Mumbai Court March 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.
i.T.C. Limited (India Tobacco Division) Vs. General Labour Union and a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)BomCR516; [2002(92)FLR1006]
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner Company is aggrieved by an order passed by the Industrial Court on 1lth April 1997 on an application filed by it in the pending Complaint U.L.P. No. 584 of 1997 filed by the respondent union under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971, which was not a recognised union.2. It appears that in March, 1987, the petitioner Company had suspended its manufacturing activities and except 18 workmen all other workmen of the factory had taken voluntary retirement by 1990. On 2nd February, 1991, the petitioner Company terminated the service of the said 18 workmen and declared total closure of the factory and tendered their legal dues. Except one workman all other workmen collected their dues. On 18th April 1991, after the closure of the said factory at Parel, the first respondent union filed a complaint of unfair labour practice (No. 584 of 1991) under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act alleging that the petitioner Company had committed unfai...
i.T.C. Limited Vs. Shri S. Mariadasan and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-2001
Reported in: [2001(90)FLR415]
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner Company is aggrieved by an order passed by the Industrial Court on 5th April. 1997 on an application filed by the Petitioner Company in the pending Complaint U.L.P. No. 455 of 1989 making the prayer that in the circumstances mentioned in the application, the said application should be decided as it goes to the root of the complaint filed by an individual employee when the recognised union is in existence in the undertaking and is operating. The learned Member of the Industrial Court passed an order saying that the said application would be decided along with the main complaint at the time of final hearing of the matter.2. The petitioner Company appears to have permanently close down its place of business of manufacturing and sale of Cigarettes and tobacco products with effect from 2nd February, 1991. It further appears from the averments that except the two employees all others had accepted terminal benefits arising out of the closure of the Compan...
Shri Anantnathji Maharaj JaIn Temple and Its Sadharan Funds Vs. Shri R ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)BomCR746
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner is a public trust owning a Jain Temple wherein the respondent watchman was employed in the year 1983. The petitioner had Issued a charge-sheet dated 9th April, 1990 alleging two acts of misconducts i.e. assault on a co-workman Shri Ahire on 5th February, 1990 and for remaining unauthorisedly absent from 6th February, 1990 without any leave application. He was earlier suspended with effect from 23rd March, 1990 pending enquiry in the charges of assault and unauthorised absence. The respondent workman appears to have applied for leave on 20th February, 1990 which according to the petitioner, was orally rejected and the workman was informed that his leave was rejected and that he should report for work. It may be stated here that the respondent workman was provided service quarters in the premises of the temple. The respondentworkman submitted his written explanation denying the charges. The petitioners held a domestic enquiry in the charges against t...
Ganesh Harsingh Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)MhLj74
The Court 1. Heard Shri Chatterji, Advocate for the applicants and Shri Tambe, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No. 2. 2. Present respondent No. 1, who claims to be first wife of petitioner, filed Regular Criminal Case No. 16 of 1999 against present petitioner and 13 others for an offence punishable under Section 494 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. After verification, by recording statement of the wife, learned Magistrate was pleased to issue process by an order dated 28-1-1999. By an application Exhibit 59, accused approached the trial Court that the complaint may be returned to the complainant for presentation to the competent Court under Section 201 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, because the allegedincident (second marriage of the respondent No. 1) was alleged to have taken place at Borgaon, Taluka Sillod, District Aurangabad, whereas the complaint is filed at Kalamnuri and the place of offence is not within the territorial jurisdicti...
Dagadu Sakharam Patil and Bhikkan Dagadu Patil and ors. Vs. State of M ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)ALLMR589; (2002)1BOMLR494; 2002(1)MhLj119
1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.2. The petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 29-6-1982 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Review Applications No. 5/1982 and 6/1982 thereby reviewing the judgment and order dated 29-9-1980 of the Tribunal in Appeal registered as Rev. Trib. No. 34/1979. By the impugned judgment and order the Tribunal while reviewing its earlier judgment and order dated 29-9-1980 has remanded the matter to the Tahsildar, Shahada for holding fresh inquiry and to pass decision on merits in accordance with law on the dispute between the parties. The dispute relates to claim for restoration of land in accordance with the provisions of Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 (hereinafter called as the said Act).3. The learned Advocate for the petitioners has conceded that the petitioners do not press for the relief in terms of prayer Clause (a) of the petition. The relief in that regard, therefor...
Lotan Fakira Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)ALLMR585; 2002(1)MhLj255
1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 10th November, 1984 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nasik Division, Nasik in Ceiling Revision Case No. 137/82. Pursuant to the necessary declaration filed under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, an inquiry was held under Section 14 r/w 21 thereof by the Additional Tahsildar in relation to the land owned by the petitioner. By order dated 23-2-1976, thedeclaration was issued in favour of the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner is not holder of any surplus land. The said order of declaration of no surplus land was reviewed by the Commissioner, Bombay Division by its order dated 28-10-1977 in Revision Case No. 181/76 and the matter was remanded for fresh inquiry. The Additional Tahsildar again by order dated 3-7-1978 declared that the petitioner was not having any surplus land. The Collector of Dhule thereafter, on scrutinising t...
M. Visvesvaraya Industrial Research and Development Centre Vs. Income- ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-2001
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Bom)130; [2001]251ITR852(Bom)
S. H. Kapadia, J.Facts :1. On March 29, 1996, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal in respect of the assessment year 1989-90 and the assessment year 1990-91. Thereafter, on August 29, 1999, the assessee moved two miscellaneous applications being Miscellaneous Application No. 6351 of 1993 and Miscellaneous Application No. 1717 of 1994 on the ground that there were mistakes of law in the judgment of the Tribunal dated March 29, 1996. By order dated June 30, 2000, the said miscellaneous applications came to be rejected. Therefore, the assessee has filed the above Writ Petition No. 2490 of 2000. In the meantime, nine questions came to be referred to this court under Section 256(1) in the above Income-tax Reference No. 78 of 1998. Hence, both the above matters are tagged together.2. Briefly, the facts giving rise to the above dispute are as follows :The assessee is a company under Section 5 of the Indian Companies Act. The Regional Director of the Department of ...
Anantnathji Maharaj JaIn Temple and Its Sadharan Funds Vs. Rajan G. Pa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-2001
Reported in: [2001(89)FLR944]; (2002)IVLLJ916Bom
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J. 1. The Petitioner is a public trust owning a Jain Temple wherein the respondent watchman was employed in the year 1983. The Petitioner had issued a charge sheet dated April 9, 1990 alleging two acts of misconducts i.e. assault en a co-workman Shri Ahire on February 5, 1990 and for remaining unauthorisedly absent from February 6, 1990 without any leave application. He was, earlier suspended with effect from March 23, 1990 pending enquiry in the charges of assault and unauthorised absence. The respondent workman appears to have applied for leave on February 20, 1990 which according to the petitioner, was orally rejected and the workman was informed that his leave was rejected and that he should report for work. It may be stated here that the respondent workman was provided service quarters in the premises of the temple. The respondentworkman submitted his written explanation denying the charges. The Petitioners held adomestic enquiry in the charges against the respon...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Ritesh S/O Vasudeo Wanjari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-2001
Reported in: 2001BomCR(Cri)492
R.P. Sethi, J.1. Leave granted.2. The respondent was arrested in connection with Crime No. 129/99 registered by the Police Station, Goregaon for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 109, 120B, 364, 397. 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. He has been granted bail pending trial vide the order impugned in this appeal on the ground that there was no material on record to establish the involvement of the respondent in the commission of the crime and that the accused was not aware of the criminal conspiracy, in execution of which, the deceased Shubhangi was killed.3. According to the prosecution, the respondent had a love affair with the deceased Shubhangi. The deceased was insisting for marriage to which the respondent and his mother were not agreeable as the deceased belonged to Scheduled Caste and the respondent belonged to Tell community which is considered as hig...
Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation Vs. Mohanrao B. Shinde and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)ALLMR478; 2001(4)BomCR563; [2002(94)FLR241]; (2002)IVLLJ960Bom
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Industrial Court, Maharashtra at Mumbai on January 19, 1998 dismissing the appeal filed by them against an order of 7th Labour Court in Application BIR No. 235 of 1986. In the said application, the respondent employee had challenged the order of dismissal passed by the petitioners as illegal and improper and he had prayed for reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service.2. It appears that some of the employees had gone on strike in response to the call given by their union on October 16, 1984. This union was not a representative and approved union in the local area for the petitioners' undertaking. It appears that the respondent employee belonged to the said union. It further appears that on that date, he had threatened another bus driver that if he did not join the strike and if he worked during the strike, he will have to face dire consequences. It appears that the bus driver ...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »