Mumbai Court December 2004 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.
Garware Marine Industries Limited, Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Mi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-2004
Reported in: (2005)IILLJ1070Bom
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. By consent heard forthwith.Petitioner No. 1 is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. Petitioner No. 2 is the company Secretary. Petitioner No. 3 is the non executive Chairman of the first petitioner company. The Petitioner by the present petition have sought relief from this court to strike down the demand notice both dated 6.10.2004 and Notice/Order order dated 20.11.2002. The relief is also sought to strike down the show cause notice for arrest dated 6.10.2004.2. The Respondents by their order dated 20.11.2003 in exercise of the powers conferred on Respondent No. 2 under Section 7(A) of the Employees Provident Fund and Misc. Provisions Act, EPF & MP Act, 1952 determined the dues of petitioner No. 1 on account of provident fund and employees pension fund and insurance fund contribution and administrative charges towards the provident fund and insurance fund for the period from 3/202 to 9/03 in accordance with the provisions of the Employees Pr...
Prabhakar S/O Dadaji Pal Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)MhLj25
K.J. Rohee, J.1. Both these applications have been moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They arise out of the order dated 15-4-2004 by 4th Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur and as such disposed of by this common order.2. The first application is moved by original accused No. 2 against the order of the Revisional Court rejecting his application for discharge and maintaining the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, whereas the second application is by the State against the order of Revisional Court granting the application of accused No. 3 for discharge by setting aside the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate.3. Brief facts would be necessary to appreciate the controversy :Accused No. 1 Suresh M. Muraskar was serving as Junior Assistant, accused No. 2 Prabhakar Dadaji Pal as Deputy Engineer and accused No. 3 Vivek Gopinath Dubewar as Sectional Engineer in Zilla Parishad's Building Division, Works Sub Division at Mul, district Chandrapur. Accused No....
Omprakash Shrawan Deshpande and anr. Vs. Presiding Officer, School Tri ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-2004
Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR759; 2005(2)BomCR537
Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. Heard Shri Jibhkate, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Mandpe, A.G.P. for respondents No. 1 and 4 and Shri Samarth, Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3.2. Both these writ petitions arise out of a common judgment delivered by the School Tribunal, Nagpur, in Appeal No. STN/144 of 1989 and Appeal No. STN/145 of 1989. The services of both the petitioners were terminated with effect from 19-7-1989 and petitioner in Writ Petition No. 963 of 1992 (Omprakash, Peon) challenged his dismissal in Appeal No. STN/145 of 1989. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1154 of 1992 (Alaram, Clerk) challenged his dismissal by filing Appeal No. STN/144 of 1989. Both these appeals have been finally decided on 10-3-1992 and the School Tribunal allowed the same. The orders of termination were set aside and the management was directed to reinstate both these petitioners with continuity with effect from 19-7-1989. The claim of petitioners for arrears of emoluments between 19-7-1989 till ...
ismail Fidaly Potia Through His C.A. Asif Ismail Potia Vs. Board of Tr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-2004
Reported in: 2005(3)BomCR859
Kamdar S.U., J.1. The present petition is filed for interim reliefs inter alia for an injunction restraining the respondents i.e. the Board of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust from awarding any contract to any third party or creating any third party interest in respect of A-7 to F in sheds. A further interim order is sought restraining the respondents from preventing in any manner obstructing the petitioner and/or representatives, servants and officers or any other person claiming under them from dismantling of the conveyor galleries being GR-3, FR-7, FR-8 and FR-9. The aforesaid relief are sought on the background of the facts which are briefly stated as under :-2. The petitioner is carrying on business in the name of M/s I.F. Potia & Brothers., On 12th August, 2002, the respondents Jawaharlal Nehru Trust floated a global tender for the disposal and sale of the bulk material handling plant acquired by it in the year 1989-90 which consisted of groups of equipments, accessories and spares. T...
Abdul Gaffar Abdul Samad Vs. Niranjan Kumar Ramnath Prasad Dwivedi and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Bom259; 2005(3)ALLMR179; 2005(3)BomCR879
Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. Both these writ petitions are infact counter to each other and are filed by original plaintiff as also original defendants challenging the order dated 18-8-2004 by which the learned trial Court has upheld the objection regarding valuation of suit taken by original defendant and has directed the plaintiff to value his suit at Rs. 2,50,000/- by holding that the suit falls under Section 6(iv)(ha) of Bombay Court Fees Act. In Writ Petition No. 4167 of 2004 the plaintiff contends that his suit falls under residuary clause i.e. Section 6(iv)(j) and Court Fees of Rs. 200/- paid by him by valuing the suit at Rs. 1,000/- is just and proper.In Writ Petition No. 4505 of 2004 the defendant contends that the suit ought to have been valued at Rs. 28,50,000/- or in any case at Rs. 6,00,000/ - and as it is multi-furious suit contemplated by Section 18 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, Court should have directed payment of Court fees in relation to both the reliefs claimed by the o...
Ajit Shripath Oak Vs. D.D. Udeshi,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-2004
Reported in: 2005(3)BomCR176
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. All these petitions arise from a common judgment passed by the trial Court as well as by the lower Appellate Court and the revisional Court and they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. A civil suit bearing R.A.E. Suit No. 492 of 1990 came to be instituted by the respondents against the petitioner on 8-1-1990 which was decreed on 6-11-2000, whereby there is the decree for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of bona fide need of the premises for the respondents as well as on the ground of non-user of the premises by the petitioner. A public notice came to be issued regarding the said decree on 22-12-2000 which was followed by execution proceedings initiated by the respondents being Misc. Notice No. 6 of 2001. The said execution proceedings were sought to be contested by the petitioner by filing reply through his next friend on 6-3-2002. Rejoinder and sur-rejoin...
Oil and Natural Gas Commission Ltd. Vs. Garware Shipping Corporation L ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)ARBLR279(Bom); 2005(2)BomCR546; 2005(1)MhLj838
S.U. Kamdar, J.1. By the present petition the petitioners are challenging the award dated 29-4-2004 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.2. Some of the material facts in the present case, briefly enumerated, are as under:-3. On 1-10-1983 pursuant to the representation made by the Indian National Shipping Owners Association (INSA) it was decided that new agreement for charter hire rate should be entered into so as to enable adequate earning to the Indian shipowners. It was suggested by INSA that formal contract based on reasonable margin of profit and international time charter rate with an appropriate safe-guard should be provided for by and between the INSA and ONGC. On 18-8-1984 the Government of India issued a directive to the petitioner directing that necessary action for entering into the formal contract with Indian Shipping Owner on the basis of the General Price Preference Policy should be taken by the petitioner herein. On 1-8-1984 the petitioner intro...
Manmathappa S/O Varappa Halkude Vs. Basawraj S/O Sangappa Belure and a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-2004
Reported in: IV(2005)ACC616; 2005(3)MhLj473
D.G. Karnik, J.1. Both the appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 5-12-1989 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short, the Tribunal) awarding compensation of Rs. 31,000/-.2. First Appeal No. 198 of 1990 is filed by the owner of the motor vehicle who submits that the compensation awarded is excessive and exorbitant and further contends that the order limiting the liability of the Insurance Company to Rs. 5,000/- was erroneous. First Appeal No. 210 of 1990 is filed by the injured for enhancement of compensation claiming that the amount of compensation is too low.3. The facts giving rise to these two appeals are briefly stated below.The appellant in First Appeal No. 198 of 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the owner) owns a motor vehicle a jeep bearing registration No. MAB-4054. At the relevant time, the owner himself was driving the jeep. The respondent No. 1 in First Appeal No. 198 of 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the injured) was travelling in the jee...
Sahyadri Punarvasan Gaothan Vikas Sanstha Vs. Pandharpur Municipal Cou ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-2004
Reported in: 2005(3)BomCR210
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is at the instance of a Committee constituted by persons displaced by Kanhar Dam in Satara District who have been now resettled in Sahyadri Nagar, near Pandharpur in Solapur District. They have several grievances with regard to proper implementation of resettlement programme. 2. All the inhabitants of Sahyadri Nagar were originally inhabitants of five villages in Satara District namely Chaur, Kaloshi, Pimpri, Ritkavli and Mohad. The State of Maharashtra constructed a dam across Venna River. As a result of the dam, abovementioned, villages were totally submerged. It is contended that in all 271 families consisting about 900 adults and about 500 minors were displaced due to such submergence. These families are resettled in a village then called Isbavi near Pandharpur in 1983. It is contended that as far as Satara District is concerned, there were similar projects and Collector, Satara compiled informat...
University of Mumbai Vs. Smt. Neela Bane and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-2004
Reported in: 2005(4)BomCR410; 2005(3)ESC1842; 2005(2)MhLj19
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The petitioner by the present petition has impugned the judgment dated 6th September, 2002 passed by the Mumbai University College Tribunal in Appeal No. 75 of 2001 preferred by a member of the non-teaching staff under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. The Appeal was preferred to challenge the order dated 30th September, 2000 and 31st August, 2001 under which the respondent No. 1's services were sought to be brought to an end by the University.2. There is no dispute that the Respondent No. 1 continued to be the employment of the University pursuant to various orders which came to be passed from time to time ordinarily for a period of 3 months from 1st October, 1997. On some occasions there were longer periods and on some occasion shorter period than 3 months. By the order of 30th September, 2000 the respondent No. 1 was informed that in pursuance of the resolution of the Management Council at its meeting held on 29th September, 2000 her services h...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »