Mumbai Nagpur Court July 2011 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.
Gajanan S/O Tejrao Deshmukh Vs. the Additional Commissioner and ors.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-28-2011
1) Rule, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2) The above petition takes exception to the order dated 1/7/2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati in exercise of the revisional power under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. By the said order, the Revision filed by the respondent nos. 6 to 10 herein came to be allowed and the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Additional Collector came to be set aside. 3) Perusal of the impugned order discloses that in the penultimate paragraph of the said order, the Additional Commissioner has recorded that certain facts have not been considered, namely, that the petitioners before him, i.e. respondent nos. 6 to 10 herein were having ancestral right over the well as also easementary rights; that the civil Court's order is in favour of the said petitioners and that the Sale Deeds of the years 1956 and 1966 are having evidentiary value...
M/S Spentex Industries Ltd. Vs. Member, Industrial Court, Nagpur Templ ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-19-2011
1) Rule with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2) The above petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 08/11/2010 passed by the learned Industrial Court, Nagpur in Revision ULP No.173/2009, by which order the Revision Application filed by the petitioner came to be rejected and consequently the order dated 03/12/2009 passed by the learned 2nd Labour Court, Nagpur came to be confirmed. 3) Shorn of unnecessary details, a few facts can be stated thus. The respondent No.3 herein has filed Complaint ULP No.11/2009 alleging unfair labour practice against the petitioner under Item 1 (a), (b), (c), (d), (f) and (g) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as to the "said Act"). The complaint was filed at the intermediate stage when the Enquiry Officer, who had conducted the enquiry against the respondent No....
Viveck Goenka Vs. Raju Son of Kantilal Rangari and ors.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-19-2011
1. Heard. Admit. Heard forthwith by consent of parties. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the applicant prays for to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 11.9.2009 in Criminal (ULPA) No. 37 of 2009 whereby Judge, 4th Labour Court, Nagpur was pleased to issue process under Section 48 (1) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. 2. It appears that Criminal (ULP) No. 609 of 1998 before the Labour Court against (1) Indian Express Newspapers (Bom) Limited, Jagat Apartment, Ravi Nagar Square, through its Branch Manager and (2) Indian Express Newspapers (Bom) Limited, Express Tower, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021, through its General Manager seeking relief of reinstatement with continuity in service and full back-wages. That Complaint (ULP) was partly allowed by the Judge, 4th Labour Court, Nagpur vide judgment and order dated 4th February 2...
NitIn S/O Namdeorao Pimpalde Vs. Agriculture Produce Market and anr.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-18-2011
1) Rule, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2) The above petition takes exception to the order dated 19/5/2011 passed by the Industrial Court, Amravati whereby the Application for stay pending Revision Application (ULP) No.40/2011 filed by the petitioner came to be rejected. 3) The Complaint (ULP) filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Labour Court by the judgment and order dated 15/4/2011 against which the petitioner has gone in Revision before the Industrial Court under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. 4) It is an admitted position that an interim order had been operating in favour of the petitioner right throughout the pendency of the Complaint and was also operating for a period of two months in the above Revision Application pending consideration of the Application for stay. The said Application for stay has been rejected, inter alia, ...
The General Manager (Telecom) and anr. Vs. Zarir S/O Pesi Mawalwala an ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-15-2011
1) Rule with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2) The above petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India take exception to the order dated 20/01/2011, by which the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Nagpur answered the Reference, which was referred to it for adjudication, in favour of the workman i.e. the petitioner No.1 in Writ Petition No.3055/2011. 3) The petitioner No.1 in Writ Petition No.3055 was initially appointed on 21/01/1986 as casual labour with the Chief General Manager, Railway Electrification Project Telecom and thereafter he was transferred to the Divisional Engineer Telecom, Microwave (Survey) from the year 1989. He has worked with the respondent BSNL up to 25/06/1993 when he was given the temporary status by a letter dated 02/03/1988 under the provisions of the Casual Labourer (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme. It appears that by order dated 18/02/1989, regularized 69 ...
Manohar S/O Mahadeo Dande Vs. Manohar S/O Bhaskar Bhave
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-15-2011
1) Rule with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2) The above petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 14/06/2011 passed by the learned Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Nagpur, by which order the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the order of no cross dated 15th July, 2010 and for setting aside the order of closing the matter for judgment on 3rd December, 2010 came to be rejected. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner and his counsel were always remained present on the dates when the matter was fixed for cross-examination. However, on 15th July, 2010 the counsel was late in reaching the Court, as a result of which, the no cross order came to be passed against the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, filed the said application Exhibit-28 for setting aside the order dated 15/07/2010, which came to be rejected by the impugned order dated 14/06/2011. ...
Haribhau S/O Balaji Dhole and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-15-2011
1. As the challenge pertains to Land acquisition and interim orders are operating against the respondents, the matter has been heard finally by making Rule returnable forthwith at the request of Shri Parchure, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mrs. Dangre, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents No. 1 & 2 and Shri Dhatrak, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 - Public Trust for which the lands of the petitioners are being acquired. 2. Shri Parchure, learned counsel has pointed out that in in earlier Writ Petition No. 650 of 2001 filed by these petitioners challenging Notification dated 04.05.2000 under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the subsequent notification dated 01.02.2001 under Section 6 thereof and notices under Section 9 were also questioned. That writ petition was disposed of on 20.08.2009 by Division Bench of this Court after noticing that Section 5-A of Land Acquisition Act is in two parts and the later part which required proper application of ...
Suresh Jagannath Patil and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-15-2011
1. The petitioners before this Court are questioning the suspension of nominations to its Standing Committee by Municipal Corporation, Akola, in its meeting dated 28.02.2011 by Respondent No. 1 - State Government under Section 451 of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 1949 Act). The nominations have been made under Section 31-A(2) thereof. 2. After the petition was filed before this Court on 11.03.2011, this Court issued notices to the respondents and on 25.03.2011 ordered status quo till the hearing of the matter for admission. On 20.04.2011, the contention about Section 451 were noted and Respondents No. 1 & 2 then agreed to comply with the procedure under Section 451 and follow principles of natural justice. In view of this, the matter was kept pending and Respondents No. 1 & 2 were permitted to hear the petitioners. Accordingly, State Government passed further appropriate orders on 25.05.2011 and maintained its earlier order dated ...
Satish S/O. Dwarkaprasad Sharma Vs. the State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-12-2011
1. Heard Mr. Firdos Mirza, Adv. for the applicant, Mr.A.S.Parihar, A.P.P. for respondent no.1 and Mr.R.D.Bhuibhar, Adv. for respondent no.2. 2. By this application u/s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 2nd February, 2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kelapur, Distt. Yavatmal in Criminal Complaint Case No.14 of 2011. The learned J.M.F.C. appears to have directed police to conduct investigation in view of power u/s. 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. The learned Advocate for the applicant has contended that the trial Court failed to consider that the complaint is not maintainable and if entertained, it would amount to abuse of the process of law. It is also submitted that the procedure as contemplated u/s. 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Chapter XV of the Code ought to have been followed instead of directing the police to investigate u/s. 156 (3) of the Code of Crim...
Progressive Education Society and anr. Vs. Raju S/O Damodharrao Atakar ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-12-2011
1. Rule, with the consent of the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The above petitions involve identical facts and issues and therefore are being heard together and disposed of. By the above petition, the petitioners are challenging the orders passed by the School Tribunal on the ground that the Appeals are not maintainable. 3. Facts involved in the above petitions in brief can be stated thus - 4. The petitioner no.1 herein is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act and is also a Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act. The petitioner - Society runs three schools and one Primary School in respect of which grant-in-aid is received from the State Government. The petitioner also runs three primary schools on no-grant-basis. The respondent no.1 in each of the above petitions are working with the petitioner No.2 - Primary school which is, admittedly, receiving grants from the State Government. On account of certain acts committed by the respondent...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »