Mumbai Court March 2000 Judgments
Mrs. Pratibha A. Agranayak and Others Vs. the Director of Education an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)BomCR489; 2001(1)MhLj796
ORDERR.K. Batta, J.1. These writ petitions relate to the appointment of Headmaster of Damodar English High School (hereinafter referred to as 'the said school') and, as such, the same are being disposed of by common judgment.2. The petitioner in Writ Petition 36/99 claims to be the senior-most Assistant Teacher in the said school and entitled to promotion to the post of Headmaster in terms of Rule 78 of the Goa, Daman & Diu School Education Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Rules'). On 1-5-1997, the vacancy of Headmaster had arisen in the said school and the Departmental Promotion Committee (D.P.C. for short) was convened to fill up the said post. It appears that the appointment was not finalised by the D.P.C. and in the meantime, on 9-6-1997, the charge of the post of Headmaster was handed over to respondent No. 3 Narayan Mierker. The petitioner Pratibha Agranayak filed Writ Petition No. 1/98 alleging that respondent No. 3 was not qualified to be appointed to the post....
Tag this Judgment!Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. M.G. Shetkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)ALLMR481; 2000(3)BomCR854; (2000)2BOMLR719; [2000(86)FLR694]
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner is a statutory Corporation established for the purpose of transportation of mainly passengers and goods by buses throughout the State of Maharashtra and also outside the State to provide transport facilities to the public. The respondent was employed as a conductor by the Petitioner Corporation from 1965. On 5-2-1984 he was on his duty as a Conductor on the route Udgir to Deoni via Kamalawadi. It appears from record that his bus was checked by the petitioner's Checking Party and it was found that at Stage No. 5 one lady passenger who had boarded the bus at Kamalawadi for Deoni had paid an amount of Rs. 0.60 ps. at the boarding point to the respondent for her ticket fare, but she was not issued ticket by the respondent-conductor. It was also alleged that a Group of five childrens who were to be charged half the fare had boarded the bus at Kamalawadi for Deoni and had paid Rs. 1.50 ps. towards their bus fare to the respondent at boarding point and th...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Atul Textiles and Others Vs. Shivaji M. Shende and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)BomCR857; (2001)ILLJ127Bom
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. These writ petitions have arisen from the Common Judgment and Order dated 16-3-1993 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Sangli in Applications (IDA) Nos. 86/88 to 132/88 (47 in Nos.) against the respective Employers - Firms. The workmen had filed applications under section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for claiming determination and computation of the monies/benefits due from the employers. Their claim was based on a notification dated 10-1-1986 fixing minimum wages for Powerloom Industry. The individual applications filed against the individual firms were opposed by the employers on various grounds, with which presently I am not concerned.2. It appears from the record that the employees had adduced their oral evidence and they were cross examined on behalf of the employers. The employees had closed their evidence on 11-3-1992. It appears that the matter was posted for evidence to be adduced by the employers. It further appears that conso...
Tag this Judgment!Gajanan Chandrarao Sawant Vs. Mrs. Chandrabhaga Chandrarao Sawant and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)BomCR84; 2000(4)MhLj321
ORDERB.N. Srikrishna, J. 1. These two appeals arise out of the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated March 1/2, 1996 made commonly in the two suits i.e. Testamentary Suit No. 36/ 1984 and Testamentary Suit No. 21/1992. 2. After having heard the Counsel appearing on both sides quite extensively, we are satisfied that the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge appealed against would have to be set aside and the two suits sent back and the parties be given opportunity of leading further evidence for the reasons which we shall indicate hereinafter. Facts: 3. Mrs. Chandrabhaga Chandrarao Sawant filed Testamentary Petition No. 449 of 1984 seeking letters of administration in respect of the Will of deceased Chandrarao Suryaji Sawant dated 11th February, 1966. Upon the Caveators objecting to it, this Testamentary Petition No. 449/1984 was converted into Testamentary Suit No. 36/1984. Simultaneously, Gajanan Chandrarao Sawant filed a Testamentary petition Propounding the ...
Tag this Judgment!Mubarakunnisa W/O Mohammed Naseem Vs. MoinuddIn Mohammed Usman Khan an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)BomCR82
ORDERB.N. Srikrishna, J.1. The appellant (original plaintiff) took out the notice of motion claiming compensation at the rate of Rs. 7,000/- per month from the original defendant Nos. 1 to 7. The suit itself was filed in the year 1987 by the plaintiff claiming 88 paise share in the property alleged to have been left by the plaintiffs father. The appellant-plaintiff claims in the suit that his father was a partner alongwith some of the defendants in three different Bakeries and she had 1/5th share. The plaintiffs father died some time in the year 1955 at which time the plaintiff was minor. The plaintiff attained majority in the year 1959. The suit came to be filed in the year 1987 and the notice of motion was taken out in the year 1993.2. The learned Single Judge, after reciting the facts has prima facie found that the relief in the notice of motion was to be denied for two reasons. First, that though the suit itself was filed in the year 1987 (lodged in the office of the Prothonotary i...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Anand Shirodkar Vs. the State of Goa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)ALLMR532; 2000(4)BomCR483
ORDERR.K. Batta, J.1. The petitioner has filed a Public Interest Petition in respect of the excess expenditure incurred on the use of petrol by the Ministers of the State of Goa. The petitioner's contention is that the Ministers are entitled only to petrol of 60 liters and since the Ministers as per statistics supplied in answer to the questions in the Legislative Assembly, have used more than 60 liters of petrol, the recovery should be effected from them. The petitioner also challenges the removal of restrictions on supply of petrol to the vehicles allotted to the Ministers by a decision taken by the Council of Ministers, which decision according to the petitioner, is illegal, unconstitutional, arbitrary, null and void. 2. We have heard learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned Advocate General. 3. In order to appreciate the controversy raised in this petition, we may first refer to various provisions in the Goa, Daman and Diu Salaries andAllowances of Ministers Act, 1964 (herei...
Tag this Judgment!Berner Shipping Inc. and Another Vs. Mrs. Kala Ramchandran and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)BomCR565
ORDERF.I. Rebello, J. 1. Plaintiff No. 1 is a company incorporated under the laws of Liberia and were the owners of the vessel m.v. 'CARDIGLIERA', flying the Panama Flag which hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the vessel'. On 13th November, 1996 the vessel sailed out from the port at Durban, South Africa for Cape Town in South Africa. The vessel sank off the coast of Durban, South Africa on 13th November, 1996 with all hands on board, which included officers and crew members. The plaintiff No. 2 as Agent had entered into an Agreement with the deceased either at Mumbai or Delhi. Defendants are being sued as claimants to the estate of the deceased and/or their legal heirs. The suit by, the plaintiffs is in a nature of limitation suit seeking to limit the liability of the owner of the vessel and also for injunction to restrain the defendants herein from pursuing the suit filed in London under Case No. 1998/Folio No. 1339 in the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Commercial ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Salim Mohammed Issak Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-2000
Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)361; (2000)102BOMLR243
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. The Appellant aggrieved by the judgment and order dated July 31, 1998 passed by the Special Judge, (N.D.P.S.), for Greater Bombay, in N.D.P.S. Special Case No. 21 of 1996 convicting and sentencing him to undergo 10 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, in default to suffer 6 months R.I. for the offence punishable under Section 21 read with 8(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 has come up in appeal before us.2. In short the prosecution case runs as under.On 29.10.1995 at about 2 p.m. while P.I. Subahsh Salvi P.W. 2 was on duty at Narcotic Cell, Azad Maidan Unit, he received an information from an informant that one Salim Shaikh (Appellant) was likely to go to Mandvi Post Office between 3.30 and 4.30 p.m. to deliver charas to his customers. P.I. Salvi reduced the said information in writing in the information book and sent its extract to his superiors. Thereafter he completed the formalities to conduct the raid. Two panchas were called. (On amongst them viz. Chotelal M...
Tag this Judgment!Ma Care and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-2000
Reported in: (2000)(70)ECC803
1. The application for modification raises two points. The first is that while the Tribunal had itself noted that the applicant had a good case on limitation, this is not reflected in the amounts to be deposited. The second is that the department itself has been taking contradictory stand after the impugned order was passed with regard to the identity of the manufacture. It was contended that in the letter dated 3.11.98 of the Asst. Commissioner, MA Care to be the manufacturer. The order of 3.4.99 has held both TTK and MA Care to be the manufacturers. The demand notice dated 30.11.98 alleged MA Care to be manufacturer while notice dated 22.1.99 holds both to be the manufacturers.2. By our order dated 16.12.99 we had required the Commissioner to take a specific stand as to whom he considers as the manufacture. After several adjournment at the departmental representative's request, we have today been shown the letter dated 7.2.2000, which the departmental representative relies upon.3. T...
Tag this Judgment!Anandrao Gaghoji Patil Vs. Balasaheb @ Shamrao Pabdurang Patil and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)BomCR766
ORDERF.I. Rebello, J.1. Petitioner, an unsuccessful candidate at the elections held for filling in seats to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly, has challenged the election of respondent No. 1. The petitioner contested as the official candidate of the Indian National Congress. Respondent No. 1 had contested as a candidate of the National Congress Party. The other respondents are the other unsuccessful candidates, who had contested the elections. At the elections held, the respondent No. 1 secured 59,427 votes and the petitioner secured 42,322 votes. The respondent No. 1 was declared as elected from 266-Karad North City and Rural Areas Legislative Constituency. 2. The present petition by the petitioner is to challenge the said election of respondent No. 1. The challenge is on the ground that the election of respondent No. 1 is liable to be set aside on account of alleged corrupt practices, more specifically booth capturing. It is the case of the petitioner as pleaded in the petition th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »