Mumbai Court November 2002 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.
K.K. Vasudeva Kurup Vs. Phulchand Exports Ltd. and Rivian Internationa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-2002
Reported in: [2003]113CompCas401(Bom); [2004]54SCL219(Bom)
R.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner is a learned advocate practising in the City Civil Court and in the High Court. He has filed the present two petitions under Section 439 read with Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, alleging failure on the part of the companies to pay his debt as mentioned in the petition which according to him is the amount of his professional fees payable by the companies as per his memo dated March 24, 2001. The petitioner appears to have been practising law for a period of 35 years. According to him, ordinarily he does not accept any High Court brief without advance payment of Rs. 10,000. He has further averred that since he knew Shri Sharma, the manager of the company at his request certain small amounts were accepted by the petitioner in the beginning and work was done by him. According to the petitioner, the bills for the professional work done by him were absolutely reasonable considering the fact of the number of years of practice which he has put...
Ashok Leyland Finance Limited and anr. Vs. Ramchandra S/O Madari Katka ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ARBLR562(Bom); 2003(1)MhLj536
S.D. Gundewar, J.1. Heard finally at the stage of admission by the consent of the parties.2. The present Civil Revision Application is directed against the older dated 19-12-2001 passed by the learned 5th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur below application (Exh. 23) in Regular Civil Suit No. 4037/2001, whereby the application (Exh. 23) filed by the applicant No, I/original defendant No. 1 under section 9-A of Civil Procedure Code came to be rejected.3. A few facts necessary for the disposal of the present Civil Revision Application are as under :--The non-applicant/original plaintiff, who is a businessman was in need of money for the purchase of one Santro-car. The applicant No. I/original defendant No. 1 is a public limited finance company. Sometime in the first week of October, 2000 the non-applicant approached the applicant No. 1 for loan for purchasing the Santro-car. The applicant No. 1 accepted the proposal made by the non-applicant in this regard and advanced the loan o...
Leela Capital and Finance Ltd. Vs. Modiluft Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Bom111; 2003(1)ALLMR290; 2003(2)BomCR683; [2003]114CompCas297(Bom); 2003(1)MhLj551
R.S. Mohite, J.1.These two appeals which arise from the same summary suit i.e. Summary Suit No.702/92 can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment and order.2. The brief and relevant facts which give arise to the filing of the aforesaid appeals can be summarised as under:--(a) In February 1996, Modiluft Limited (hereinafter referred as the 'Original Defendant') approached Leela Capital and Finance Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'Original Plaintiff) for grant of an Inter Corporate Deposit in the sum of Rs. 5 crores for a period of 90 days with interest .at the rate of 27% per annum. (b) The said loan was granted by the plaintiff to the defendant on 20-2-1996 on terms which were recorded in writing in a letter dated 20-2-1996 addressed by the plaintiff to the defendant. The acceptance of the terms by the defendant was given at the foot of this letter itself. In order to secure the deposit, it was contemplated that the defendant would issue post-dated cheques for the inte...
Digambar Sadashiv Ghorpade and ors. Vs. Election Registration Officer ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR906; 2003(2)BomCR532; (2003)1BOMLR379; 2003(1)MhLj669
H.L. Gokhale, J.1. These two writ petitions invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India raise questions concerning the legality and validity of the final voters list published by the respondent No. 1 in respect of elections to two seats from the traders constituency to the respondent No. 3 Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Kolhapur (hereinafter referred to as 'APMC, Kolhapur' or as 'the Market Committee'). Both these petitions seek to challenge the speaking order passed by him in his capacity as the Election Registration Officer for the APMC, Kolhapur on 27th February 2002, whereby the objections to the inclusion of the names of the 284 Petitioners in the voters list came to be accepted, disentitling them to vote in the election to the traders constituency to the APMC, Kolhapur. These Petitioners principally contend that they were not given a personal hearing while arriving at the above decision and thus there is a violation of principles of natural justice and there...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. G.S. Shukla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR430; 2003(2)BomCR581; 2003(1)MhLj865
Ranjana Desai, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Respondent waives service. By consent of the parties the petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. This petition challenges the legality and validity of order dated 27-2-2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai, in Original Application No. 747 of 2001. 3. The respondent is working as a Train Ticket Examiner at Bhusawal in the Central Railway. A major penalty chargesheet dated 20-11 -2000/2-11 -2000 was issued against the respondent. The Articles of charge read as under : 'Mr. G. S. Shukla, TTE on duty on board 1015 On Kushinagar Express starting from Lokmanya Tilak Terminus, Mumbai on 12-11-1999 committed gross misconduct inasmuch as he was found in possession of excess cash to the tune of Rs. 1050/-. He also obstructed C.B.I, official while performing official duty which led to registration of CR No. 39/99 at Igatpuri Railway Station. The aforesaid act of Mr. G. S. Shukla, show that he did not maintain ab...
Virendralal B. Vaishya Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR487; 2003(2)BomCR551; [2003(97)FLR21]; 2003(2)MhLj64
Smt. Nishita Mhatre, J. 1. The controversy involved in both these petitions is whether the petitioner is entitled to be regularised in service in the school where he was working on contract basis. This controversy has arisen because of the petitioner's qualifications which, according to the respondents, are not equivalent to the B.A. B.Ed. degrees that are a prerequisite for being regularised in service as a teacher.2. The facts giving rise to the present petitions are as follows :--The petitioner was initially appointed in the Government High School, Daman-Diu by the Collector as an Assistant Teacher on daily wage basis. The period of appointment was of 89 days. After the expiry of this period pf 89 days, the petitioner was appointed afresh on the same basis for the period from 15th March 1995 to 30th April 1995. Again a break in service was given and the petitioner was appointed for a further period of 89 days from 26th June 1995. This process of being appointed afresh for a period o...
Anchor Industries Employees' Union Vs. Anchor Industries and 33 Ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-2002
Reported in: (2003)3BOMLR698
1. By this Petition filed by the Employees Union, the Union is challenging an order dated 30th December, 1995 passed by the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Mumbai, whereby the Industrial Court has dismissed the complaint (ULP No. 337 of 1980 filed under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. (hereinafter referred to as MRTU & PULP Act).2. By the aforesaid Complaint (ULP) No. 337 of 1980 the Petitioner Union had contended before the Industrial Court that the Respondent No. 1 Company had indulged in an illegal lockout under the guise of closure whereby the Respondent No. 1 Company had violated the provisions of Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act. In the aforesaid complaint, after regarding of evidence and after a full fledged hearing, the same ultimately came to be dismissed by the Industrial Court on 30th December, 1995.3. It appears that on 3rd January, 1980 there was a strike in the establishment of Respondent Nos. 1 to ...
Sharad Ganpat Deshmukh and ors. Vs. Kunda Ashok Polade and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-2002
Reported in: 2004ACJ1266; 2003(4)BomCR794
D.G. Karnik, J.1. By consent, the appeal is taken up for final hearing.2. On 28th May, 1990, at about 3.30 p.m., Ashok Polade, an employee of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (for short M.S.E.B.) was driving the staff car bearing registration number M.T.W. 9347 carrying other employees of the M.S.E.B. and was proceeding to Vaitarna from Nasik Road. Near the village Vilholi, a truck bearing Registration No. M.W.N. 2117 belonging to the appellant No. 1 and being driven by the appellant No. 2 and insured with the appellant No. 3 came in the opposite direction and there was a collision between the truck and the staff car resulting in the death of Ashok Polade, the driver of the car. His widow, children and the father who are the respondents herein filed a petition bearing M.A.C. Petition No. 259 of 1990 claiming compensation from the appellants. Mr. Ramchandra Chitnis and Suresh Badgujar who were the occupants of the staff car and who were also injured filed two separate petitions f...
Sharad Ganpat Deshmukh and ors. Vs. Mrs. Kunda Ashok Polade and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-2002
Reported in: II(2004)ACC584
D.G. Karnik, J.1. By consent, the appeal is taken up for final hearing.2. On 28th May, 1990, at about 3.30 p.m. Ashok Polade, an employee of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (for short M.S.E.B. was driving the staff car bearing Registration number MTW 9347 carrying other employees of the M.S.E.B. and was proceeding to Vaitarna from Nasik Road. Near the village Vilholi, a truck bearing Registration No. MWN 2117 belonging to the appellant No. 1 and being driven by the appellant No. 2 and insured with the appellant No. 3 came in the opposite direction and there was a collision between the truck and the staff car resulting in the death of Ashok Polade, the driver of the car. His widow, children and the father who are the respondents herein filed a petition bearing M.A.C. Petition No. 259 of 1990 claiming compensation from the appellants. Mr. Ramchandra Chitnis and Suresh Badgujar who were the occupants of the staff car and who were also injured filed two separate petitions for compe...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›