Mumbai Court April 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.
General Employees Union Vs. Ambassador Sky Chef and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-1995
Reported in: 1995(4)BomCR596; [1995(71)FLR602]; (1996)IIILLJ610Bom
1. This Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an Award dated December 17, 1988 made by the 1st Labour Court, Bombay, in Reference (IDA) No. 376 of 1983 under Section 10(1) read with Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The first Respondent is a division of a limited company known as 'Narang International Hotel Pvt. Ltd.,' which exclusively carries on the business of catering for airlines. The Petitioner is a registered trade union, which represents the workmen employed by the first Respondent. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition on behalf of one Salvador Vaz, an ex-employee of the First Respondent (who shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the workman'). 3. The workman joined the service of the Respondent on 1st January, 1978 as a Hamal in the Washing Department of the First Respondent. The main work carried out in the Washing Department is the washing and cleaning of utens...
Abbott Laboratories (India) Ltd. Vs. Jamdar J. D. and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-1995
Reported in: 1995(3)BomCR425; (1997)IIILLJ1101Bom; 1995(2)MhLj122
This group of four Writ Petitions under Article 226 arises out of complaints filed under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 ('Act', for short) by the Abbott Laboratories Employees' Union ('Union', for short) and the Abbott Laboratories (India) Ltd. ('Company', for short). By two separate judgments, the Industrial Court, Bombay, while dismissing Complaint (ULP) No. 387 of 1991 filed by the Company and Complaint (ULP) No. 462 of 1991 filed by the Union, allowed Complaints (ULP) Nos. 336 of 1991, 461 of 1991 and 848 of 1991 all filed by the Union. 2. The facts leading upto these complaints out of which these petitions arose, are long and complicated and have been related in the judgments delivered by the Industrial Court. No useful purpose will be served by repeating them, since the only question agitated before this Court is whether the Industrial Court was right in disposing of the complaints solely on the basis of the affidav...
Vishwanath Kashinath Virkar and ors. Vs. Nitinchand Keshavji Gala and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-1995
Reported in: 1995(3)BomCR525; (1995)97BOMLR280
G.R. Majithia, J.1. Vishwanath Kashinath Virkar and 6 others (hereinafter referred to as 'original party No. 2') have challenged the order passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 167 of 1993 by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Satara, in this Criminal Writ Petition.2. The factual matrix is as under :--R.B. Mane, Assistant Police Inspector, submitted a report on March 20, 1993 to the Executive Magistrate, Koregaon, stating therein that property bearing No. C.T.S. 1933, comprising of a godown and a shop, is in the possession of Nitinchand Keshavji Gala and Narayan Keshav Virkar (hereinafter referred to as 'original Party No. 1'); that on March 19, 1993, original Party No. 2 entered into the shop and godown by force and damaged and threw away the articles lying therein; that original Part No. 2 has also closed the door opening towards the godown by fixing a lock and wooden battens on the door; that original Party No. 1 lodged a complaint on the basis of which proceedings under sections ...
Lpg Shipping S.A. Vs. Ege Denizcilik Ticaret Ve Sanayi A.S.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-1995
Reported in: 1995(4)BomCR525
M.L. Pendse, Acting C.J.1. This appeal is preferred against judgment dated April 19, 1994 delivered by the learned Single Judge in Arbitration Petition No. 170 of 1993. The arbitration petition is filed in accordance with the provisions of section 5 of the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961. By impugned judgment, the learned Judge passed a decree in terms of the Award and directed the appellants to pay costs to the respondents. The facts which gave rise to the passing of impugned judgment are not in dispute and are required to be briefly stated to appreciate the grievances made in the appeal.2. On June 30, 1993 the respondents chartered vessel 'S. Araz' to the appellants for the carriage of cargo of merchandise on a time charter trip via India to the Middle East, re-delivery Mediterranean on the terms and conditions as set out in the said charter party. Clause 17 and additional Clause 85 of the Charter-Party inter alia provided that if any dispute arises between the...
Smt. Ramrathibai Wd/O Sivnath Pardeshi Vs. Surajpal S/O Bhulai Chaudha ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Bom445; 1995(4)BomCR665; 1996(2)MhLj40
ORDER1. The order dated 17-10-1992 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Babhulgaon, is the subject-matter of challenge in this revision application filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the C.P.C.').2. The important question involved in the present revision application is whether an application filed by the applicant under Section 54 of the C.P.C. on 15-2-1992 for sending the precept to the Collector having jurisdiction over the subject-matter for partition of agricultural land i.e. estate assessed to land revenue to Government, pursuant to the decree passed on 9-1-1947, was an application for execution of the decree, and therefore, barred by limitation under Article 182 of the Limitation Act, 1908 or under any Article of Limitation Act, 1963 or under Section 48 of the C.P.C., as was existing prior to 1-1-1964.3. The facts are undisputed and the said facts are that the present applicant filed a suit for partition and separate possession against...
Vithal Vinayak Bhuskute and Another Vs. Narhari Pandurang Gandale and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-1995
Reported in: 1995(3)BomCR324; (1995)97BOMLR497; 1995CriLJ3733
1. This judgment disposes of Criminal Writ Petitions Nos. 874 of 1993, 875 of 1993 and 636 of 1994. 2. Narhari Pandurang Gandale (hereinafter 'the tenant') filed three complaints in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pune, which came to be registered as Criminal Cases No. 343 of 1992, 10 of 1993 and 128 of 1993 against Vithal Vinayak Bhuskute (hereinafter 'the owner') and Dilip Vasant Gupte (hereinafter 'the builder'). In Criminal Case No. 343 of 1992, Acchyut Bhimaji Kulkarni was also arrayed as an accused. In the other two complaints he was not so arrayed. In Criminal Case No. 343 of 1992, the Magistrate ordered an enquiry under Section 202, of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter 'the Code'). The police did not submit report for a long time. The Magistrate, after considering the material placed before him, issued process to the accused, the builder and the owner. In criminal Case No. 10 of 1993, the Magistrate issued process to the accused, the builder and the ow...
Gangaram K. Medekar Vs. Zenith Safe Mfg. Co. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-1995
Reported in: (1998)IIILLJ556Bom; 1996ICLR172
S.H. Kapadia, J. 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner - workman seeks to challenge Award of the First Labour Court at Bombay in Reference (IDA) No. 985 of 1986. By the impugned Award, workman's claim for reinstatement with back wages came to be rejected. Therefore, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. Facts giving rise to this writ petition, briefly, are as follows : 3. On 4th September 1967, petitioner joined as a Painter in the factory of respondent No. 1-Company which, at the relevant time, was a Partnership Firm. On 18th April 1986, services of the petitioner came to be orally terminated. On 28th March 1986, petitioner approached Government Labour Officer under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On 26th April 1986, respondent No. 1-Company addressed a letter to the workman stating that the Peon of the Company one Laxman Mhatre had informed the Partner of respondent No. 1 (Shri Panchal) that the petitioner was sitting idle and whistling in the factory witho...
Maruti Dattatray Patankar Vs. Managing Director, Kolhapur Zilla Shetka ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-1995
Reported in: (1997)IIILLJ1243Bom
1. This Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India impugns an Order of the Industrial Court, Kolhapur dated March 7, 1989 made in Revision Application (ULP) No. 44 of 1986 under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The 1st Respondent is a Cotton Textile Spinning Mill at Ichalkaranji, District Kolhapur. The Petitioner was employed as a Jobber in its service. On March 2, 1983 the Petitioner was served with a show cause notice calling upon him to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for an alleged misconduct which he had committed on February 25, 1983. The Petitioner by his reply dated March 4, 1983 denied that he had committed any misconduct as alleged and pointed out the circumstances under which the show cause notice needed to be shelved. By a charge sheet dated March 12, 1983 four allegations of misconduct wer...
Smt. Radhabai Yashwant Dhotre Vs. Abaji Janoji Haikodi and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-14-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Bom439; 1995(4)BomCR408
1. This second appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 9th August, 1994 passed by the VII Additional District Judge, Pune in Civil Appeal No. 661 of 1993, whereby the lower appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree dated 21st August, 1993 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Junnar, in Regular Civil Suit No. 24 of 1962. 2. This is a matter where the plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for redemption of mortgage in the year 1962 for redeeming the mortgage of an agricultural land for a consideration of Rs. 500/- and for more than 30 years this matter was moving to and fro on technical grounds from trial Courts and lower appellate Courts and it has ultimately landed before this High Court in this second appeal. 3. Few facts which are material from the point of view of disposal of this appeal are as under :Appellant in this case is original defendant. Respondent No. 1 (original plaintiff) filed the aforesaid suit before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Junn...
Chandrapur District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd., Chandrapur Vs. Industria ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-1995
Reported in: (1996)IIILLJ619Bom
ORDERLodha, J. 1. Group of these 17 writ petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India arises out of the common judgment dated 20.2.1995 passed by the Industrial Court, Nagpur affirming the common order passed by the Labour Court, Chandrapur on 19.8.1994 in 17 complaints and, therefore, in view of the common question involved, all these writ petitions have been heard together and are disposed to by this common judgment. 2. Respondent No. 2 in each of the writ petitions, filed separate complaint under Section 28 read with Item I of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short, the 'Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971') before the Labour Court, Chandrapur. Respondent no. 2 in each of the writ petitions (for short, the 'complainants') were appointed by the petitioner, the Chandrapur District Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Chandrapur (for short, the 'petitioner-Bank') by the order dated ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »