Mumbai Nagpur Court August 2010 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.
Birla Cotsyn (India) Ltd.Vs. Tarachand S/O Chiranjilal Sharma, Aged 53 ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-26-2010
1. Challenge in all this three writ petitions is to identical orders passed by Labour Court appeal by Industrial Court in revisions. All complaints are under Section 28 of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ULP Act). Contention of Employer Petitioner in short in all matters is Labour Court or Industrial Court could not have gone into the question of disputed status of respective respondent no.1 in all these Writ Petitions as these courts under Section 28 exercise summary jurisdiction. Hence, only when relationship of employer and employee is either undisputed or indisputable, the jurisdiction can be exercised. Looking to the nature of controversy and at the request of parties, matters have been heard finally at admission stage by making Rule returnable forthwith.I have heard Shri V.R. Thakur with Shri H.V. Thakur, learned Counsel for Employer/Petitioner and Shri S.D. Thakur with Shri P.S. Kshirsagar, l...
M/S. Sanwal Coal Carriers, Through Its Proprietor,vs. Western Coalfiel ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-26-2010
1. The challenge in this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India is to order styled as interim award dated 25/3/2010 by arbitrator in dispute between petition and respondent. Dispute arose out of contract for driving payloaders and tippers for loading coal into trucks/tippers from ground stock and its transportation. By consent of parties it has been referred to sole arbitrator Mr. B. R. Harne on 20/7/2009 under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter to as "the Act" hereafter). It is not necessary to go into controversy leading to stoppage or termination of that contract. For present purposes, it is necessary only to note the case of petitioner that Chief General Manager of respondent on 20/3/2006 issued a notice to petitioner to resume work within 15 days and before that on 11/3/2006 work was given to another transporter who started it. It is the case of petitioner that report of committee constituted by respondent regarding imposition of penalty...
Smt.Mumtajbi Wd/O Sheikh Amir Aged About 50 Years, Vs. Rahimtulla S/O ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-24-2010
1.This Second Appeal is filed by the original defendant in Regular Civil Suit No.1646 /1989 which was dismissed by learned 20th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur on 10.2.1994. The said suit which was for specific performance of contract was dismissed by the trial Court. The unsuccessful plaintiff had challenged dismissal of suit by filing Regular Civil Appeal No. 202/1994 which was heard and decided by learned 8th Additional District Judge, Nagpur who, by impugned judgment and order allowed the appeal and decreed the suit by setting aside the judgment and order by the trial Court.2. The appeal was admitted on substantial question of law as to whether the first Appellate Court committed an error in holding that the agreement dated 15.8.1986 has been duly proved.3. It is submitted in support of the appeal that the respsondent Rahimatullah had committed murder of the appellant's husband and for that offence he was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Under the circumstances...
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pandit Nagorao Ade, Aged About ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-13-2010
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties by consent.2. By the First Appeal No.446 of 2010, the appellants have challenged the judgment and award passed on 24.3.2009 in M.A.C.P. No.100 of 2001 and M.A.C.P.No.40 of 2004. The subject matter of the First Appeal No.1441 of 2009 is also the same common judgment and award. While by First Appeal No.1399 of of 2009, the appellant is challenging the judgment and award dt. 30.3.2009 passed by the M.A.C.T. Pusad in M.A.C.P.No.41 of 2004.3. The grievance of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, after it held the owner and driver of the offending motor vehicle liable to pay compensation to the claimants ought not to have directed the appellant/Insurance Co. to satisfy the award at the first instance and thereafter, to recover the amount of compensation paid from the owner and/or driver of the offending motor vehicle concerned with the accident in question.4. Learned Counsel for the appellant...
Mohammed Anis Ul Haq S/O Manzul Ul Haq, Aged About 33 Years, Vs. Asma ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-12-2010
1.By this writ petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner husband has challenged the order dated 01.10.2009 passed by Family Court No. 4, Nagpur in Petition No. A889/2008 below Exh. 16, directing him to pay interim maintenance of Rs.2,500/ per month to the respondent wife from 15.07.2009. The matter was initially presented as Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 read with Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code and on 04.03.2010, it has been converted into a Writ Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India.2. Looking to the nature of the controversy, Shri Qureshi, learned counsel for the petitioner husband and Shri Shams, learned counsel for the respondent wife, requested that the matter should be taken up for final hearing. Accordingly, the parties have been heard by making rule returnable forthwith. 3. The marriage between the parties was solemnized at Nagpur as per Islamic Law on 22.12.2006. The respondent wife has filed Petition No. ...
Baliram S/O Ramaji Ghate, Aged About 78 Years, Vs. 1] State of Maharas ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-12-2010
1] The Question referred to this Full Bench for consideration is :"Whether the State can, in respect of the land though covered at the relevant time under the provisions of the ULC Act, but acquired subsequently under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, call upon the expropriated land holder to furnish an undertaking as contained in the communication dated 31.3.2006 that he will not seek enhanced compensation under the Land Acquisition Act ?"2] The issue arose in a Writ Petition filed by the expropriated landholder challenging the condition sought to be imposed by the Government that compensation would be released and remitted to him under the award only if he gave an undertaking to the effect that he would not seek its enhancement under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.3] The facts which give rise to the question are as follows : The landholder holds land which was liable to be declared surplus under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (he...
Dr. PravIn Balisingh Raghuwanshi, aged about 40 years, Vs. State of Ma ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-12-2010
1.Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of parties.2. By this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 30.04.2009 passed by the Hon'ble Chancellor and his Excellency The Governor of Maharashtra, Sant Gadge Baba Amravati University and a Notification dated 08.05.2009 issued by Respondent No. 3 in consequence thereof. The Hon'ble Chancellor is Respondent No. 2 in the present matter. Respondent No. 2 has by the impugned order declared nomination of the petitioner to Board of Examinations under Section 31(3)(f) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by Respondent No. 4 Vice Chancellor, invalid. The nomination has been done by invoking powers under Section 14(7) of the above Act by Respondent No. 4 Vice Chancellor.3. Respondent 6 Shri Santosh Madhavrao Thakre filed Writ Petition No. 4560 of 2005 before this Court challenging Notification ...
Rajendra S/O Ramkrishna Golait Aged About Major. Vs. Kalawati Wd/O Sit ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-11-2010
1. Heard.2. By means of this appeal, the appellantowner of the offending motor vehicle bearing Registration No: MH 31 H:8203 challenges the interim award which was passed under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1966 ( in short "the said Act") on the ground that the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur ( in short "the Tribunal") wrongly exonerated the insurer Company from joint liability to pay compensation in the sum of Rs. 50,000/ on the basis of "no fault liability". Mr S.S.Deshpande, learned Advocate for the appellant invited my attention to copy of the insurance policy and pointed out that alleged offending motor vehicle MH31 H : 8203 was insured with Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, for the validity period covering the date of accident. According to him, the period of insurance was from 12.6.2007 to 17.6.2008 and the accident had occurred on 13.6.2007 at 1630 hours. That being so, prima facie, insurer and owner of the vehicle were jointly an...
Shri Suresh Krishnaji Lakudkar, Aged : 52 Years,vs. State of Maharasht ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-11-2010
1.On 24.06.2010, after hearing respective Counsel this Court noted that Writ Petition No. 4839 of 2009 is connected with the subject matter involved in Writ Petition No. 4474 of 2008, and that Writ Petition was already admitted for final hearing. Accordingly, Writ Petition No. 4839/2009 was also directed to be listed for final hearing along with Writ Petition No. 4474/2008. Petitioner and respondents in both the matters are same and CLIII license issued to petitioner under the provisions of Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 forms the subject matter of both the Writ Petitions.2. In Writ Petition No. 4474/2008, prayer of petitioner is to quash and set aside the order dated 08.08.2008, whereby he was called upon to clear the arrears of license charges amounting to Rs. 5,25,000/. The petitioner also seeks quashing and setting aside of communication dated 18.03.2008 informing him that he has to clear those arrears for the years 2000 to 2004. The reminder issued on 30.05.2008 therefor is also que...
Smt.Tulsabai Wd/O Ramkrishna Avatade Aged About 51 Years, Vs. Smt. Raj ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-11-2010
1.This Second Appeal was admitted on 24th September, 2009 on the following substantial question of law :"Whether the counterclaim for specific performance of contract could be said to be barred by limitation?"2. This Appeal is at the instance of original defendant no.1 challenging the judgment and order dated 17th July, 2008 passed by learned District Judge1 at Pandharakwada in Regular Civil Appeal No.77/2003 which was dismissed. The said appeal stems from judgment and decree passed on 3rd September, 2001 by learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Yavatmal in Special Civil Suit No. 95/1991.3. The plaintiff had instituted the suit for possession, damages and costs of the suit on the ground that the plaintiff is the owner of the land bearing Gat No. 53 ( Old S.No. 34) admeasuring 4H 31R situated at village Khadaki, Taluqa: Maregaon, Dist. Yavatmal. The suit land was originally allotted in favour of one Shri Rajkumar Punyani, husband of the plaintiff some in 196768, by the Government....
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »