Mumbai Court September 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.
Waman Vyenkatesh Ruikar Vs. Registrar, Co-operative Societies and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-2002
Reported in: [2003(96)FLR313]; (2003)ILLJ434Bom
1. Heard Mr. Topkar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sonawane, learned A.G.P. for respondents No. 1. Respondent No. 2 is absent despite notice. Names of respondents No. 3 to 5 are deleted.2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated August 31, 2000 passed by the Industrial Court, Kolhapur setting aside the order of Labour Court and directing the petitioner to seek permission of respondent No. 1 under Section 107 of the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act before proceeding with the complaint against the termination under the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971. He has also challenged the order of respondent No. 1 dated January 29, 2002 refusing permission under Section 107 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act.3. It is doubtful whether such a permission would be necessary for prosecuting the proceeding under the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971. In any event, it is impossible to sustain the order of respondent No. 1 refusing permission to the petitioner to prosecute the complaint ...
Smt. Sunita Shankar Salvi Vs. Shankar Laxman Salvi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Bom431; 2003(1)ALLMR267; I(2003)DMC700
V.C. Daga, J. 1. The source of this appeal is a dispute between husband and wife for the property being flat No. 105, located on the first floor of the building, namely, Sai Chhaya Apartment, Akurly Road, Kandivali (E), Mumbai--400001 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said flat' for the sake of brevity). FACTS IN BRIEF 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in nut shell, are as under : The appellant (wife) instituted matrimonial litigation by presenting petition under Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act for dissolution of the marriage in Second Family Court, Bandra (Mumbai) being M.J. Petition No. 845 of 1987. The cross petitions were also filed bearing Nos. 847 of 1987 and 701 of 1987. During the pendency of the said proceedings, consent terms were arrived at between the appellant and the respondent, dissolving their marriage under Section 138 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The remaining dispute centered around the said flat, as such, the present appeal is restricted to the sai...
Anu Mary Tayade Vs. Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation and Ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-2002
Reported in: 2004ACJ1088; 2003(1)ALLMR51; 2003(2)BomCR367
R.J. Kochar, J.1. The impugned order dated 8-1-1999 in Application No. W.C.A.No. 131/C/20 of 1995 passed by the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation and Judge, Second Labour Court, Thane is under challenge under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. By the aforesaid order the learned Commissioner has refused to condone the delay in filing the application for workmen's compensation under section 4(a) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 claiming compensation from the respondent-Corporation for the alleged employment injury arising out of the accident during the course of his employment.2. According to the applicant who died during the pendency of the petition on 19-4-2002, he was employed as a driver with the Corporation from 21-4-1986. According to him, during the course of and arising out of his employment he met an accident on 18-11-1990 whereby he sustained injuries which made him totally permanently disabled as a driver. The deceased applicant further alleged that...
Avinash D. Mandvikar Vs. Bank of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-2002
Reported in: [2003(96)FLR282]; (2003)ILLJ439Bom
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Respondent waive service. By consent petition is taken up for final hearing.2. The petitioner joined the services of the respondent bank on October 15, 1976 under the reserved category of Scheduled Tribe. By the order of appointment respondent bank put the petitioner on probation for a period of six months and his services came to be confirmed on putting satisfactory services of six months. In 1984 the petitioner was promoted in the reserved category to the post of Junior Management Scale I. The petitioner was asked to submit fresh caste certificate in the revised form as he was promoted in the reserved category and his caste certificate was referred to the Committee for scrutiny and verification of Tribe Claims, Pune Division, Pune for verification on June 13, 1987. The Scrutiny Committee invalidated the caste certificate of the petitioner vide order dated July 18, 1987. However, the Order was set aside by the Court in Writ Petition No. 3680 of 1994 and t...
Lakhan @ Raju Baban Yedave (Yevale) Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ4424
J.G. Chitre, J.1. Ms. V.S. Mhaispurkar for the appellant. Shri Shringarpure, A.P.P. for the prosecution. Both of them have been heard at length in context with the evidence on record. The appellant is assailing correctness, propriety and legality of the judgment and order passed by the 3rd ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Pune while deciding Sessions Case No. 202 of 2001, wherein the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under the provisions of Section 304(II) of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. The appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 506(II) of I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The substantive sentences have been directed to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the appellant was staying with his wife P.W. Shantabai, in a rented room owned by one Vilas Katore at Indrayani Nursery at Chimbali Phata, Kuruli, Tal. Khed, Distr...
Aamir Raza HusaIn and anr. Vs. Cinevistaas Limited and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-2002
Reported in: 2004(1)ARBLR248(Bom); 2003(3)BomCR827; 2003(27)PTC425(Bom)
H.L. Gokhale, J.1. This proceeding raises the question with respect to the copyright in the script of an unfinished cinematograph film based on the Kargil War of May/June, 1999. On the one side of this copyright war is the claim of the author of the script of the film (who is also the Director of the proposed film), his wife and their organisations, and on the other side that of the Company financing the film. The decision on this question is necessary for deciding as to whether Financing Company is entitled to any interim protection during the pendency of a proposed arbitral proceeding between the parties since they have now fallen apart.2. THE FACTS LEADING TO THE CONTROVERSYThe factual background prior to this controversy is as follows :-One Mr. Aamir Raza Husain claims to be a theatre personality of some standing with experience in acting and direction of plays as well as films. His wife Mrs. Virat Husain also claims a similar experience. It is their case that at the time of the Ka...
Sanjiv Kumar Mahapatra Vs. A.L. Alaspurkar and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR534; 2003(3)BomCR249; [2003(96)FLR870]
R.J. Kochar, J.1. Originally the petition was filed by the petitioner who was alive at that time. He was aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 29-7-1997 passed by the Industrial Court in the Revision Application No. 5/96 and 24/96 filed by both the parties i.e. the petitioner driver and the respondent company, the employer, against the order of the Labour Court dated 22-12-1995 in the Complaint U.L.P. No. 133/89 filed by the petitioner against the respondent-company challenging the order of termination dated 7-4-1989. The petitioner had filed the said complaint under section 28 read with section 30 and Items 1(a), (d), (f) and (g) of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971. The Labour Court had granted reinstatement with 50% of backwages. Both the parties were not satisfied with the said judgment and, therefore, they preferred revision application as aforesaid under section 44 of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971.2. The facts in the present case are in a very narrow compas...
Dhariwal Industries Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)BomCR698
R.M. Lodha, J.1. On 23-7-2002 the Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration and Food (Health) Authority for the State of Maharashtra issued an order prohibiting for a period of 5 years with effect from 1-8-2002 the sale of Gutka and Pan Masala containing tobacco or not containing tobacco by whatever name called, in the State of Maharashtra and, accordingly, directed that no person shall himself or any person on his behalf, shall manufacture for sale, or store, sell or distribute Gutka or Pan Masala containing tobacco or not containing tobacco. The order was issued by Food (Health) Authority for the State of Maharashtra in the exercise of powers conferred by Clause (iv) of section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The order dated 23rd July 2002 reads thus:'COMMISSIONER, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION AND FOOD (HEALTH) AUTHORITY, MAHARASHTRA STATE Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East),Mumbai 400 051.Dated the 23rd July, 2002.ORDERPREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954.N...
Shri Chandreshwar Bhuthanath Devastan of Paroda by Its Special Attorne ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-2002
Reported in: (2003)105BOMLR915
S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the respondents as well as the other learned Counsel in the above matter including the learned Advocate General to assist us on the issue as to whether Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which has been amended by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 will be prospective in operation or retrospective in operation. The aforesaid Amendment was brought into force on 1st July, 2002.2. The only issue which has been argued is whether any of the pending Letters Patent Appeals which have already been admitted by this Court are also covered by the said Section 100A as mentioned hereinabove, in the sense whether pending admitted Letters Patent Appeals survive in view of the aforesaid amendment or not.3. To appreciate the contentions with regard to the above issue, it would be relevant to quote Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which for the first time by this Code of Civil Procedure ...
Akar Plastics Vs. Rajgurunagar Sahakari Bank Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR7; (2003)105BOMLR339
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the Judgment and order dated September 6th. 1991 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies. Pune Division, Pune in Revision Application Nos. 204 and 205 of 1988-89. It is not necessary to advert to all the events that have given rise to the initiation of proceeding against the Petitioner. Suffice it to point out that the Petitioner had obtained cash credit facility from the Respondent No. 1 - Bank as well as hypothecation loan. Recovery certificates were issued on 26.9.1988 for recovery of sum of Rs. 1,53,000/- and Rs. 3,15,000/- respectively from the Petitioner in respect of above said transactions. R is not in dispute that the Petitioner paid substantial part of the amounts referred to in the certificates except sum of Rs. 32,024.60, out of that Rs. 16,000/- was towards penal interest and Rs. 16.024.60 towards surcharge. It is also not in dispute that the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »