Mumbai Court October 2005 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.
Ravi Spinning Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-21-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)MhLj145
D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Learned Counsel for the respondent.2. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.3. The question which falls for consideration in the present writ petition is, whether after the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, came into force, in view of provisions of Section 15 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, the appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 25 of the said Act, against the order passed by the Board under Section 20 of the Sick Industrial Companies Act is maintainable4. Mr. Dharmadhikari, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that Section 25 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, provides for statutory appeal for an aggrieved person against the order passed by the Board under the provisions of the Act within a stipulated period. It is submitted that in the instant ca...
Arvind Dyeing and Bleaching Mills Ltd. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Com ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-21-2005
Reported in: [2006(108)FLR602]; (2006)IILLJ318Bom
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith.The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and carries on the business of bleaching and dyeing. The petitioner is stated to have commenced implementation of the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 with effect from December 1994. On June 19, 1995 a formal application was submitted to the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Kolhapur seeking coverage under the provisions of the Act and a consequential allotment of a code number. Since no immediate communication was received from the authorities, the petitioner deposited the contributions from the salaries of its employees together with its own contribution in the State Bank of India under the head 'Code Number -applied for'. The second respondent was accordingly informed and on March 11, 1996 a further request was made for the allotment of a code number. Despite the lapse of two years, no code number was allotted to ...
Shri Namdeo Narayan Jadhav and ors. Vs. Shri Narayan Keshav Joshi and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-2005
Reported in: (2005)107BOMLR611
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This appeal arises from the order dated 29/3/2005 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division at Pune allowing the application for temporary injunction filed in Special Civil Suit No. 152 of 2003.2. The appellants came to be impleaded as defendants in the suit filed by the present respondent No. 1 and on his demise the present respondent Nos. 1A to 1C have been brought on record as the LRs. The respondent No. 2 has purchased the suit property during the pendency of the suit. The appellant Nos. 1 and 2 claimed that they were the tenants on the suit land for more than 30 years and the plaintiff No. 1 Narayan Keshav Joshi, who was the owner of the suit land, had executed Power of Attorney in their favour and pursuant to the said Power of Attorney dated 8/10/2002 registered on 9/10/2002 they had signed the agreement for sale in favour of defendant Nos. 3 and 4 on 14/10/2002. It is apparent that defendant No. 4 is the son of defendant No. 1 and defendant N...
Air India Employees Guild Vs. Air India Limited and Ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)BomCR111; (2005)107BOMLR535; (2006)ILLJ666Bom
1. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2544 of 2004 has impugned circulars/letters dated 14.1.2004, 13.4.2004, 23.8.2004 and 27.8.2004. By the circular dated 14.1.2004 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, Office of the Regional Labour Commissioner, addressed to various union of Respondent No. 1, stated that the Government of India had decided to undertake verification of membership of the unions operating in Respondent No. 1, Air India, through secret ballot. By the letter dated 9.2.2004 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, conveyed a meeting requesting the various unions operating in Respondent No. 1 to attend the meeting with all relevant documents for the purpose of verification of membership of unions operating in Respondent No. 1 through secret ballot. A specimen copy of consent was enclosed. The proforma of the consent form also had at its subject 'Verification of membership of unions operating in Air India'. The undertaking in the proforma was in respect of the c...
Walchandnagar Industries Limited (Engineering and Foundary Division) V ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)BomCR733; (2005)107BOMLR942; (2006)IILLJ834Bom
S.B. Mhase, J.1. Both these Letter Patent Appeals are directed against the judgment and orders passed by the learned Single Judge of this court on 19th April 2002 in Writ Petitions Nos. 4730 of 1994 and 4734 of 1994.2. Initially, 9 workmen who were employed with the appellant had filed ULP Complaint before the Member, Industrial Court at Kolhapur. However, all those complaints were dismissed by the Member, Industrial Court by a common judgment dated 22.7.1994. Out of these 9 workmen, 5 workmen have approached this court by filing the abovereferred two writ petitions. The ULP Complaint No. 112 of 1988 was filed by the respondent in Letters Patent Appeal 213 of 2002. After the dismissal of the said complaint, the respondent in Letters Patent Appeal 213 of 2002 filed writ Petition No. 4730 of 1994. Since the said writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 19th April 2002, the appellant has preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 213 of 2002. Thus, it will be clear th...
Gannon Dunkerley and Co. Ltd. Vs. Mr. G.S. Baj, Member, Industrial Cou ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)BomCR647; (2005)107BOMLR697; (2006)ILLJ886Bom; 2006(2)MhLj845
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 3rd October 1996 rendered by the Learned Member of the Industrial Court at Mumbai to Complaint (ULP) No. 577 of 1987. The petitioner employer has been held to be guilty of engaging in unfair labour practices under items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act 1971 (for short 'the Act') and in addition, the petitioner was directed to reinstate the complainant in service with full back wages and continuity from 22nd March 2004. Further, the petitioner was directed to extend the benefits and privileges of permanency to the complainant in the post of clerk in 'C' Grade with effect from the date he completed 240 days continuous service from 22nd March 1984 as well as the benefits of Bilgrami award. 2. The petitioner is a public limited company with its registered office at Mumbai and it has various divisions. It claims to have establishments all over the country. At the relevant time, it was mainly eng...
ishtiyaq Ali Farad Ali (Since Deceased by His Heirs and Legal Represen ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR74; 2006(3)BomCR676; 2006(2)MhLj737
H.L. Gokhale, J.1. By the present Appeal, the Appellants seek to challenge the judgment and order of a Single Judge dated 11th July, 1994 in First Appeal No. 92 of 1979 which was filed by the original Respondent (since deceased) and which Appeal came to be allowed by the said judgment. That Appeal arose out of the judgment and order rendered by a Judge of City Civil Court, Mumbai on 6th November, 1978, in Short Cause Suit No. 426 of 1962, which was filed by the original Respondent (since deceased). It was filed for seeking possession of the suit premises and came to be dismissed by the learned City Civil Judge.2. The short facts leading to this litigation are as follows:The Premises concerned are Room No. 46 on the first floor of the Chawl known as Gani Attarwala Chawl situated in Ghelabhai Street, Mumbai-8. It was the case of the original Respondent/Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as respondent) that he inducted the original Appellant (hereinafter referred to as appellant) in the p...
Gulab Maruti Ambekar and ors. Vs. Chandrashekhar Madhukar Tikhe and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)BomCR650
P.V. Kakade, J.1. The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order passed by the Addl. Ad-hoc District, Judge, Pune, dated 14.7.2005 allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court in R.C.S. No. 1571 of 1982 dated 31.7.1999.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for both parties. Perused the record.3. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration and injunction and in the alternative for possession of the suit property which consisted of Survey Nos. 53/3--A, 53-3-AA, 54/3-A and 55/12-3-A, situated at village Mohammedwadi, Tal. Haveli, Dist. Pune. It was the case of the plaintiffs that the lands were alleged to be belonging to the father of plaintiffs and husband of plaintiff No. 3 by name Madhukar Tikhe. Said Madhukar Tikhe died on 30.12.1971 and the lands were inherited by the plaintiffs. The common ancestor of defendants by name Maruti Gopal Ambekar was alleged to be the tenant in the suit property, however, the tenant alleg...
Bhaskar Wamanrao RiThe and anr. Vs. Smt. Indira Iyer
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR747; 2006(1)MhLj155
B.P. Sharmadhikari, J. 1. Heard Shri Sambaray, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri Upasani, learned Counsel for the respondent.2. Considering the nature of controversy. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.3. The Courts below have concurrently granted permission to respondent to evict the present petitioners under Section 16(1)(n) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has challenged these concurrent orders on two grounds. The first is the user of tenanted premises by any other person apart from tenant cannot be an ingredient relevant for Section 16(1)(n) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, and the second ground is that mere occupation of premises by such other person is not sufficient to prove subtenancy. It is contended that if such sub-tenancy is not proved, then the ground of non-user by tenant is also not substantiated. The learned Counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court ...
Om Gayatri and Co. and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ601
ORDERS.P. Kukday, J.1. Heard. Rule, made returnable forthwith by consent of parties.2. The petitioners have impugned order dated 20.6.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded in Criminal Revision No. 24/2002, allowing the revision and setting aside the order dated 14.1.2000 passed by chief Judicial Magistrate dismissing the complaint in S.C.C. No. 1150/ 1997.3. The facts, relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that: Respondent No. 2 is engaged in a wholesale business of selling Dal to the customers on credit basis. Petitioner was a regular customer. For the purpose of clearing the dues, the petitioner issued cheque No. 495330 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Nanded on 25.4.1997 for Rs. 21,010/-. The cheque was deposited by Respondent n6.2 in Peoples Cooperative Bank, Hingoli on 25.4.1997. He was however, in-formed that the cheque was dishonoured. Therefore, notice as required by proviso (b) to Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, was served but as payment wa...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »