Mumbai Court June 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.
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corpn. Vs. Abdul Usman Meboob Shaikh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)ALLMR283; 2000(4)BomCR362
ORDERA.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition under Article 227 takes exception to the order passed by the Industrial Court, Solapur dated 31-3-1999 in Revision (ULP) No. 14 of 1996 as well as the order passed by the Labour Court, Solapur in Complaint (ULP) No. 40 of 1990. The original complaint was filed by the respondent challenging the order of termination. The original complaint was allowed by the Labour Court on 19-1-1996 by the following order : '1. The complaint of the complainant is hereby partly allowed as under : 2. It is hereby declared that the respondents have engaged in an unfair labour practice in dismissing the complainant from service. 3. It is hereby directed that the respondent to cease and desist from such unfair labour practice. 4. The respondents are hereby directed to reinstate the complainant on his original post from which he was dismissed with continuity of service and to pay 50% backwages, within one month from the date of this order. 5. In the circumstances ...
Jai Hind Oil Mills Company Vs. S.S. Chavan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-2000
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ1362Bom
S.S. Chavan, J.1. Mr. Verma submits that the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the enquiry was not just and fair, without looking at the enquiry report. He submits that if the enquiry report had been perused, especially the findings on page 12 of the enquiry report, it would have become apparent that the workman had been given all due opportunities. In my view, there is nothing perverse in the findings recorded by the Labour Court that the enquiry has not been just and fair. However, once the enquiry has been found to be not just and fair, it is the Labour Court which has to give an opportunity to the employer to lead evidence to establish the misconduct. This misconduct cannot be established by entrusting the enquiry to a bank outsider. In the present case, the enquiry has been entrusted to an advocate viz., Mr. Sureshbaboo. This cannot be permitted under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.2. In view of the above, the appointment of Mr. Sureshbaboo as an enquiry ...
Shri Udaysingh Gautam Jagtap Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-2000
Reported in: 2001(5)BomCR71
Pratibha Upasani, J.1. This criminal revision application is filed by the petitioner/original accused No. 4/Udaysingh Gautam Jagtap, being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 20th December, 1991, in Sessions Case No. 257 of 1991, passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, whereby application of accused No. 3 Chandrashekhar Vishnu Malji praying for tendering him pardon was allowed on the condition of his making a full and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances within his knowledge relating to the offence in question and to any other person concerned for the commission of the said offence and the application of the present petitioner/original accused No. 4 Udaysingh Gautam Jagtap, making identical prayer, i.e. to extend him pardon under section 307 and 308 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was rejected.2. Few facts, which are required to be stated, are as follows :One Mrs. Chanchalabai Subhashchandra Surana, who is accused No. 1 in the Sessions trial, he...
Dwarka Cement Works Ltd. Vs. Rajnesh Jain
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)ALLMR322; 2001(1)BomCR106
T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. Heard Counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant.2. This motion is taken out by the defendant mainly to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 13-7-1998 passed against the defendants in Summary Suit No. 614/96. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of an amount of Rs. 2 crores covered by three cheques said to have been issued by the defendant in pursuance of the agreement entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant dated 22-5-1993. The aforesaid amount was stipulated as the consideration of the expenses, remuneration and services rendered by the plaintiff in securing 51% shares of Catholic Syrian Bank in the name of the defendant. Admittedly those cheques were dishonoured and the above suit was filed for recovery of the said amount.3. In the affidavit in support of the motion, the defendant sought to explain the delay and/or the grounds of his absence from the Court entailing passing the ex-parte decree on 13-7-1998.4. The writ of summon...
Sterling Construction and Investment Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Inc ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-2000
Reported in: [2001]79ITD299(Mum)
ORDERI.P. Bansal, J.M. This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) passed under the provisions of section 263 dated 31-3-1999 for the assessment year 1995-96. In this appeal the assessee has contested the validity of order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under the provisions of section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on various legal grounds as well as on merits. For the sake of convenience the grounds of appeal raised are reproduced below :'(1) The learned Commissioner erred in revising the assessment order, which was passed under section 143(3) read with section 144A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.(2) The learned Commissioner failed to appreciate that since the assessment order was framed by the assessing officer on the directions given by the Dy. Commissioner under section 144A of the Act, the assessing officer had applied his mind and hence his order could not be revised under section 263 of the Act.(3) The learned Commissioner ought to...
Credible Trading and Investment Ltd. and Others Vs. Nandlal Balkrishna ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-09-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Bom467; 2000(4)ALLMR349; 2000(4)BomCR535; 2000(4)MhLj165
ORDERDr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. These appeals raise a common question of law and are, therefore, being disposed of by this judgment. The appeals are directed against a judgment dated 1.11.1995 of a learned Single Judge of this Court on reports of the Court Receiver dated 3-3-1995, 28-7-1995 and 22-8-1995. 2. The facts relating to Appeal No. 959 of 1995, briefly stated are as follows :- In a suit for dissolution arising out of disputes between the partners of a firm engaged in the business of construction, the Court Receiver was appointed as Receiver by this Court on 10-10-1973. The Court Receiver was appointed as Receiver of a property known as 'Khanna Construction House' situated at 44, Abdul Ghaffar Khan Road, Worli, Mumbai. The property had been in the occupation of tenants for several years and there were twenty eight tenants. On 11-8-1971, a lease deed had been entered into between the owners of the suit property and a company known by the name of M/s. Ethnor Ltd. ('Ethnor') by wh...
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Mustaq Ali Amjad Ali ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-09-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)ALLMR802; (2001)IIILLJ125Bom
R.M. Lodha, J.1. The concurrent orders passed by Labour Court, Nashik, on May 15, 1997 and by Industrial Court, Nashik, on July 23, 1997 are under challenge at the instance of the present petitioner.2. The respondent herein, namely, Mustaq AH Amjad Ali Shaikh (for short employee) was employed as driver by the petitioner, namely, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (for short employer). On November 29, 1992 while the employee was driving the bus of the employer on Chopda-Satana Road and when the bus was near the village Fagne, a girl about 10 years old met with an accident and died. It is the case of the employer that the employee was driving the bus rashly and negligently with a very high speed and as a result thereof hit a young girl of 10 years, who died due to the accident. The chargesheet was served upon the employee setting out therein that the employee was guilty of misconduct under Clauses 11, 22 and 39 of Sch. A of the Discipline and Appeal Procedure. The substance of ...
Shantanu G. Joshi Vs. Hindustan Antibiotics Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-09-2000
Reported in: [2001(89)FLR430]; (2001)IIILLJ223Bom
R.M. Lodha, J.1. By means of this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks to impugn the order dated January 3, 1996 passed by the Labour Court, Nasik, whereby the said Court held that the Petitioner being the medical representative is not workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. The facts stated in the Writ Petition would show that the Petitioner was employed as an employee of the Respondent-company as a medical representative. He has been in the employment of the Respondent since 1984. Since according to Petitioner certain amounts due to him from the year 1985 were not paid by the Respondent-employer, he made an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The said application is being contested by the Respondents. The Labour Court framed a preliminary issue whether the Petitioner was a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Relying upon...
Sangamner Bhag Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs. Rashtriya Sakhar Kamg ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-09-2000
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ707Bom
R.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner sugar Karkhana is aggrieved by the impugned award of the Industrial Court dated September 16, 1986 declaring that the retention allowance is a substantive part of the salary or wages for the purpose of calculating bonus payable to seasonal employee by the sugar industry and directing the petitioner to take into account the retention allowance as wages in respect of the seasonal employees for the years 1979-80 and 1980-81 for payment of bonus for those years. Admittedly the petitioner Karkhana had declared and paid bonus under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 @ 8.33%, the statutory minimum and ex-gratia amount @ 11.67% for the aforesaid years to all the employees including the 'seasonal workers'. It further appears that while computing the aforesaid amounts of bonus and ex- gratia, the 'retention allowance' paid to the seasonal workers was not included in the sum of total annual wages received by them. The respondent Union was aggrieved by the said omissio...
Shripat Ramji Dahane Vs. Shankar Sahakari Ginning Pressing Factory and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-09-2000
Reported in: [2001(89)FLR543]; (2001)IIILLJ845Bom
D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Shri P.B. Patil, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Shri V.G. Wankhede, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1.2. This Writ Petition is directed against the Award dated May 15, 1998, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Akola, in Reference Case No. 38 of 1994. The learned counsel submitted that the Petitioner was the seasonal employee and was working with the Respondent No. 1 Factory since 1981. The learned counsel further contended that the Petitioner has served with the Respondent No. 1 during the concerned season till February 21, 1993. The learned counsel further contended that the Respondent No. 1 terminated the services of the Petitioner w.e.f. February 21, 1993. Being aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner approached the Labour Court, Akola, which, initially has passed an ex parte award in favour of the Petitioner. However, the said ex parte award came to be set aside by the Labour Court, upon an application of the Respondent and the final a...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »