Mumbai Court June 2000 Judgments
Development Credit Bank Ltd. Vs. Mr. Azim A. Charania
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)ALLMR352; 2000(4)BomCR547
ORDERS.S. Nijjar, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari quashing the Part-1 Awarddated 3-2-2000 given by Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. II atMumbai in Reference No, CG1T-2/45 of 1998.2. The petitioner earlier operated as Development Co-operative Bank Limited but has been converted into a Joint Stock Company known as Development Credit Bank Limited w.e.f. 1-6-1995. The respondent joined the predecessor of the petitioner as a Clerk in 1979. He was progressively promoted as Supervisor, Assistant Officer and, in the year 1988 as an Officer. His qualifications are B.Com. L.L.B. (Gen.). The respondent was also imparted training and was thus well versed in the Banking operations of various departments of the petitioner-Bank. The respondent was also the General Secretary of the Union and, therefore, had the opportunity to defend employees working in the petitioner Bank in the enquiries. According to the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdishrai Shivnathrai Hora Vs. Prabhakar Balkrishna Mahanubhav
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)ALLMR66; 2000(4)BomCR778; (2001)4BOMLR268; 2000(4)MhLj442
ORDERA.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the 6th Additional District Judge, Pune in C.A. No. 441 of 1985 dated 15-4-1987. 2. The petitioner is the tenant in respect of the suit premises consisting of 2 rooms on the 3rd floor of House No. 130 situated at Ganesh Peth, Pune. The respondent instituted a suit against the petitioner, being the owner, praying for possession of the suit premises on the ground of arrears of rent, now user of the suit premises for more than 6 months preceding the institution of the suit and for having acquired alternate suitable accommodation. The parties laid evidence before the 3rd Additional Small Causes Court, Pune being C.S. No. 23 of 1982. The Trial Court by its judgment and order dated 20-4-1984 decreed the suit for possession on the ground that petitioner has acquired alternate and suitable premises and for having kept the suit premises locked for more than 6 month preceding the date of institution...
Tag this Judgment!JaIn Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Laxman Bhagaji Thombre and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-2000
Reported in: 2001(3)ALLMR43; (2001)IIILLJ106Bom
R.J. Kochar, J.1. The Appellant company has challenged the judgment and order dated October 24, 1989 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Judge, Labour Court Aurangabad in Application WC No. 31 of 1988 filed by the deceased Applicant who claimed compensation under Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act for the employment injury which he sustained on October 4, 1986 when he was working on the roof of the Company and he fell down and sustained a fracture injury which was certified by the doctor to be 30% permanent disability. Soon after the said accident, it appears from the record that, the Applicant issued a notice to the Appellant Company claiming compensation for the employment injury. There was no reply to the said notice. The Applicant, therefore, filed the present Application for compensation. The Appellant Company as well as the respondent No. 2, both were served with the Court's notices. The Appellant Company did not file its written statement while th...
Tag this Judgment!Kinetic Engineering Ltd. Vs. Balasaheb and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)BomCR73; [2000(87)FLR37]; (2000)IIILLJ1073Bom
R.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner company has challenged the judgment and order dated April 2, 1990 passed by the Industrial Court, Maharashtra at Ahmednagar in Complaint (ULP) No, 296 of 1987, filed by the respondent employee under Section 28 read with Items 5, 7, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U.& P.U.L.P. Act, 1971.2. The facts, which are not seriously disputed, are that the respondent employee was employed by the petitioner company from July 17, 1983 to October 6, 1984. By an appointment order dated March 25, 1984 he was taken on probation for a period of six months from April 7, 1984 and he was paid daily wages at the rate of Rs. 24/-. His services were terminated with effect from October 6, 1984. The respondent employee raised an industrial dispute to question the legality and propriety of the termination order which came to be set aside by an award of the Labour Court dated May 27, 1987 and he was directed to be reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages. The...
Tag this Judgment!Dashrath, Son of Sakharam Mali Vs. Data, Son of Maruti Kshirsagar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)ALLMR564; 2001(1)BomCR70; (2002)IVLLJ286Bom
R.J. Kochar, J.1. In view of pendency of this appeal since 1990, pending (sic) is dispensed with.2. The appellant-employer has challenged the Judgment and Order, dated September 21, 1989, passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Osmanabad and Ex officio Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation in the application W.C.P, No.7 of 1987 filed by the applicant to claim workmen's compensation for the employment injury sustained by him during the course of his employment with the appellant-employer on October 21, 1985. It was his case that on the date of the accident he was working on the thrashing machine and while so working he sustained injury and lost his left hand from elbow which was required to be amputated.3. It was the case of appellant-employer that the injured applicant was not employed by him and, therefore, he was not liable to pay any compensation. It was his case that the father of the applicant was in his employment and not the son, i.e. the injured applicant. It was submitted...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Vora Associates
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT239Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the value of the ship imported by Vora Associates for breaking could be correctly determined on the basis of the amendment made to the memorandum of agreement originally executed for the sale. The amendment was apparently necessitated because some components of the ship were sound to be missing.2. We do not find, prima facie, any ground for stay of the operation of this order. While the value of goods to be determined on the condition in which they are imported there is insufficient material before us to conclude that the component, topside wing tanks, were not missing when the ship entered into India and the loss only occurred thereafter. Even in that situation the provisions of Section 22 of the Act would, prima facie, operate and would justify abatement of the value unless it is shown that the damage took place after the goods were assessed to duty.That is also not the contention in the appeal.3. We therefore decline to stay the operation...
Tag this Judgment!Pudumjee Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-2000
Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT162Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The modification of the Tribunal's order is prayed for on the ground of financial hardship.2. It is contended that there has been substantial loss in the preceding financial year and the operation during the first quarter of the year are not profitable.3. The Departmental Representative points out financial hardship was not raised in the stay application and hence also not argued. It is evident that the stay application cannot be heard in piece-meal and in any event cannot be heard on a second time on a ground that does not even contained in the stay application. The attempt by the advocate for the applicant to say hardship of loss, finance were known to the applicant on the day they filed the application and in any event when they argued it. We cannot therefore now entertain the request for modification on this score.4. We therefore dismiss the application but extend the time to deposit the amount up to 31st July, 2000....
Tag this Judgment!Namdeo Laxman Nawale Vs. Chandrasen Khasiram Rajeshirke and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-2000
Reported in: (2001)3BOMLR410; 2001(2)MhLj941
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard Mr. Ketkar, the learned Advocate for petitioner. None appears for the respondents, though served. The point for consideration which arisesin the present petition is, whether the Court can rely upon the affidavit of the plaintiff for decreeing the suit without there being sufficient reason for permitting the party to lead evidence in the form of affidavit instead of oral evidence?2. The facts in brief relevant for decision are that, the respondent No. 1 filed his suit for eviction of the petitioner from the suit premises on various grounds including the ground of sub-let ting as well as need of the premises for personal occupation of the respondents. The plaint in that regard was lodged in the Trial Court on 2nd March, 1984 and on service of summons, the parties appeared before the Trial Court on 11th February. 1985 on which date the petitioner filed an application seeking time to file written statement- Similar requests were made by the petitioner on 3rd...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Ganapat Jadhav and anr. Vs. State Election Commission and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)MhLj150
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the communication dated 10th and 16th May, 2000 addressed by the Tahsildar, (on behalf of the State Election Commission) to the petitioner regarding the division of the Kharoli Gram Panchayat into two different Gram Panchayats viz. Kharoli Gram Panchayats and Kalij Gram Panchayat in Taluka Mahad, District Raigad.2. On 22nd March, 2000 the Election programme for the Village Panchayat Elections was declared by the State Election Commission as required under Section 11 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (The V. P. Act for short). The earlier tenure of the Kharoli Group Gram Panchayat was to expire on 4th September, 2000. However, on 2nd May, 2000 the Tahsildar addressed a letter to the Gramsevak of Kharpli informing him to hold elections for the Kharoli Group Gram Panchayat, whereas by the impugned communication he informed that the earlier decision to hold elections for t...
Tag this Judgment!The Goa Foundation, Represented by Its Secretary Vs. State of Goa, Thr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)BomCR709
ORDERMrs. F.I. Rebello, J.1. The petitioners are a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The aims and objects of the society amongst others are to take steps to halt the ecological degradation of the environment and to formulate and implement programmes for the rehabilitation and development of the Goa Environment and to restore ecological balance. The petitioners had averred that its members as citizens of India like other citizens have the fundamental duties enshrined under Article 51(g). The petitioners are all Nationals and Citizens of India. The petitioners had been involved in measures directed towards protection of the costal areas of Goa for about 10 years previous to filing of the petition. By the present petition, the petitioners complained that on the Candolim-Baga Beach, a large number of constructions have been coming up within 200 metres of the High Tide Line. The situation has become so alarming that the authorities responsible for taking steps have fa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »