Mumbai Court August 2002 Judgments
Kisan Ananda Varade (Dr.) Vs. Punjabrao Krishi Vidyapeeth and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR1123; 2003(2)BomCR243; 2003(1)MhLj187
R.K. Batta, J.1. The issues involved in both these petitions are same and as such they were heard together and are proposed to be disposed of by a common judgment.2. The petitioners were working with the respondent No. 1 in the cadre of Associate Professor/Reader. The petitioner Arjun Mahajan was appointed as Agricultural Supervisor from 14th October 1959 and the petitioner Dr Kisan Varade was appointed as Agricultural Supervisor with effect from 20th September 1960. The petitioner Arjun Mahajan was promoted to the post of Agricultural Officer vide order dated 7th March 1964 and the petitioner Dr Kisan Varade was promoted to the post of Agricultural Officer with effect from 9-9-1963. They were both promoted to the post of Lecturer in Agronomy in the Agricultural College, Akola. The petitioner Arjun Mahajan was promoted on 25th August 1966 and the petitioner Dr Kisan Varade was promoted with effect from 4-7-1967. The Maharashtra Krishi Vidyapeeth was formed with effect from 1st June 196...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Moti Enterprises and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ARBLR229(Bom); 2003(2)BomCR737; (2003)1BOMLR639; 2003(1)MhLj930
ORDERD.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Admit. The learned counsel for the respondents waives service. By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. The Arbitration Petition in these proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeks to impugn an award of a sole arbitrator, dated 23rd March, 2002. The sole arbitrator in the present case was an Additional Director General Works, Pune.3. In August 1996, the petitioners invited tenders for providing accommodation for 42 officers at Colaba by the construction of a building consisting of a ground and six upper floors together with related work. The tender submitted by the first respondent was accepted on 19th September, 1996. An agreement was entered into between the parties. Under the contract as originally executed, the work was required to be completed on or before 11th May, 1998. By a letter dated 30th April, 1998, the first respondent sought extension of time to complete the work. The petitioners granted an ex...
Tag this Judgment!Subramanian Muttu Harijan and Vijay Kumar Pandi Pillai Vs. the State o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)118
J.G. Chitre, J.1. The appellants are hereby assailing correctness, propriety and legality of the judgment and order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 1169 1998 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted these two appellants along with the dead co-accused for committing an offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC and sentenced each of them to RI for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to undergo further RI for three months. The prosecution case in brief is that on 20.6.1998 at 9.30 a.m. complainant Sanjay Singh went to the Central Bank of India and withdrew cash to the tune of Rs. 13000/- from his account and came out of the said bank and started walking towards square which was created by Mankhurd Turbhe Road and Sion Mankhurd Road for going to Mankhurd Railway Station. It is the prosecution case that these two appellants with other co-accused who is dead came near him by maruti car and by getting down f...
Tag this Judgment!Laxman Bharama Mahar and ors. Vs. Mahadeo Ramchandra Satoskar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR16; 2003(4)BomCR198
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order passed by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Kolhapur in No. MRT-115/1983 dated April 5, 1984. The petitioners claim to be the tenants in respect of the land bearing Survey No. 133/5 situated at Shirgaon, Tal. Ajara, District Kolhapur. By this writ petition the order passed by the tenancy authority under section 32-P of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act is being assailed. The background in which the proceeding under section 32-P is initiated is that the tenancy authority recorded the statement of the tenant that he was unwilling to purchase the suit land. In view of that statement the purchase was declared as having become ineffective vide order dated 15-11-1963. As a consequence of that declaration the proceedings under section 32-P were initiated. The tenancy authority by order dated December 23, 1971 directed the petitioners to hand over the possession of the l...
Tag this Judgment!Uttam T. Dhumal and ors. Vs. Regional Transport Authority and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)BomCR531
1. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants, learned Advocate General for State and the learned Counsel appearing for Pune Municipal Corporation. We have also perused the record of the case including the impugned order of the learned Single Judge.2. The appellants are the owners of what are known as Six Seater Auto Rickshaws, who were earlier allowed to ply within the entire limits of Pune Municipal Corporation. They are all holders of individual contract carriage permits issued by the respondent No. 1 Regional Transport Authority (RTA). The appellants have impugned before the learned Single Judge the decision taken by the State Transport Authority (STA) on 9-6-1998 to restrict the plying of 6 + 1 Seater Auto Rickshaws outside all Municipal Corporation areas so that they do not ply within the city corporation limits. Certain other incidental directions were also given by the STA.3. Pursuant to the communication by the STA, the RTA Pune in its meeting held on 5-2-1999 took a...
Tag this Judgment!Sadashiv @ Shiva Antappa Pujari Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)142; 2003CriLJ3661
J.G. Chitre, J.1. Heard, Shri Shringarpure, A.P.P. for the prosecution. The appellant is hereby assailing correctness, propriety and legality of the order of conviction and sentence passed against him, in Sessions Case No. 160 of 1996, wherein the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under provision of Sections 399 and 402 of Indian Penal Code. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month in context with provisions of Section 399 of Indian Penal Code. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days for the offence punishable under Section 402 of Indian Penal Code.2. The prosecution case, in brief is that on 16/10/1995, at 3.30 p.m. the Station House Officer, P.S.I. Gavaonkar, attached to R.K. Kidvai police station, received secret i...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Vs. Prestress Products (India)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ARBLR624(Bom); 2003(3)BomCR117
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Admit. The learned counsel for the respondent waives service. By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal.The Contract and the Dispute : 2. The petitioner before the Court which is the Municipal Corporation for Greater Bombay impugnes in these proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, an award of a sole Arbitrator dated 4th March, 2002. 3. In October, 1986, the petitioner awarded to the respondent a contract for carrying out the civil, electrical and mechanical work for a Waste Water Treatment Facility at Versova. The work under the contract was to be completed within 18 months, by 31st March, 1988. The value of the contract was Rs. 5,42,38,727. On 3rd August, 1988, the Municipal Corporation approved a revised proposal at a cost of Rs. 4.18 crores which entailed, according to the respondent, a substantial change in the scope of work and specification. The respondent commenced the work on 1st October, 1988. On 15th February...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanu M. Meshram Vs. Manganese Ore India Ltd. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR1139; 2003(3)BomCR869; (2003)IIILLJ896Bom
V.M. Kanade, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the decision taken by the respondents by letter, dated February 3, 1996, refusing to accept the petitioner's application for challenging his date of birth.2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are as under.3. The petitioner has been working with the respondents since September 20, 1970. The respondents had issued a circular, dated April 16, 1991, by which they have asked their employees and also the union that if any employee wanted to change his date of birth, he could do so within a specific period. Accordingly, time was granted to the employees to produce the relevant record on or before May 16, 1991. It was made specifically clear in the said circular that if the relevant school leaving certificate was not produced before that date, i.e. before May 16, 1991, subsequently no application would be entertained. It is an admitted position that the petition did not make any application before the said cut-off da...
Tag this Judgment!Globe Traders Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-2002
Reported in: 2004(174)ELT434(Bom)
ORDER1. Heard rival contentions.2. Petitioners are seeking to challenge the order of CEGAT dated 21-3-2002 (Page 43), refusing to condone delay of 13 months.3. Shorn of all unnecessary details, the facts in nutshell are : The petitioners had preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs, to challenge the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Bombay, dated 15-3-1982. However, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) was pleased to reject the said appeal by his reasoned order dated 16-3-1982.4. The petitioners not satisfied with the aforesaid order preferred writ petition being Writ Petition No. 1494 of 1983 so as to challenge the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) dated 15-3-1982. The said petition was ruled on I7th June, 1983. The said writ petition came up for final hearing before the Division Bench of this Court on 11-10-1991, wherein this Court was pleased to relegate the petitioners to remedy of appeal to be filed within 2 weeks from the date of the order. ...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Ganesh S. Durafe Vs. Maharashtra Bhatkya Vimukti Jati Shikshan Pr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR652; (2002)104BOMLR826
R.J. Kochar, J.1. By a common though rather unintelligible judgment the School Tribunal was pleased to dismiss the Appeals filed by the School Teachers under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 to challenge their termination notices dated 29.3.1997 passed by the Respondent No. 1 to terminate their employment with effect from 30.4.1997.2. The Appellants were appointed as Asstt. Teachers on and from 1.7.1996 on purely temporary basis. The Education Officer granted approval for the appointments for the academic year 1996-97 only. By a notice of one month dated 29.3.1997 they were to be terminated with effect from 24.4.1997. The Appellants were aggrieved by the said orders, and therefore, they filed the present Appeals before the School Tribunal. The Respondent No. 1 School Management contested the Appeals mainly on the ground that the Appellant-teachers were appointed on temporary basis for one year and they were terminate...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »