Mumbai Court January 1996 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.
Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. John Anton D'souza and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)BomCR235; [1996(73)FLR1166]; (1997)ILLJ443Bom
Majithia, J. 1. The petitioner, Life Insurance Corporation of India, a statutory Corporation incorporated under the provisions of Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956, has challenged the order dated June 15, 1989 passed in Application No. LCB-3 of 1988 filed by Respondent No. 1 under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 directing it to pay to the latter Rs. 67,295.85 along with interest at 9% from July 1, 1987 till the date of actual payment, in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The facts as gathered from the pleadings of the parties and the list of events and dates filed by the petitioner in Court and not disputed by the Counsel for respondent No. 1, briefly put, are as under :- Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the 'employee') joined service of the petitioner on February 9, 1949. He applied for allotment of staff quarters on April 14, 1960. He was allotted staff quarters on July 4, 1960. The petitioner issued a circular dated ...
Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)BomCR439; [1996(74)FLR2164]; (1997)ILLJ900Bom; 1996(2)MhLj21
G.R. Majithia, J. 1. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. - 1st Petitioner and its employee and shareholder Rajan Narayan - 2nd Petitioner - have challenged Maharashtra Government Notification dated March 26, 1991 prohibiting employment of contract labour in the process, operation and other work, namely, house-keeping and sweeping, in the establishment of 1st petitioner, in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. It is contended by the petitioners in the Writ Petition that the 1st petitioner-company is engaged in the manufacture and sale of 2/4 wheel drive vehicles and automotive components; that the company employs a large number of workmen who are directly or indirectly connected with the manufacturing processes, or are employed to perform incidental functions, such as accounts, clerical jobs and sales; that the company also engages workmen to perform functions which are entirely unrelated to or unconnected with its manufacturing activities, such as house-keeping, swee...
The General Employees' Association Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)BomCR512; (1997)ILLJ538Bom
G.R. Majithia, J.1. The petitioner, The General Employees' Association, a registered Trade Union under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, has challenged order contained in Letter No. S-16014/22/87/LW, dated June 8/9, 1988 of Government of India, Ministry of Labour, refusing to prohibit employment of contract labour in the canteen attached to the refineries of the establishment of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Mahul, Bombay, in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The facts as unfolded in the writ petition, briefly, are :- Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., respondent No. 2, is a wholly owned statutory Corporation of the Government of India which came into existence following the take over of the erstwhile Esso. Inc., Caltex (India) Ltd. and Caltex Oil Refinery (India) Ltd., by the Government of India, pursuant to the Esso (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act, 1974 and the Caltex (Acquisition of Shares of Caltex Oil Refinery (India) Ltd.) and o...
Somras Distillers Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1996
Reported in: 1996(4)BomCR303; (1996)98BOMLR189
R.M. Lodha, J.1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. At the request of the learned Counsel, the writ petition is taken up for hearing at this stage.2. The petitioner Somras Distillers, as a partnership firm was given three licences bearing Licence No. C.L. I., PL. L. and Rs.-2 by the competent authority for running the business in the manufacturing and sale of country liquor and Indian made foreign liquor. On 1-3-1993 there was a change in the constitution of the partnership firm inasmuch as two partners who were original partners in the partnership firm withdrew from the said partnership and four new partners were added. By the application dated 2-3-1993, the petitioner-firm prayed before the Commissioner, State Excise, that the two partners who have withdrawn from the partnership may be deleted from the licence and four new partners be added. Along with the application dated. 2-3-1993 the petitioner-firm annexed photo-state copy of the retirement-deed dated 1-3-1993 and affidavits of Shri Su...
Gurucharansing Hardayalsing Sethi Vs. Narhari Laxman Shinde and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1996
Reported in: 1997ACJ372; 1996(4)BomCR298; (1996)98BOMLR184
R.M. Lodha, J.1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking to challenge the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Buldana on 14-3-1995 rejecting the application filed by the applicant for setting aside the ex-parte award dated 1-3-1993.2. On 5-4-1995 when the writ petition came up for motion hearing, Mr Khapre, the learned Counsel for petitioner prayed for time to study the matter whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is a 'Court subordinate' under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, the 'C.P.C.') and if so, whether the writ petition filed by the petitioner could be entertained or not. On 17-7-1995 the notice before admission was issued to the respondents and in response thereto, Mr. A.S. Jaiswal, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2.3. According to Mr. Khapre, the learned Counsel for petitioner, in exercise of the powers provided ...
Prataprai Trambaklal Mehta Vs. Jayant Nemchand Shah and Other Etc.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Bom296; 1996(3)BomCR373; (1996)98BOMLR301; 1996(2)MhLj885
ORDER1. This chamber summons is taken out by the plaintiff/decree-holder for possession of flat No. 5 situate on the 1st floor of the building at plot No. 191, Jawahar Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Goregaon (West), Bombay, ('suit flat', for short) in execution of the consent decree passed on September 21, 1987. 2. The facts are that the defendants were the owners of the aforesaid building on plot No. 191. On April 15, 1985, the plaintiff and the defendants entered into an agreement of sale in respect of the said building with vacant possession of two flats i.e. flat Nos. 1 and 3 situated on the ground floor of the saidbuilding for a total consideration of Rs. 1,00,000/-. By another agreement dated November 15,1985, the earlier agreement was confirmed. On August 14, 1987, the plaintiff filed suit No. 2434 of 1987 for specific performance of these agreements. The suit property was described in the schedule of the property in Exhibit 'A' to the plaint as follows : 'All that pie...
Rashtrapal Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1996
Reported in: 1997BomCR(Cri)254; 1996CriLJ2336
M.B. Ghodeswar, J. 1. The appellant has challenged the judgment and order passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara date 30-3-1991 in Sessions Trial No. 57/89 for his conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Penal Code. 2. Initially the appellant and two other accused Shrawan and Gunda, were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code, for causing the murder of Rahul Raibhan Naik a resident of Bela, Police Station, Bela, District Bhandara on 21-3-1989 at about 6 a.m. Prosecution alleged that there was quarrel between the accused and deceased Rahul and his father over construction of a house and about the encroachment on the site for keeping a way leading to the house of the accused. The quarrel took place on 18-3-1989. Subsequently they agreed to keep the space open for the way. On 21-3-1989 in the early morning Rahul was assaulted. He was sleeping in the courtyard. He shouted in the name of his wife Maya (...
Ramesh Ambadasrao Joshi Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)BomCR173; (1996)IILLJ1216Bom
Chapalgaonker, J.1. Petitioner's father was working as a teacher in the service of Zilla Parishad Aurangabad. He died on November 2, 1972 while in service. It is alleged that petitioner's mother i.e. wife of the deceased applied to the Zilla Parishad requesting that whenever her son would attain majority he should be considered for service in the Zilla Parishad but the Zilla Parishad informs that its record shows that such an application is not there.2. Petitioner attained majority in the year 1984 and thereafter on January 7, 1984 an application was submitted by him to the Zilla parishad requesting that he be given service in the Zilla Parishad on compassionate ground. This application was rejected on the ground that the applicant did not conform with the requirement of the rules and the petitioner was accordingly intimated on August 3, 1988 and on January 25, 1989. Petitioner was similarly intimated on August 30, 1990 that the application could not be considered by the Desk Officer o...
Government of Goa Through Under Secretary (Revenue) Secretariat Vs. Ja ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)BomCR714
M.S. Rane, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The appellant No. 1 is the State of Goa and appellant No. 2 are M/s. Kadamba Transport Corporation Ltd. The land which is the subject matter of this appeal was acquired by the first appellant i.e. State of Goa. The respondents herein are the Claimants whose land was acquired. In this appeal the appellants have challenged the judgment and decree of the District Court enhancing the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition in respect of the acquired land belonging to the respondents/Claimants.2. We will briefly advert to the factual aspects.3. The Notification under Section 4(1) under the Land Acquisition Act is dated 19th January, 1982 which was published in the Official Gazette dated 28.1.1982 where under the land belonging to the Claimants forming part of Survey No. 355/12 admeasuring 950 sq. metres and survey No. 350(part) admeasuring 2375 sq. metres to...
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and anr. Vs. Atlanta Construct ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)BomCR351; (1996)98BOMLR448
S.M. Jhunjhunuwala, J.1. By these petitions, the petitioners seek to challenge the Awards all dated 6th August, 1992 filed in this Court and respectively numbered as 'Award No. 128 of 1992', 'Award No. 129 of 1992' and 'Award No. 130 of 1992'.2. The 1st petitioner in all these petitions is Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, a Corporation constituted under the provisions of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (for short, 'the Municipal Corporation') and the 2nd petitioner is the Municipal Commissioner of Municipal Corporation. The 1st respondent in all these petitions are the Contractors registered with the Municipal Corporation and the 2nd respondent is the Arbitrator who was appointed as the Sole Arbitrator in connection with the disputes which had arisen by and between the Municipal Corporation and the 1st respondents in respect of the work of reconstruction of Barrister Nathpai Marg in cement concrete which was divided into three sections i.e. Part I, Part II and Part I...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »