Mumbai Court April 2000 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.
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Transport Vs. Shri Jagannath Narayan Shelar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)BomCR860; (2000)2BOMLR591; [2000(86)FLR673]
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner is a statutory Corporation established under the provisions of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 and is running a Transport service within the area of Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation. 2. The respondent employee was in employment of the petitioner as a Conductor since 1981 with some oral warnings on number of occasions about his unsatisfactory work. It appears from the record that on 16-12-1984 the respondent was on duty as a Conductor in a bus on route No. 305/1 which was to run on the route of Vadgaon Maval. It further appears that the said bus was checked by the Ticket Checkers and it was found that the respondent had received the amount of bus fare from 5 passengers but had not issued to them any tickets and that it was further found that he was having an amount of Rs. 65.95 in excess of the sale value of the tickets already issued. He was suspended from service from 9-1-1985 and was also served a charge sheet on 5-2-...
The Philips Workers' Union Vs. Philips India Ltd. and others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)ALLMR201; 2000(4)BomCR72; (2000)2BOMLR834; 2000(4)MhLj502
ORDERDr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. The respondents waive service.2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner which is a registered Trade Union claiming to represent the workers employed by the 1st respondent at its unit situated at Thane, seeks to challenge an order dated 13-10-1999 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour. By the said order, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour has declined to admit a demand raised by the union in conciliation under section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.3. On 21-11-1997, the union raised a demand contending that machineries, equipment, activities and production units which had been moved out of the establishment by the company, be brought back forthwith and be installed at the Thane Plant. A settlement had been arrived at on 21-2-1998 between the 1st respondent company, the petitioner union and another union under section 18(1) read with section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947....
M/S. Harrai Desai and Sons Stores Vs. Smt. Leelavati S. Vaza
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)BomCR66; [2000(85)FLR783]; (2000)IILLJ835Bom; 2000(3)MhLj540
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. By an Order of Reference dated 11-9-1986 the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Conc.) Bombay District, Bombay, in exercise of hispowers conferred on him under section 10(1)(c) read with section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred an industrial dispute between the petitioner-employer and the respondent for reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service with effect from 24-1-1986 to the Labour Court. Pursuant to the said order the parties appeared before the Labour Court. The receipt of notice from the Labour Court is not denied by the petitioner-employer, however, he failed to file written statement in reply to the statement of claims filed by the respondent, and therefore, the Labour Court passed an ex-parte award on 5-5-1988 of reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service against the petitioner-employer and in favour of the respondent.2. It is the case of the petitioner-employer that he came to know about the passing of...
Mrs. Suman Nivrutti Takale Vs. Shri Amarchand Ramchandra Patwa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)ALLMR552; 2000(4)BomCR70; [2000(85)FLR791]
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. The checkered history of the present very small dispute of a small woman reflects abuse of the process of law. The petitioner appears to have claimed a difference in wages actually paid to her and legally payable under the Minimum Wages Act. By an order in Application IDA/ULP No. 320 of 1978, the Labour Court on 13-3-1981 directed the present respondent No. 1 employer to pay a sum of Rs. 3,552/- to the petitioner. The respondent employer carried the said order by filing writ petition in this Court being Writ Petition No. 1351 of 1981. On 3-4-1990, the said petition was rejected. It also appears that on 16-12-1992, the Industrial Court, Pune passed an order in Complaint ULP No. 574 of 1991 directing the respondent employer to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs. 3,552/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 13-3-1981 till its actual payment. In the meanwhile, it appears that the petitioner's employment came to be terminated and the petitioner succeeded in her adju...
Shivaji Mahadu Pagar Vs. the SarvangIn Vikas Mandal and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)ALLMR810; 2000(4)BomCR376; 2000(4)MhLj307
ORDERPer Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. These two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenge the convening of a departmental enquiry on the ground that a criminal prosecution is pending. The law governing these cases is now well settled, but before adverting to the position in law, the circumstances giving rise to these proceedings may, briefly, be set out. 2. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1702 of 2000 is serving as a Clerk in a school which is being run by the 1st respondent in the district of Nashik. The petitioner in the companion writ petition, being Writ Petition No. 1714 of 2000, is the Head Master of the School. On 23-11-1999, a complaint was lodged by a library assistant working in the school alleging that on 18-11-1999 while she and certain other staff members were attending a school camp at Nashik, she was taken to the room where the Head Master of the school was staying by the petitioner in the 1st petition and another lady staff member. The complai...
Castrol India Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-2000
Reported in: (2000)(70)ECC595
1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 3,19,745.69 and a penalty of Rs. 5000.2. Mr. B. Arvind, Senior Manager of the applicant does not dispute the facts leading to the demand that the declaration in respect of the capital goods in question was made beyond the period of one month specified in the second proviso to Rule 57T (1). He however says that credit of Rs. 1.81 lakh, the declaration with regard to which was made beyond two months but within three months from their receipt, and it was therefore within the power of the Assistant Commissioner to condone the delay. With regard to other capital goods, the declaration of which was received beyond four months, he relies on the Circular 181/15/96CX dated 7.3.1996 of the Department of Revenue to say that the delay can be condoned.3. It does not appear to us prima facie correct that the second proviso under Rule 57T (1) gives two months in addition to a month from the date of receipt of the goods for condonation. It wa...
Union of India Vs. M/S. R.K. Goel and Associates
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)BomCR666; 2000(3)MhLj616
ORDERF.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. Respondents waive service. Heard forthwith.2. On behalf of the respondents their learned Counsel has raised a preliminary objection that the Award has been made under the provisions of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. It is contended that the Award was made on 14th January, 1999. Though the exact date is not available on record, the copy of the Award was served on the parties by the end of January, 1999. The petition is filed on 19th November, 1999. In these circumstances it is contended that the petition is barred by the law of limitation.Learned Counsel for that purpose relies on the judgment in the case of Thyssen Stahlunion GMBH v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. 1999(3) Arb LR 532.3. A few facts.The Arbitrator appointed having resigned a second Arbitrator was appointed on 21st November, 1995. He also resigned and thereafter a third Arbitrator came to be appointed on 25th June, 1998. The Award has been passed by the third Arbitrator.For the purp...
Vishwasrao Mahadeo Shelke Vs. Ramsharan Hariprasad Bellarikar and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)BomCR80; 2000(4)MhLj162
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner is a managing partner of the partnership firm carrying on business in the name and style of M/s. Parvati Chitra Mandir, Kolhapur. The petition arises from the facts mentioned hereinbelow. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that from 1-8-1986 the respondent No. 1, workman employed by the petitioner did not attend his duties. The said workman, however, filed an application for wages from 1-8-1986 to 31-5-1987 under the provisions of Payment of Wages Act and succeeded in getting 10 months wages from the authority under the said Act. The said workman again filed an application in January 1992 under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming wages for the period from 1-6-1987 to 31-12-1991. It is an admitted position on the part of the petitioner that a Court notice requiring the petitioner to appear and file written statement was received. Pursuant to the said notice, the petitioner had engaged an Advocate and instructed him to take...
Tourist Hotel Vs. Balaram Shripati Kamble and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)ALLMR783; 2000(4)BomCR782; [2001(88)FLR423]
R. J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioners claim to be a hotel of reputation in the city of Kolhapur and carry on the business of providing lodging and boarding services to the public at large including the tourists who visit the city. They have a complement of about 64 employees in different categories and the respondent No. 1 was one of such 64 employees, who was dismissed from employment by the petitioners on a very serious charge of bringing prostitute/call girl in the hotel premises to be provided to a passenger who was occupying the room in the hotel on 20th February, 1983/ 21st February, 1983. The time of the entry of the call girl in the hotel with the respondents is also crucial as it was at 00.45 minutes past midnight. At some place the call girl is described as a prostitute and as lady at some other places. It is on record that the passenger customer and the call girl both were found in the Room No. 35 of the hotel and both were caught by the watchman. The watchman Informed the rece...
Wadco Packaging Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-2000
Reported in: (2000)(70)ECC324
1. The Commissioner or" Central Excise vide his order dated 1.9.1998 confirmed duty amounting to Rs. 40,73,725. Against this judgment M/s.Wadco Packaging Pvt. Ltd. and Shri V.K. Phadnis filed appeals and also an application for waiver of pre-deposit of the duty confirmed. The Tribunal vide Order Nos. C-II/315-316/WZB-1999 dated 3.2.1999 issued on 8.2.1999 directed M/s. Wadco Packaging Pvt. Ltd. to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,00,000 towards the duty demanded and ordered waiver of the remainder and stay of recovery thereof on such deposit being made. The appellants complied with the direction and moved an application for early hearing on the ground that they were placed in a worse situation than their competitors who were not required to pay any duty of Central Excise although the goods made by them were identical. The Tribunal in their Order Nos. C-II/2128-2129/99-WZB/1999 dated 18.8.1999 did not accede to this request. Three miscellaneous applications have now been filed. The first (E/Mis...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »