Mumbai Court November 2001 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.
Associated Cement Staff Union Vs. Associated Cement Companies Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)ALLMR705; 2002(3)BomCR108; [2002(94)FLR244]; 2002(2)MhLj205
1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of a learned single Judge of this Court upholding the respondent No. 1's right to be represented by one C.V. Pavaskar, in References No. 3 of 1999 and 10 of 1999 between appellant and respondent No. 1 company before the Industrial Tribunal. The learned single Judge has rejected the appellant's contention that the said Pavaskar is not entitled to represent the respondent Company because he is a legal practitioner, prohibited from appearing in the dispute by virtue of Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. The appellant, which is a registered trade union of employees objected to the appearance of C.V. Pavaskar, admittedly a qualified Advocate and S, V. Mokashi on the ground that they are legal practitioners and consequently not entitled to represent the respondent company. The right of Mokashi to represent the respondent company is no more in dispute and the objection to his appearance has been given up before the Ind...
Shankar Vasudeo Masurkar and anr. Vs. Shree Sitaram Mills and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-2001
Reported in: 2002(3)BomCR156; [2002(94)FLR236]; 2002(2)MhLj247
ORDER1. These appeals are directed against the common order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 26 of 2001 and Writ Petition No. 404 of 2001. Appeal No. 936 of 2001 is filed by the employees of Shree Sitaram Mills whereas Appeal No. 564 of 2001 is filed by the management of the said Mill. For the sake of convenience the employees are hereinafter referred to as 'the appellants' and the management of the Mill as 'the respondent'.2. Appellant No. 1 and the late husband of appellant No. 2 were working in the respondent Mill as attendance clerk and labour boy respectively. Appellant No. 1 had joined the service in 1970 while the husband of appellant No. 2 joined in 1972. From 15-1-1982 there was a general strike in the cotton textile industry called by an unrecognised union viz. Maharashtra Girni Kamgar Union. Though the strike was called by an unrecognised union not registered under the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, hereinafter referred to as ...
University of Pune Vs. Vidya Kisan Gargote
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)BomCR117; (2002)1BOMLR805; 2002(2)MhLj540
S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioner-University of Pune is challenging an order dated 3rd March, 2000 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Pune/Shivaji University and College Tribunal, Pune University, Pune, in Appeal No. 13 of 1998, whereby the learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal has set aside the order of termination dated 15th June, 1998. By the aforesaid termination order dated 15th June, 1998, the services of the respondent who was working as the Deputy Finance Officer, were terminated w.e.f., 16th June, 1998.2. By the aforesaid impugned order dated 3rd March, 2000 the Tribunal has also declared that the respondent was in continuous service on the post of Deputy Finance Officer from 17th June, 1996 and she had become confirmed Deputy Finance Officer from 17th June, 1998 and was entitled to all benefits of continuous service from 17th June, 1996 on the post of Deputy Finance Officer. The Tribunal had also directed the Pune University to continue the re...
Shetkari Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Ashti, Dist. Beed Vs. State of Maha ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)ALLMR283; (2002)2BOMLR535; 2002(1)MhLj814
B.B. Vagyani, J. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent, taken up for final hearing forthwith. 3. In all these three writ petitions, the order dated 30-4-2001 passed by the respondent State granting permission to start a new college at Shirur Kasar, Tq. Patoda of District Beed is challenged and, therefore, these three writ petitions are disposed of by common judgment. 4. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2091 of 2001 is an educational society known as Shetkari Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Ashti, District Beed. The petitioner claims that it is one of the most reputed educational institutions in Beed District. The petitioner institution runs Colleges at Ashti and Kada. The petitioner also runs a College of Physical Education at Ashti. The petitioner claims that it runs near about 21 secondary schools in Beed district and approximately 10,000 students are taking education in various branches of the high schools. 5. The petitioner submitted its proposal as required ...
Ramvilas G. Heda Vs. Achaldas D. Oswal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-2001
Reported in: 2002(3)BomCR82
V.C. Daga, J. 1. This revision raises the vexed question whether the right of redemption was barred by law of Limitation. The revision application is directed against the order dated 17th Oct. 1990, passed by the Joint Civil Judge, S.D., Kolhapur, in Final Decree proceeding registered as Application No. 21 of 1975, whereby an application moved under Order XXXIV Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC for short) praying for final decree in Special Civil Suit No. 78 of 1969. wherein preliminary decree was drawn on 18-1-1972, came to be rejected holding it to be barred by Law of Limitation. Hereinafter the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the original suit.OUTLINE CHRONOLOGY 2. The outline chronology giving rise to the present Revision Application is as under :The suit property is a building bearing City Survey No. 281 situated at B Ward, Gujari, Kolhapur. The said property was originally owned by one Shri Pandit Govind Shinde Naik. The suit properly was mortgaged with origina...
Cipla Employees Union Vs. Cipla Limited and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-2001
Reported in: [2002(93)FLR960]; (2002)IILLJ393Bom
P.V. Kakade, J.1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition against the order passed by the Member of the Industrial Court, Mumbai, dismissing its complaint (ULP) No. 709 of 1995 under Section 28 read with items 1(b), 5 and 6 of Schedule II and Items 2, 4 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 against respondent No. 1.2. I have heard the learned counsel for both the sides. Perused the record, including the affidavits filed by the parties in support of their respective contentions.3. The facts giving rise to the dispute, in brief, are thus;'The petitioner is a trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and respondent No. 1 is a company formulated under the provisions of the Companies Act, and is engaged in the business of the manufacture of pharmaceutical products in its factories situate at Mumbai. Two employees working at Vikhroli factory of respondent No. 1 observed their scheduled lu...
Prakash Rewadmal Gupta Vs. Lonavala Municipal Council and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)ALLMR993; 2002(2)BomCR484
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The petitioner owns land bearing Survey No. 62/3 and 63/2 situated at Valwan, Lonavala. The land is situated within the Municipal limits of the first respondent. On 1st February, 1978, the Final Development Plan for Lonavala, which was sanctioned by the State Government, came into force. The land belonging to the petitioner was shown as being reserved, together with various other lands, for the purposes of the extension of an educational institution known as the 'Dr. B.N. Purandare College'. The affiliation of the aforesaid college to the University of Pune is stated to have been cancelled sometime in the year 1977. On 4th July, 1986, the Lonavala Municipal Council resolved to initiate a minor modification to the sanctioned Development Plan under section 37 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 ('the Act') so as to change the designation of the site reserved in the Development Plan from the existing reservation for the Dr. B.N. Purandare College...
Ratnakar D. Patade and ors. Vs. Smita P. Dalvi and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)ALLMR356
V.C. Daga, J.1. The present proceedings are initiated on the report of the Court Commissioner dated 7th September, 2001, whereby; it was brought to the notice of this Court that, subsequent to the order dated 19th April, 2001 most of the defendants, without prior permission of the Court Receiver and/or of this Court, have made their forcible entry in the flats located in the suit buildings, by breaking open the old locks and putting their own locks on the respective flats, in respect of which right, title and interest is being claimed by them.BACKGROUND FACTS2. Brief narration of the facts leading to appointment of Court Receiver will be useful for correct appreciation of the facts and contentions of rival parties.3. The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant in First Appeal No. 386 of 1992. The original defendant Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 7, 10, 11, 15, to 19, 23 to 24, 26 to 30 and 33 to 36 are the appellants in First Appeal No. 387 of 2001. The original defendant Nos. 8, 14, 17 and 22 have n...
Omprakash Dinodia Vs. Smt. Ashalata Wd/O Late Dr. Anant Kumar Karmarka ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)ALLMR108; (2002)104BOMLR843
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated August 11, 2000 passed by the Small Causes Court, Bombay in Appeal No. 89 of 1996 in R.A.E. Suit No. 932 of 1975.2. The petitioner claims to be the tenant In respect of Room No. 2 being one room tenement on the ground floor of building known as Dhanbai Mulchand Niwas (new name is Ashok Niketan) situated at 117-B Dadyseth Agiary Lane, Bombay. The original landlord, predecessor of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 8 herein, filed suit for recovery of possession of the demised premises against the Respondent Nos. 9, 10, 11 and the Petitioner herein. According to the landlords, the Respondent No. 9 was inducted as a monthly tenant in the demised premises, whereas the Respondent No. 10, her grandson, was occupying the demised premises for some time. The landlord further asserted that the Respondent No. 10 has unlawfully inducted the present Petitioner as sub-tenant in the suit p...
Tayyab Junus Khatri Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-08-2001
Reported in: (2002)(139)ELT433Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These eight appeals have common facts. These are therefore taken up for disposal together.2. The appeal numbers C/444/2000 and C/445/2000 are filed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) order No. 10/2000-BP, dated 23-2-2000. The appeal numbers C/798/2000 and C/799/2000 are filed against the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) bearing No. 37/2000, dated 27-7-2000. Appeals numbers C/28/2001 to C/31/2001 are filed against the order-in-original passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) bearing No. CCP/ACP/Adj/24/2000, dated 28-2-2000.3. M/s. New Alfa is a partnership firm engaged in selling consumer goods. Mr. T.J. Khatri, Shri N.B. Shah and Shri D.B. Shah are the partners in the firm. Shri S.A. Khatri is the Manager. The shop premises were searched on 9-7-1999. Miscellaneous consumer goods of foreign origin totally valued at Rs. 4,67,785/- were seized. The claim made by the partner Shri T.J. Khatri was that these goods were purchased from open market where they wer...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »