Mumbai Court March 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.
Dhanraj Bhuddsingh Gupta Since Deceased by Legal Representative of Dec ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Bom456; 2002(6)BomCR409; (2002)3BOMLR892; 2002(3)MhLj666
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. This Civil Revision Application arises out of an order passed by the Small Causes Court on 11th February, 2002 in three Revision Applications. The three Revision Applications sought to impugn an order passed by the Small Causes Court, dismissing three interim notices which were taken out on behalf of the Applicant herein, raising objections to the execution of the decree for eviction under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.2. Briefly stated, the factual background of the case is that a suit for eviction came to be filed in the year 1990 by the landlord and eviction was sought on the ground, inter alia, of a change of user and of subletting, these being statutory grounds which were available under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The suit for eviction was decreed on 21st December, 1996 both on the ground of change of user and of subletting. The appeal which was filed by the Applicant was dismissed on 25th February, 2...
Bhagwat Sojanaji Sonawane and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)BomCR263; (2002)3BOMLR230; 2002(3)MhLj719
ORDERD.G. Karnik, J.1. The respondent No. 2 the Multipurpose Society Registered under the provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act is neither a specified society nor a notified society. Despite the term of the previous managing committee being over, no elections were held and, therefore, the Registrar appointed respondent No. 4 as an Election Officer for holding the elections of the managing committee of the respondent No. 2 Society. Accordingly the elections were held on or about 24th June, 1998.2. The learned advocate for the petitioners states that no election rules framed under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act or the Rules framed thereunder in respect of societies which are not specified or notified societies. The procedure of election is governed by the bye-laws of the respective societies, as in the case of respondent No. 2.3. The petitioners were elected members of the managing committee in the election held on 24th June, 1998. They had formed a panel and r...
Pyarelal Ramkishore Prajapati Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-2002
Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)103; 2002CriLJ3611; 2002(4)MhLj293
A.B. Palkar, J. 1. All these three petitions have been filed by the accused in C. R. No. 44 of 1995 in respect of which Criminal Case No. 69/P of 2000 and Case No. 429 of 1994 of Thane, which have been merged in the aforesaid Case No. 69/P of 2000, pending before the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court, Esplanade, Bombay, for quashing of the prosecution.2. Pyarelal Ramkishore Prajapati is the main accused and was the only accused when complaint was filed on behalf of M/s Arcade (I) Pvt. Ltd. by one M. G. Ramchandra, who is now joined as a party respondent to the above petitions and would hereinafter be referred to as 'respondent' or 'complainant' whereas petitioner would be referred to as 'petitioner' or 'accused' for the sake of convenience.3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that petitioner entered into an agreement with the respondent on 11-5-1987. On record there is no detailed agreement as is normally found in case of building construction but the bookin...
Pal Vrs Employees Welfare Association Vs. Premier Automobiles Ltd. and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-2002
Reported in: (2002)IIILLJ415Bom
1. The members of the appellant association who are ex-employees of the respondent company, voluntarily retired pursuant to the voluntary retirement scheme announced by the company. Under the said scheme, two options were given to the employees, what is known as 'Pension Scheme 1-A with full pension' and 'Pension Scheme B with 1/3rd commutation and balance 2/3rd Pension'. The employees resigned from the service in terms of Voluntary Retirement Scheme. They have received payments as per the scheme and they are paid pension as per their option. It was stated in the letter of acceptance issued by the company that employees would cease to be employees in the company with effect from the date mentioned in the acceptance letter. It appears that the employees of the company who were represented by the Association of Engineering Workers, had submitted a charter of demand on April 24, 1991, the previous settlement having expired on December 31, 1990. On September 8, 1994 the Union and the respo...
Creative Garments Vs. Kunwar Prasad and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-2002
Reported in: (2003)ILLJ809Bom; 2003(1)BomLC235
1. This appeal is directed against the order of learned single Judge directing reinstatement of the respondent-workman with full back wages.2. The case of the respondent is that he was in the employment of the appellant-company as Pressman from 1989 and from June 15, 1992, he was not allowed to join his duties and he was orally told that his services were no longer required. No orders in writing were passed. Therefore, the termination from employment without giving any reason and in contravention of Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, was illegal and void. The defence of the appellant-company was that respondent was never in its employment and therefore, there was no employer-employee relationship between them and therefore, there was no dispute or industrial dispute existed to be referred or to be adjudicated by the Labour Court. The employer has stated in its written statement that it had reliably learnt that the petitioner was in employment of one Kamlesh Ironing and Shri Dud...
Hegde Appa Dhondiba Vs. Someshwar Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)BomCR252
P.S. Patankar, J.1. The respondent No. 1 promoted the respondent No. 3 to the higher grade as library attendant since June, 1990. According to the petitioner, he should have been given said higher grade of library attendant and not the respondent No. 3. Hence, he is praying by this petition under Article 226 that he be given higher grade of library attendant from June, 1990 and giving of higher grade or promotion to respondent No. 3 be quashed.2. The entire claim of the petitioner is based upon the allegation that the petitioner alongwith four others i.e. Vasant Gosavi, B.R. Gaikwad, Yadav H.S. and Jadhav B.N.-respondent No. 3 were all working as peons with respondent No. 1. Except the petitioner, all four others came to be given said higher grade or promotion of library attendant. He is not disputing giving the said promotion or higher grade to Mr. Vasant Gosavi, Mr. B.R. Gaikwad and Mr. Yadav H.S. as they were senior to him. But according to the petitioner, Mr. B.N. Jadhav was junior...
Venkat Dattatraya Nandvate, Age 51 Yrs. Occ-head Master, Jai Bhavani H ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)BomCR241; (2002)3BOMLR321; [2002(95)FLR304]
D.G. Karnik, J.1. Heard.2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Byconsent, petition taken up for final hearing. Shri D.B.Pawar, learned Advocate appears for respondent No.1 andwaives notice. The petitioner craves leave to delete nameof the respondent No.2. Request granted.3. By order dated 2.7.2001, School Tribunalgranted stay to the operation of the order passed by theschool management removing the respondent No.1 from thepost of Supervisor and directed to continue the respondentNo.1 to the post of Supervisor till further orders. By aresolution dated 25.7.2001, the management decided to filewrit petition in the High Court and obtain stay to thesaid order of the School Tribunal. Accordingly WritPetition No. 742 of 2002 was filed challenging the orderof the School Tribunal. However, no orders were passed onthe said writ petition immediately.4. In the meanwhile, the respondent No.1 filedan application for contempt against the Head Master of theschool for disobeying the order dated 2.7.2...
Smt. Anjirabai W/O Chandrabhan Moon, Aged About 70 Years, Occupation : ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)BomCR572; (2002)3BOMLR621; 2002(2)MhLj907
D.D. Sinha, J.1. The Counsel for the applicants is absent. HeardShri Dubey, learned Counsel for the non-applicant nos.5, 6 and 8.2. The civil revision applications are directedagainst the common judgment and order dated 30.12.1993passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpurin M.J.C. No. 99/1991 arising out of Special CivilSuit No. 1/1987 as well as M.J.C. No. 100/91 arisingout of Special Civil Suit No. 2/1987 whereby delay infiling applications by the defendants/non-applicantsunder Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedurewas condoned and judgments and decrees passed in theabove referred respective suits were set aside subjectto costs of rupees three hundred fifty in each case.3. The applicants have assailed the impugned judgmentand order mainly on the ground that the trial Courtfailed to consider that on 29.10.1990, the trial Courtpassed 'no written statement' order and thereafterjudgments and decrees were passed in the suits on28.2.1991. The trial Court failed to co...
Santogen Textile Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-2002
Reported in: 2002(84)ECC74; 2002(143)ELT289(Bom)
ORDER1. Heard Shri E.P. Bharucha for the petitioners and Shri A.J. Rana appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner seeks to challenge the order of the Settlement Commission, Customs and Central Excise Additional Bench, Mumbai, (the Settlement Commission for short) dated 15th January, 2002 (Ex-I), passed in exercise of powers under Section 32F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act for short). Facts in brief :3. The 1st petitioner is a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU for short) engaged in manufacturing textile fabrics and fabric articles.4. The 1st petitioner being 100% EOU' was procuring yarn from other EOUs under CT-3 Certificates without payment of duty on the raw material for manufacturing its export products.5. On the basis of the intelligence report received by the Customs Department, petitioners were proceeded with for diverting duty free raw materials and/or for not using the same in manufacture of the goods meant for export. Certain records pertaining to the petitioners ...
Hotel Oberoi Towers Vs. Gopal Naidu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)BomCR58; [2002(94)FLR779]
R.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner, a Five Star Hotel, was the employer of the respondent-employee at the relevant time. Both the parties would be referred to as the employer and employee. The petitioner-employer is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 13-12-2000 passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court, Maharashtra at Mumbai in Revision Application No. 48 of 1998 under section 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short MRTU & PULP Act).2. The facts in nutshell are as follows :3. The employee was in permanent employment of the petitioner-employer for a period of 24 years. There is no dispute that the employee had a meritorious service record of 24 years service with the petitioner-employer. There is also no dispute that the petitioner-employer had issued from time to time merit certificates to the employee for the meritorious and good work done by him.4. It appears that on 14-4-1995 the petitioner-empl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »