Mumbai Court April 1995 Judgments
Smt. Mandabai Wd/O. Milind Sontakke and anr. Vs. P. Rajendra Prasad an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-26-1995
Reported in: II(1996)ACC351; 1995(4)BomCR421
H.W. Dhabe, J.1. This is an appeal by the claimants for modification of the award of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, (for short 'the Claims Tribunal) by claiming that the entire compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of accident till realisation as claimed by the claimants in their Claim Petition before the learned Claims Tribunal under section 110-A(1)(b) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (under section 166(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) should be directed to be paid to them.2. The facts are that the appellant No. 1 is the widow of one Shri Milind Sontakke who died on 8-5-1989 as a result of an accident with a truck bearing No. AEK 6496 owned by the respondent No. 1 and insured with the respondent No. 2. The appellant No. 2 is the son of the appellant No. 1 and the deceased Milind Sontakke and was hardly aged about 1 year at the time of the accident of his father. On the date of the accident i.e. 8-5-1989 the deceased Milind S...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Filomena Guilherme Furtado Vs. Depty Collector and Sub-divisional ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-25-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Bom32
ORDERChandrashekhara Das, J.1. The petitioner and the respondent No. 2 were the candidates for the Village Panchayat elections in the villages of Merces held on 29-10-1991 in Ward No. 6. There were only these two contestants in that ward. The petitioner got 157 votes and the 2nd respondent got 15 votes and with the margin of 1 vote the 2 respondent was declared elected. The while the counting was going on, the Returning Office rejected 4-ballot paper on the ground that the votes recorded therein were void for uncertainty. Accordingly to the petitioner, out of these 4 votes, 2 votes which were voted in favour of the petitioner, were voted in favour of the petitioner, were wrongly rejected by the Returning Officer as the marking of the seal was overlapping a little the borderline of the ballot paper. He contended that the major portion of the seal was in the column signifying his candidature. The petitioner then field election petition before the 1st respondent. On behalf of the 2nd resp...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of India Vs. Trade Aid Paper and Allied Products (India) Pv ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-25-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Bom268; 1995(4)BomCR278; (1995)97BOMLR577; [1996]85CompCas453(Bom); 1995(2)MhLj81
ORDERPendse, Actg. CJ.1. The State Bank of India is a Banking Company incorporated under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 and carries on business all over the country through its various branches. The respondent No. 1 is a Private Limited Company and is owner of Industrial gala bearing No. 116, Shiv Shakti Industrial Estate, Ghatkopar, Bombay. The respondent No. 1 sought diverse credit facilities from the appellant-Bank and the facilities were granted on November 18, 1991. The facilities granted were :(a) Demand Cash Credit against hypothecation of stocks for Rs. 50 Lakhs,(b) Demand Cash Credit against hypothecation of book debts for Rs. 55 Lakhs,(c) Bill discounting limit for Rs. 25 Lakhs,(d) Import and Inland Letters of Credit for Rs. 75/ Lakhs,(e) Bank Guarantee Limit for Rs. 10 Lakhs.The respondents Nos. 2 to 9 stood as guarantors for repayment of loan amounts by respondent No. 1. The respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are individuals, while respondents Nos. 5 to 8 are Companies and resp...
Tag this Judgment!M.S.E.B. Workers Federation, Pune Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Bo ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-25-1995
Reported in: (1998)IIILLJ293Bom
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenges an order dated 11th October, 1989 made by the Industrial Court, Pune, in a Complaint (ULP) No. 311 of 1984 dismissing the complaint under the provision of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The petitioner is a trade union representing the employees of Nominal Muster Roll (N. M. R.), who were working in the Civil Construction-cum-Maintenance Department of the First Respondent-Electricity Board at Pune. 3. By Circular issued on 12th September, 1984, the First Respondent-Board directed the Superintending Engineer, Civil Circle, Pune, to terminate the services of 8 of the workmen working in the Civil Division. Pursuant to the said direction, the 8 workmen working in the Civil Division were removed from service. 4. The petitioner filed a complaint before the Industrial Court, Compla...
Tag this Judgment!V.K. Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gunjotikar V.B. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-25-1995
Reported in: (1997)IIILLJ1151Bom
1. This Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an ex-parte order dated February 17, 1987 made by the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 121 of 1986 and an order dated April 11, 1990 made by the Industrial Court in Misc. Application (ULP) No. 3 of 1987 refusing to set aside the ex-parte order. The 2nd Respondent Union has not appeared despite service. 2. Complainant (ULP) No. 121 of 1986 was filed by the 2nd Respondent Union against the petitioner alleging unfair labour practice under Item 6 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In substance, the allegation was that the Petitioner company had effected an illegal lock-out with effect from January 16, 1986 as against the four workmen named in paragraph 3(a) of the Complaint by refusing to give work to them continuously from January 16, 1986. A declaration to that effect ...
Tag this Judgment!V.A. Sabastian Vs. Jaya Hind Sciaky Ltd. (India)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-25-1995
Reported in: (1996)IILLJ15Bom
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. This writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns an award (Part-11) dated December 20, 1988 made by the 2nd Labour Court, Pune, in Reference (IDA) No. 106 of 1988 (New) (Reference (IDA) No. 244 of 1983 (old) under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')2. The Petitioner is an ex-employee who was working in the service of the 1st Respondent in its establishment at Chinchwad, Pune. On March 15, 1982 the Petitioner was served with a charge- sheet in which it was alleged that on March 9, 1982 between 9.30 to 10 a.m. he was found idling away his time by sitting on a table instead of working at his work place and was reprimanded by Foreman Tiwari to go to the place of his work and carry on his job. It was alleged that the Petitioner refused to obey the instructions and arrogantly replied to Tiwari that he would not do any work, nor go to his place of work. Even when advised by Assistant Manager ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhairulal Balmukund Verma Vs. Poonamchand Kasturchand Sancheti and anr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-25-1995
Reported in: 1996(2)BomCR267
R.M. Lodha, J.1. By this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the Order dated 31-3-1989 passed by the Resident Deputy Collector, Buldana, where by he set aside the order passed by the Rent Controller on 30-3-1988.2. Brief facts of the case are that the present petitioner Bhairulal Balmukund Verma (for short 'the landlord') made an application under Clause 13(3)(ii), (iii) and (vi) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (for short 'the Rent Control Order') against respondent No. 1 Poonamchand (for short 'the tenant') and Mangilal Kisanlal Khatti (for short 'the alleged sub-tenant'). It was inter-alia averred in the application by the landlord that he was the owner of the property situated on Plot No. 6, Sheet No. 19, Station Road, Malkapur, and he had let out two shops in the said property, the details of which have been given in the application, to the tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 81/- ...
Tag this Judgment!Syndicate Bank and ors. Vs. S.S. Printers and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-25-1995
Reported in: 1995(3)BomCR429; (1995)97BOMLR269
A.P. Shah, J.1. The aforesaid three bank suits are placed before me in view of objection raised by the Prothonotary and Senior Master that the said suits embrace two or more distinct subjects having regard to the provisions of Section 18 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 ('Act', for short), each such subject is liable to be charged separately and since the ad valorem fee for each subject is much more than Rs. 15,000/-, which is the maximum amount of Court fees payable on the plaint under proviso to Schedule 1, Article 1 of the Act, the plaintiffs are liable to pay Court fee of Rs. 15,000/- on each subject separately.2. Mr. Tulzapurkar, Ms. Rege and Mr. Patel, learned Advocates appearing for the plaintiffs, submitted that the objection raised by the Prothonotary and Senior Master is completely misconceived. According to the learned Advocates, the suits as framed did not embrace two or more distinct subjects as ruled by the Prothonotary and Senior Master and that the provisions of secti...
Tag this Judgment!Barnabas Procupio George Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Though the Secretar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-25-1995
Reported in: 1996(5)BomCR68
E.S. Da Silva, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned District Judge, Margo. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned District Judge, Margo, dated April 11, 1990 in Civil Suit No. 117 of 1981 whereby the learned Judge dismissed the appellant's suit with costs.2. The case of the appellant is that he is a businessman dealing in readymade garments in the suit premises situated opposite to the Bank of India, Margao, under the name of 'George Garments'. The shop premises belongs to the Grace Church of Margao and was let out by the Church to one Vaman Falari. The appellant obtained the shop from said Falari on lease by an agreement dated March 6, 1975. Prior to that Falari had entrusted the running of the readymade garments business in the said shop to one Shri L.D'Souza on payment of royalty compensation under Agreement dated September 12, 1974 executed between Falari and D'Souza. At that time the business in the shop was being run under the name...
Tag this Judgment!Taher Ali and ors. Vs. Shivaji Education Society
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-25-1995
Reported in: 1995(4)BomCR654
R.M. Lodha, J.1. The applicants, who are the plaintiffs in the original Special Civil Suit No. 60 of 1987 pending in the Court of the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati, are calling in question the correctness of the order passed by the said Court on 24-6-1992, whereby the said Court allowed the application filed under section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the present non-applicant, who was the defendant in the suit, for staying the proceedings in Special Civil Suit No. 60 of 1987 till the decision in Second Appeal Nos. 381 of 1989, 382 of 1989 and 386 of 1989 by this Court.2. To appreciate the controversy involved in the case, few relevant facts leading to the present controversy may be noticed. The applicants (for short 'the plaintiffs') initially made an application under the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (for short 'the Rent Control Order') before the Rent Controller having jurisdiction over the matter to permit the plaintiffs to det...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »