ms. Gayatri Singh, Advs.

ORDERF.I. Rebello, J. 1. The petitioners have approached this Court against the order dated 29th July, 1999 whereby the Industrial Court has allowed the Complaint (ULP) No. 2)4 of 1998 filed by the Mill Mazdoor Sabha,...

Mahindra and Mahindra Workers Union Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Labour and Industrial

Acts : Trade Unions Act, 1926 - Sections 28(1A)

Reported in : (2005)IIILLJ283Bom

Advocate for Respondent : Gayatri Singh, Adv. for Respondent No. 3

1. Heard Mr. Vaidya in support of this petition. Ms. Gayatri Singh appears for Respondent No. 3.2. Respondent No. 3 has raised a grievance with respect to the functioning of the Petitioner-Union. He claims to be...

Dr. Alok Kumar Singh and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Subject : Service

Acts : Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Service Commission Act, 1980

Reported in : 2002(3)AWC1859; [2002(93)FLR1079]; (2002)2UPLBEC1373

Advocate for Respondent : Awadhesh Kumar Singh, ;R.K. Singh, ;A.P. Pandey and ;H.R. Misra, Advs. and ;R.P. Shukla, S.C.

M. Katju, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. We have perused the writ petition, counter-affidavit and rejoinder-affidavits.3. The petitioners were appointed as ad hoc lecturers in pursuance of advertisement (copy of which is Annexure-1 to...

intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi Vs. State of A.P. and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Environment

Acts : Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas Development Act; Constitution of India - Articles 14, 19, 21, 48A and 51A

Reported in : AIR2006SC1350; 2006(2)ALT67(SC); (2006)4CompLJ513(SC); 2006(2)CTC71; JT2006(2)SC568; (2006)3MLJ201(SC); 2006(2)SCALE494; (2006)3SCC549; [2006] 2 SCR 419; 2006 INSC 101

Advocate for Respondent : V.R. ; Reddy, ; P.P. Rao, ; Jaideep Gupta, ;

AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Leave granted.2. The present matter raises two kinds of questions. Firstly, at a jurisprudential level, it falls on this Court to lay down the law regarding the use of public lands or natural...

Roppen Transportation Services Pvt. Ltd Vs. Union Of India

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Right to Information

Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA EXTRA-ORDINARY/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Special Leave Petition (Civil) No 3006 of 2023 (D No 2490 of 2023) Roppen Transportation Services Pvt Ltd .... Appellant(s) Versus Union of India & Ors ....Respondent(s)...

Ranjan Bhagwant Kedar and anr. Vs. Hmp Engineers Ltd. and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Labour and Industrial

Acts : Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - Sections 50; Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 - Sections 22(1)

Reported in : (2004)IIILLJ939Bom

Advocate for Respondent : A. Kharawala, Adv. for Respondent No. 1 and ;M. Kajle, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Petitioners seek a Writ of Mandamus directing respondent No. 4 to initiate proceedings against respondent No. 1 for recovery of Rs. 24,34,773/- mentioned in Recovery Certificate dated June 26, 1998. We are informed...