Mumbai Court April 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.
Divisional Secretary, Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad Vs. Union of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-23-2002
Reported in: [2002(94)FLR1101]; (2002)IIILLJ563Bom
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated April 3, 2001 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1108 of 1998 by which the Award dated October 11, 1996 given by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal in Ref. No. CCIT 1/5 of 1996 was set aside. The Motor Lorry Drivers (MLD) of the Western Railway demanded travelling allowance for duty performed by road from Lower Parel Workshop to Church gate/ Budhwar Park on the basis that the distance between Lower Parel Workshop to Church gate/ Budhwar Park was more than 8 kms and under the rules they were entitled to get such travelling allowance. The Railway administration did not agree with their demand which ultimately came to be referred to for adjudication under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The following industrial dispute was adjudicated by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal:'Whether the truck drivers working at Parelworkshop are entitled to get TA for duty performed by roadway from Lo...
Tanveer Mohammedi Ibrahim Farooq Vs. Education Officer (Primary) Zilla ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-23-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)BomCR532
D.G. Karnik, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for respective parties.2. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent.3. The respondent No. 2 was employed in the school rule by respondent No. 3 society. The learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 states that respondent No. 3 is a society registered under Societies Registration Act as well as public trust registered under Bombay Public Trust Act. The services of respondent No. 2 were terminated and therefore she filed an appeal before the School Tribunal under Maharashtra Employees of Private School (Condition of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (for short M.E.P.S. Act). The oral order of termination was stayed by order of the School Tribunal passed on 18th February 1998 and the said order was confirmed on 28th August, 1999. The respondent No. 2 alleged that despite these orders, she was not allowed to work in the school and she therefore, filed petition under section 13 of the M.E.P.S. Act before the School Tribunal. In the said application she st...
Sudhadevi Ramakant Loiya and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Its ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-23-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)BomCR466
R.S. Mohite, J.1. Heard Shri Naik, Advocate for the petitioners and Smt. Jog, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.2. Rule. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith.3. By this writ petition, the petitioners challenge the show-cause notices dated 5-3-2001 and 29-5-2001 as also the order passed by respondent No. 2 on 26-12-2001, which are annexed to the petition. The show-cause notices have been issued in Form No. 1 prescribed by Rule 3(1) of the Bombay Stamp (Determination of True Market Value of Property) Rules, 1981, which corresponds to Form No. 1 as prescribed by Rule 6(1) of the Bombay Stamp (Determination of True Market Value of Property) Rules, 1995.4. As far as show-cause notices are concerned, the argument is that the reasons as required to be given in the Schedule of Form No. 1 have not been given. The said argument is unfounded as the reasons are required to be given in the schedule when the market value, as disclosed in the deed, is improper or untrue. It is...
Wockhardt Limited Vs. Mahesh Medical and General Stores and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-23-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)BomCR633
P.V. Kakade, J.1. The plaintiff has taken out this Notice of Motion in a suit, inter alia, for an order and injunction restraining the defendants by an interim order and injunction from in any manner using in relation to medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations the trade mark AZIWIN or any mark deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trade mark AZIWOK registered under No. 650354 in Class 05, so as to infringe the plaintiff's registered trade mark. 2.In the course of the interim order, I heard Mr. Virendra Tulzapurkar, learned Counsel for the plaintiff and Mr. Iqbal Chagla, learned Counsel for the defendant No. 2 at length and have also perused the entire record. The plaintiff is a Limited Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 in the year 1999 under the name of Wockhardt Pharmaceuticals Ltd. which name was changed to Wockhardt Limited and is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing medicinal, pharmaceutical and veterinary products for nearly four decade...
Narayandas Madanlal Somani Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-23-2002
Reported in: 2002BomCR(Cri)722; (2002)104BOMLR709
V.K. Barde, J.1. The accused appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act in E.C. Act Case No. 24 of 1987 by the Special Judge, Latur. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the present appeal is filed.2. The prosecution case is that P.S.I. Pujari of Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Latur, received information that bags of wheat, which were to be sold from the fair price shop, were stored in the adat shop of the accused Narayandas Somani. He, therefore, went to that shop along with the police and the panchas. Five bags of wheat were found in the shop and on those bags, there was the stamp of Food Corporation of India. A panchnama was prepared and the five bags of wheat were seized. The five bags of wheat with the permission of the Collector were then kept in the Government godown. He then filed F.I.R. at the Police Station. Crime No. 4 of 1987 was registered and after completion of investigation, he submitt...
Bhikaji Tukaram Jadhav and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)BomCR83
C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is filed against an order passed by the learned Single Judge on 10th of April, 2002 in Writ Petition No. 2178 of 2002. The said order reads thus: 'The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or error apparent on the face of the record. Hence petition is rejected. On behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, learned Counsel makes a statement that the transit accommodation is ready and this transit accommodation is available to the petitioner; till such time the permanent accommodation comes up. Statement is accepted. Petition is disposed of accordingly.'2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.3. When the matter was placed for admission hearing, a preliminary objection was taken by the learned Counsel for respondents Nos. 2 and 3 that Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable inasmuch as the petition filed by the petitioners (present appellants) was under Article 227 of the Constitution. When the petitioners themselves had ...
Vishwanath Namdeo Shirsat Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-2002
Reported in: 2002BomCR(Cri)817; II(2003)DMC137
V.K. Barde, J.1. The accused who is convicted and sentenced for offence Under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Case No. 94 of 1987 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli, on 3.12.1990, has filed this appeal against the said order of conviction and sentence. The prosecution case is as follows :On 17.11.1986, Narayan Magar lodged a report at Police Station, Goregaon, that his sister Sushila died on that date. Her marriage had taken place with Vishwanath Shirsat, the present accused, about 7 years back and he had doubt about the cause of death. He also reported that Sushila was being treated with cruelty. There was demand of money always and her husband was beating her. On the basis of this report, A.D. No. 19/1986 was registered and the police started the inquiry.2. During the course of inquiry, statement of Gangaram Magar, father of Sushila, was recorded and he gave details regarding how and when marriage took place, how there was the demand of mone...
Khandesh Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. Vs. Ashok S/O Rameshwa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR91; (2002)104BOMLR862
D.G. Karnik, J.1. This writ petition raises several important questions of law, some of which are not res integra.FACTS2. The facts giving rise to the petition are not many and are all admitted. They are briefly stated below.The petitioner is a Co-operative Credit Society (for short 'the Society') incorporated and registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act'). The respondent was the Chairman of the Society in the past and it is alleged that during his tenure as a Chairman, he committed several illegal acts causing financial loss to the Society. The respondent had kept certain amounts by way of Fix Deposits with the petitioner, who had issued Fixed Deposit Receipts. The petitioner - Society alleges that the Fixed Deposit Receipts were forged and/or were without consideration and were obtained by the respondent by taking advantage of his position, which he then held as Chairman. In view of this the petitioner did not make the payment of the amoun...
Tejram Kanhobaji Shrikhande Vs. Maharashtra State Handloom Corporation ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-19-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)BomCR191; [2003(96)FLR110]; (2002)IIILLJ674Bom; 2002(3)MhLj385
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ to quash and set aside termination order dated 3-1-1987 and to direct the respondent to reinstate him in service from the date of said order dated 3-1-1987 with continuity in service and full backwages in the post of Vigilance and Audit Officer. Petitioner has also challenged the validity of Rule 28 of the Maharashtra State Handloom Corporation Limited Staff Recruitment and Service Rules (for short, the 'Rules') as ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India. However, this prayer regarding validity is not pressed at the hearing of the writ petition as the impugned order dated 3-1-1987 is not passed under Rule 28 of the said Rules.2. The facts relevant for the purpose of present petition are as follows. On 2nd February 1972 the petitioner was appointed as Accountant by the respondent Corporation. On 13th August 1973 the petitioner was promoted as Chief Accountant. On 12th April 1980 the petitioner was promoted as ...
Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Mathuradas Narandas and Sons Fo ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-19-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR317; 2002(5)BomCR196; 2002CriLJ3510; 2002(3)MhLj474
S.A. Bobde, J.1. This Contempt Petition is taken out by the Shipping Corporation of India against the respondents. The respondent No. 1 is a private limited company. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the Directors of respondent No. 1 and are main respondents in the sense that they were parties to the order passed by this Court under which they were bound to do some acts referred to hereinafter, which they have not done. The respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are hereinafter referred to as 'the respondents'.2. The respondent Nos. 3 and 5 are partners of respondent No. 4 and respondent No. 7 is a proprietor of respondent No. 6. At the outset the learned Counsel for the petitioners made a statement that the contempt is not being pressed against respondent Nos. 4 to 7. In view of the statement, contempt proceedings against respondent Nos. 4 to 7 are dismissed as not pressed.3. In Suit No. 4541 of 1999 filed by the Shipping Corporation of India against the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and the other res...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »