Mumbai Court February 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.
Godabai Mahadu Shinde, Since Deceased Through Heirs Kumari Nagar Dharm ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)BomCR454
R.J. Kochar, J.1. The appellant is the original defendant No. 5 in the suit and she was aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 31-7-1980 passed by the trial Court. She preferred a civil appeal against the said judgment and order of the trial Court before the District Court at Solapur. The Appeal Court by its order dated 4-8-1984 had dismissed the said appeal. The appellant is before this Court with the above second appeal against the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below. The second appeal is being contested only between the defendant No. 5, who is the appellant and the original plaintiff, who is the respondent No. 1. No other parties are contesting the appeal. At this stage itself I may state that the trial Court had proceeded ex parte against the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 as they did not appear to contest the suit. The defendant No. 3 alone had contested the suit at the trial stage along with defendant Nos. 4 and 5. Even before the Appeal Court the defendant Nos. 1 an...
Sudhakar Shridhar Shelar Vs. Steelage Industries Ltd. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)BomCR266; [2002(95)FLR1124]
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. Through this writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the Award of the Labour Court dated 7-6-1995 rejecting Reference (I.D.A.) No. 252 of 1988 for reinstatement with continuity of service and full back-wages. 2. The petitioner was employed as a helper since 1982 with respondent No. 1. He was transferred to FRFCF department in January, 1986. A charge-sheet was issued to him on 30-9-1986 under Standing Order 29(1), (3) and (12) of the certified Standing Orders applicable to respondent No. 1 for the misconduct of wilful go-slow in the performance of work and for commission of acts subversive of discipline. An enquiry was held against the petitioner and his services were terminated by way of dismissal on 4-8-1977. The petitioner, therefore, approached the machinery under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for redressal of his grievance. 3. A reference was made for adjudication before the Labour Court. The petitioner contended, inter alia, in his statement of claim th...
Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad Vs. Vishnu Pandurang Nangare a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)BomCR617; [2002(95)FLR729]
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Labour Court granting respondent No. 1 reinstatement in his original post with continuity of service but without back-wages and the order of the Industrial Court allowing revision partly whereby the order of the Labour Court setting aside the reduction of pay was rejected. 2. Respondent No. 1 was employed as a 'Gram Sevak' on 16-10-1964 by the petitioner. A show-cause notice was issued to him on 31-12-1981 for misuse of public funds. The petitioner received a letter from the respondent admitting his guilt. However, he pleaded that it was due to some family disputes that he was not able to maintain his mental equilibrium and, therefore, this act had occurred. It appears that the petitioner allowed the respondent to continue in service by taking a lenient view in the matter. However, the respondent again indulged in the same act of misconduct and on 16-1-1982, the petitioner was issued a show-cause notice for misappropri...
Madhukar S/O Pandurang Kanthale Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Summons ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-2002
Reported in: 2002BomCR(Cri)779; (2002)104BOMLR908
A.P. Deshpande, J.1. The present appellant came to be charged for the offence punishable under Sections 20, 22 and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as NDPS Act, 1985) and in the alternative Section 27 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985. The Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, on trial found the appellant guilty for commission of offence punishable under Sections 20(b)(i) and 20(b)(ii) of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985. Insofar as the offence under Section 20(b)(i) is concerned, the appellant is sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to suffer R.I. for two months. Insofar as the conviction for offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii) of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 is concerned, the appellant is sentenced to suffer R.I. for 10 years, and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in default to suffer R.I. for one year. It is relevant to note that the appellant-accused is convicted for offence of possessing Ganj...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›