Mumbai Court March 1995 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.
Deputy Director of Health Services, Nasik and anr. Vs. Sau. Latabai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1995
Reported in: 1995(4)BomCR241; (1996)IIILLJ602Bom
1. By this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is impugned an Award of the Industrial Court, Nasik, dated March 1, 1989 made in Revision Application (ULP) No. 141 of 1988 under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') 2. The Respondent was employed in the Health Department and working as Auxilliary Nurse and Midwife at Dhule. She retired from service on March 6, 1978 on the medical ground that she was unfit to continue to work. She was also paid invalid pension by the Dhule Zilla Parishad, Dhule. In July, 1986 the respondent was given reappointment with effect from October 19, 1985 as by that time she had taken medical treatment and was cured of the reason which had made her invalid for further service. 3. By a letter of appointment dated July 18/21, 1986 the Respondent was appointed as Auxilliary Nurse and Midwife on temporary, basis. Strangely, ...
Union Bank of India Vs. M/S. MittersaIn Rupchand and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Bom371; 1995(4)BomCR256; 1995(2)MhLj481
ORDERM. L. Pendse, Actg. C.J.1. An interesting question as to whether the tenancy rights and the goodwill of the running concern can be attached in execution under Order 21, Rule 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure falls for determination in this appeal preferred by decree-holder to challenge the order dated February 8, 1994 passed by executing Court on Chamber Summons No. 563 of 1991. To appreciate the question only few facts are required to be set out.The appellants/decree-holder instituted Suit No. 1975 of 1988 on June 7, 1988 for recovery of Rs. 5,83,828.50 inclusive of interest. The suit was instituted as a summary suit and the defendants/respondents were granted conditional leave to defend on deposit of certain amount. The defendants failed to deposit the amount consequently decree came to be passed on March 20, 1989. As the amount was not paid, except the sum of Rs. 54,391.29, the appellants preferred execution application No. 229 of 1989 on September 14, 1989. The appellants soug...
Jayavant Yaswant Raut Vs. Simplex Mills Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1995
Reported in: [1995(71)FLR1031]; (1996)IIILLJ598Bom
1. This Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order of the Industrial Court, Bombay, dated September 10, 1987 made in appeal (IC) No. 73 of 1986 under Section 84 of the Bombay, Industrial relations Act. 1946, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. 2. The petitioner was employed in the First Respondent's service from 1972 in the Drawing Department and was getting Rs. 700/- as his last drawn wages. From January 18, 1982 here was a general strike in the Cotton Textile Industry called by an unregistered union, Maharashtra Girni Kamgar Union. Though the strike was called by an unrecognised union not registered under the provisions of the Act, it received wide response from the employees in the Cotton Textile Industry. A large number of employees were thrown out of service with scant regard being paid to principles of natural justice or any procedure under the law and the Standing Orders. The Petitioner appears to be one such victim. 3. According ...
Rajendra Shripat Ahire Vs. R.V. Tukdeo, Presenting Officer, Labour Cou ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1995
Reported in: (1998)IIILLJ463Bom
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an Award of the Labour Court, Nasik, dated 30th January, 1989 made in Reference (IDA) No. 113 of 1982 under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. By the order dated 9th December, 1979, the petitioner was appointed as a temporary worker for the period 9th December 1980 to 15th March, 1980, due to the increase in work which was said to be of a temporary nature. On 16th March, 1980 the Petitioner was served with an order which stated that the period of his temporary employment was extended from 16th March 1980 to 15th June, 1980 since the work for which he had been appointed still existed. On 3rd June 1980 the Petitioner's service was terminated as no longer required on the ground that the temporary work for which he had been appointed came to an end and there was no other work which could be provided to him. On 10th March 198...
Pandurang Kashinath Wani Vs. Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T.C., Dhule ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-1995
Reported in: (1996)ILLJ540Bom
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order of the Industrial Court, Nasik, dated 7.10.1988 made in a joint order in Revision Application (ULP) No. 106 of 1988 and Revision Application (ULP) No. 125 of 1988, under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The First Respondent is the Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Dhule and the Second Respondent is the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation which does the business of transport of passengers by its buses. The petitioner was employed in the service of the Second Respondent as Bus Conductor from 25.4.1968. On 27.3.1985 the Petitioner was working as Conductor on a bus of the First Respondent plying from Hanumantapada to Sakri. When the Inspector checked the passengers for their tickets and also the weigh-b...
Shankar S/O Namdeo Kharat Vs. Namdeo S/O Ashru Kharat (Mali) and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-1995
Reported in: 1996(2)BomCR473
R.M. Lodha, J.1.By this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking to challenge the legality and correctness of the order dated 27-12-1989 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur (for short, the 'M.R.T.') whereby the M.R.T. allowed the revision application filed by the respondent No. 1 herein and set aside the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mehkar on 24-3-1986 and restored the order passed by the Tahsildar on 11-10-1985.2. The only contention raised by the learned Counsel for petitioner in support of the writ petition is that revision application filed by the respondent No. 1 herein before the M.R.T. against the order dated 24-3-1986 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer was not maintainable under section 111 of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (for short, the 'Tenancy Act of 1958'). In support of his contention, Mr. Patil the learned Counsel for petitioner relied upon ...
Nandakishore S/O Nathmal Lakhotia Vs. Satyanarayan S/O Birdichand Chau ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1995
Reported in: 1995(4)BomCR406; (1995)97BOMLR142; 1995CriLJ3335; 1995(2)MhLj202
ORDER1. Heard. Shri Gilda, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that though the non-compliance of the judgment and decree passed by this Court on 22-9-1994 is not a civil contempt within the meaning of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, yet on the basis of the judgment of Apex Court in Firm Ganpat Ram Rajkumar v. Kalu Ram, : AIR1989SC2285 , the respondents have committed the contempt by not complying with the judgment and decree passed by this Court on 22-9-1994. 2. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner has himself conceded that the non-compliance of the judgment and decree by the respondents is not a civil contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, ordinarily, question of hearing the petitioner further in the matter would not have arisen, but since the learned counsel for the petitioner has strongly relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Firm Ganpat Ram v. Kalu Ram (cited supra), the observations made in the said judgment may be adverted to find out that du...
Punjab Sakharam Raut and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ4021
B.U. Wahane, J.1. This criminal appeal is directed by the appellants/accused against the judgment and order dated 27th March, 1992, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Washim convicting both the accused for the offence punishable under Ss. 306, 498A read with S. 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing both the appellants/accused to suffer R.I. for 5 years for the offence punishable under S. 306 and for 2 years for the offence punishable under S. 498A r/w S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, in Sessions Trial No. 83/91. The learned trial Judge ordered the substantive sentences to run concurrently. 2. The facts giving rise to the prosecution of the appellants/accused and the present appeal, in brief, are as follows : The appellant/accused No. 2 is the mother of the appellant/accused No. 1 Punjab Sakharam Raut. Both the appellants are residing at village Bhera. Both were joint in mess and were residing along with other members of the family. Deceased Sunita was married to the appellant/ac...
Balaram Balayya Vs. R. K. Textile (P) Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1995
Reported in: 1995(4)BomCR253; [1995(71)FLR467]; (1997)IIILLJ512Bom; 1995(2)MhLj611
1. These three writ petitions arising out of the same set of facts and law, and from a common judgment of the Industrial Court, Bombay, challenge the order of the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Bombay, dated November 16, 1988, made in appeal (IC) No. 168 of 1988, Appeal (IC) No. 169 of 1987 and Appeal (IC) No. 170 of 1987 and, therefore, can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The facts which are common to all the three writ petitions are : the First Respondent in each of these writ petitions is a processing unit engaged in manufacturing activities in the Textile Industry in Bombay covered by the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). With effect from November 23, 1983, the workmen were not given any work when they reported for work at scheduled times and that they were refused work with an endorsement 'NW' (no work) made on their attendance cards. This situation continued for some time. Thereafter these four wor...
Maharashtra State Transport Workers Federation (intuc) Vs. Maharashtra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1995
Reported in: [1995(71)FLR424]; (1996)ILLJ474Bom
ORDERVyas, J.1. The petitioner - Trade Union, which is a Federation of Trade Unions, has filed the present petition challenging the order dated 16th February 1995 passed by the Industrial Court recognising the 1st Respondent-Trade Union under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The greave men of the charge in the petition is that the application made by the 1st Respondent on which the impugned order has been passed, was not in accordance with the requirements as laid down under the provisions of Section 11 and 19 of the said Act; that the 1st Respondent-Union (hereinafter referred to as 'the applicant Union') did not have minimum required membership of 30% and that the Industrial Court had no jurisdiction to grant recognition to more than one undertaking as it has been done by the Industrial Court. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present petition are required to be stated in order to appreciate t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »