Mumbai Goa Court March 2013 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Ramdas Borkar, Rep. by Goa Shipyard Workers Union and Another Vs. M/S. ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-05-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri A.F. Diniz, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri M.S. Bandodkar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no.1. 2. The above petition challenges the order 24/04/2003 and award dated 1/07/2003 passed by the Industrial Tribunal at Panaji inter alia holding that the action of the employer/the respondent no.1 herein in terminating the service of their workman/petitioner herein with effect from 16/02/1984 is legal and justified. 3. Shri A.F. Diniz, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on three counts. It is his first contention that the first order dated 24/04/2003 being the findings on the preliminary issues no.1, 2 and 3 stand vitiated as according to him the inquiry which was conducted by the respondent no.1 is in breach of the principles of natural justice. It is further the contention of the learned Counsel that the petitioner was not even offered liberty of engaging an authorized representative to d...
Mormugao Stevedores' Association and Another Vs. Union of India, throu ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-04-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. By this petition which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are seeking the following reliefs: (a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a declaration and/or an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of a mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing and ordering the respondents nos. 1 to 3 herein, to forthwith forbear and desist themselves from in any way resiling or acting contrary to or in consistent with the provisions of the statutorily entered Memorandum of Settlement dated 4/2/1998; ( b) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or directions commanding the respondents nos.1 and 3 herein to forthwith implement and act in accordance with the Memorandum of Settlement dated 4/2/1998 including and to take steps and issue appropriate orders to give representation to th...
Sadannand Vaman Sadekar Vs. Manju Avinash Wardekar and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-01-2013
Oral Judgment:- Heard Shri M. B. Da Costa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri V. P. Thali, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The above appeal challenges the judgment dated 23.09.2009 passed by the learned District Judge, North Goa, Panaji, whereby the objections raised by the respondents herein to the award passed by the learned Arbitrator under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 came to be allowed (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1996). 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant claiming to be a partner of the partnership firm known as M/s Western India Service Centre filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge Senior Division, Ponda, inter-alia claiming that the letter of retirement obtained by the respondents from him was taken by undue influence at the time when the appellant was suffering from a heart ailment. The respondents disputed the said claim and inter-alia contended that there was an arbitr...
Harishkumar Sachdeva Vs. Smt. Madhavi JaIn and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-01-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri A. R. Kantak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri P. P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Shane Dias Sapeco, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.3. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith by the consent of the learned counsel. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents waive service. 4. The above petition challenges an order passed by the leaned Civil Judge Senior Division, Mapusa, dated 30.11.2012 whereby an application for amendment filed by the petitioner to amend the plaint came to be rejected. 5. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit against the respondents inter-alia seeking a direction to execute a deed of rectification to the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner and other reliefs. The suit came to be decreed by an ex-parte decree dated 12.01.1996. Thereafter, the respondents filed an application to set aside the ex-parte decree and ultimatel...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›