Mumbai Court August 1994 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.
Maharashtra General Kamgar Union Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1994
Reported in: 1995(3)BomCR206; (1995)ILLJ841Bom
Appeal admitted. Shri Dixit on behalf of the State Government and Shri Bhatt on behalf of Respondent No. 2 waive service. By consent, appeal taken on board and called out for hearing. Heard counsel. 1. The question which falls for determination in this appeal is about the exercise of powers of review under Sub-section (5) of Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The facts which gave rise to the dispute are not controverted and are required to be briefly set out to appreciate the grievance of the appellants. M/s. Vazir Glass Works Ltd. - respondent No. 2 is an undertaking which has a factory at Andheri, Bombay and which employed about 750 workmen. On August 14, 1992 the Company filed an application before the State Government seeking permission to close the undertaking with effect from November 16, 1992 in accordance with provisions of Section 25-O of the Act read with Rule 82-B of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules 1957. Section 25-O of the Act sets out the procedure f...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Pankaj A. Gupta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1994
Reported in: 1995(1)BomCR353; [1995(70)FLR169]; (1995)ILLJ780Bom; 1994(2)MhLj1661
Vishnu Sahai, J. 1. The appellant aggrieved by the order dated 1-10-1987 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, IIIrd Court, Kalyan in C. C. No. 3340/86 dismissing its complaint for the prosecution of respondent No. 1 under section 14(2A) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 read with Employees' Family Pension Scheme, 1971 framed thereunder, has come up in appeal before me. 2. I have perused the impugned order and heard Mr. Vaidya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant at considerable length. In my opinion, this appeal deserves to be dismissed for two reasons : Firstly, because section 14AC of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 makes it mandatory that without the previous sanction of the Central Provident Fund Commissioner or such other persons who are empowered to grant it no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act. Section 14AC reads thus :- '14AC. Cognizance a...
Vijay Baburao Kamble Vs. Madhukar Sarpotdar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1994
Reported in: 1995(2)BomCR53; (1995)97BOMLR867
M.S. Rane, J.1. This petition is being disposed of on an application submitted by and on behalf of the 1st respondent under section 86(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'the said Act') for non-joinder of the necessary party, namely Subhash Martand Parkar, one of the duly nominated candidates for the constituency in question and who was later on appointed as Election Agent, after he withdrew his nomination, by returned candidate, - the 1st respondent herein, and who acted as an Election Agent for the 1st respondent, as mandated by the provisions of section 82(2) of the said Act.2. This petition is filed in the year 1990. Recording of the evidence is over. The application in terms aforesaid is moved at the stage of its arguments.3. Although a detailed reference in respect of factual aspects may not be necessary for the purpose of disposal of this application, certain facts as are considered relevant and necessary have be...
The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and ors. Vs. L.K. Builders
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1994
Reported in: 1995(4)BomCR606
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay has preferred these appeals against order dated 31st January, 1979 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes in Municipal Appeals Nos. M/78 to M/88 of 1977. The learned Additional Chief Judge took the view that the sub-plots referred to in the judgment under appeal should be rated notionally for the purposes of fixation of rateable value. These appeals pertain to fixation of rateable value by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay in respect of plots reserved for college, cemetery, play-ground, recreation ground, municipal hall, garden, school, etc. The Assessor and Collector had fixed the rateable value of all these reserved plots by adopting the value thereof at Rs. 12/- per square meter and computing 9% return of such value as the basis for fixing of rateable value. The learned Additional Chief Judge fixed the rateable value of all these plots which were subject matter of above referr...
Chandrakalabai and ors. Vs. Dhyaneshwar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1994
Reported in: II(1995)ACC154
R.M. Lodha, J.1. The unfortunate mother and two brothers of deceased Sanjay s/o Marotrao Khekde have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 aggrieved by the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur on 23.12.1983 in Claim Petition No. 23 of 1981 Smt. Chandrakalabai and Ors. v. Dhyaneshwar and Ors. whereby the said Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 32,400/- to the claimants.2. In the claim petition filed by the mother and the two brothers of deceased Sanjay before the Tribunal, it was averred that on 3.12.1980 after attending the school, Sanjay went to see a movie in Vayusena Nagar in the afternoon and when he was going on bicycle with other friends, near Vayusena Nagar Square, a matador bearing No. MHG-6592 dashed Sanjay's cycle and as a result thereof Sanjay died. matador MHG-6592 was being driven at that time by the respondent No. 1 Dhyaneshwar and the said matador belonged to the respondent No. 2 and ...
Shri Damodar Jaidev Chodankar Vs. Shaileja V. Tamba and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1994
Reported in: I(1995)ACC623
G.D. Kamat, J.1. This appeal is by the original claimant who got a nil Award made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Panaji in Claim Petition No. 39/87.What made the Tribunal reject the claim petition instituted by the appellant is that the appellant did not prove that the accident he met with had been caused by rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No. 2, driver. The Tribunal however, ad castellan assessed the compensation and held that in the event the appellant had succeeded in proving rashness and negligence on the part of the respondent No. 2 driver, then the appellant would have been entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-.2. Appellant asserted in the claim petition that he was working as a Cleaner in respect of a goods carrying truck bearing Registration No. GDZ-7266. According to him, this truck was employed for bringing earth from the quarry at San Pedro to be dumped for the new road in the making at Merces, Ilhas, Goa. According to him, he came as a Cleaner o...
Sk. Samsher S/O Sk. Ramzan Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1994
Reported in: 1996(1)BomCR64; 1995CriLJ1411
M.B. Ghodeswar, J.1. The petitioner Sk. Samsher son of Sk. Ramzan has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order of his detention passed by the Respondent No. 2, the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur on 8th December, 1993 under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The copy of grounds (Annexure No. 2) dated 8-12-1993 was served upon the petitioner on 10-12-1993. It is stated in the grounds that since the year 1982 the petitioner was continuously engaging himself in the commission of violent and desperate acts such as committing murder, robbing and threatening people at the point of knives and swords etc. He was also externed twice from the municipal limits of Nagpur City and Nagpur district for two years each time vide externment orders dated 25-5-1982 and 15-10-1984 respectively. The petitioner repeatedly violated the externment order and entered into the City and committed g...
Yeshwant S/O Natthuji Meshram Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1994
Reported in: 1996(5)BomCR358; 1995CriLJ2228; 1995(1)MhLj48
R.M. Lodha, J.1. In the cover of the public interest litigation filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought directions for entrusting the investigation in Crime No. 97/94 registered at Jaripatka Police Station, Nagpur relating to rape and murder of maid servant Manorama Kamble to the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short, 'C.B.I'). 2. According to the averments made in the writ application, the petitioner is Corporator of the Nagpur Municipal Corporation and he claims to be a social worker and belongs to scheduled caste community being Mahar by caste and is fighting for the cause of people as their representative. The writ petition is entirely based on the newspaper reports. The petitioner has alleged in the writ petition that the investigating agency is not proceedings with the investigation in the right earnest and in an impartial manner, because of involvement of some VIPs including the members belong to the judiciary and they are influencing...
Employees' State Insurance Corporation and another Vs. Shri Nasik Panc ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1994
Reported in: (1997)IIILLJ777Bom
1. The Employees' State Insurance Corporation has filed this appeal against the order dated July 25, 1984 passed by the Employees Insurance Court, Nasik in Application (EST) No. 2 of 1982. 2. The question arising in this appeal is as to whether the Nasik Panchavati Panjarapole carries on manufacturing process with the heap of power at its establishment. 3. The Respondent filed an application before the trial Court under Sections 75 and 77 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 for a declaration that the Respondent was not liable to pay any amount towards contribution demanded by the Deputy Regional Director of Employees' State Insurance Corporation as demanded by his Letter No. MHR/SRO/ IMS/33-5753 of 1965 dated December 7, 1982. In the said application the Respondent (Original Applicant) contended that the Respondent was not a factory within the meaning of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. 4. The Appellants filed the written statement in response to the said application. ...
Ramjee Jaisingh and Company Vs. R.K. Meshram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1994
Reported in: [1995(70)FLR122]; (1997)IIILLJ737Bom
M.L. Pendse , J. 1. Appeal admitted. Shri Kochar waives service on behalf of Respondent No. 1. Name of Respondent No. 2 deleted. By consent, appeal taken on board and called out for bearing. Heard counsel. 2. The short question which falls for determination is from what date the employee is entitled to benefit prescribed under Section 17-B of Industrial Disputes Act. The Central Industrial Tribunal passed Award dated November 22, 1990 granting reinstatement with full backwages from January 1, 1987 in favour of the workman. The employer preferred Writ Petition No. 2619 of 1991 to challenge the legality of the Award. The petition was summarily dismissed by the learned Single Judge and that order was confirmed by Division Bench in appeal. The order of summary dismissal was set aside by the Supreme Court and the proceeding were remitted back for reconsideration. After remand, the learned Singal Judge admitted the petition and granted interim relief staying the ward of reinstatement. 3. The...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »