Mumbai Court March 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.
Bank of Maharashtra Vs. Ellora Steels Ltd. and ors.
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-2005
Reported in: III(2005)BC205
1. All these appeals can be disposed of by this common judgment and order as they are arising out of common judgment and order dated 4.4.2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad in five original applications filed by the Bank of Maharashtra and Bank of India against the very same respondents. Appeal No. 89 of 2003 is arising out of Original Application No. 137A/2001.Appeal No. 90 of 2003 is arising out of Original Application No.126A/2001. Appeal No. 91 of 2003 is arising out of Original Application No. 374A/ 2001. Appeal No. 92 of 2003 is arising out of Original Application No. 101A/2Q01, while Appeal No. 93 of 2003 is arising out of Original Application No. 139A/2001. While first four appeals are filed by the Bank of Maharashtra, Appeal No. 93 of 2003 is filed by the Bank of India. Issues involved in all the appeals are same and prayers also are common. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Auranga...
Tempcon Industries and ors. Vs. Central Bank of India and ors.
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-2005
Reported in: I(2006)BC85
1. This Misc. Appeal is filed by the appellants/original defendants being aggrieved by the order dated 19.5.2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune on Exhibit No.30 in Original Application No. 220-P/2001. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer allowed the application made by the respondent No. 1 Bank for amending the original application. The defendants were aggrieved and, hence, the present appeal.2. I have heard Mr. Palande for the appellants and Mr. Thakur for the respondent No. 1 Bank. I have also gone through the proceedings including the original application, proposed amendment, application made by the respondent No. 1 Bank and the impugned order and, in my view, the learned Presiding Officer has correctly passed the order.3. Submission of the respondent No. 1 Bank before the DRT was that the amendment of the plaint/original application was insisted because there were many inaccuracies, omissions about particulars, about do...
Bombay Hospital Trust Vs. Miss Rita Minwani and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)BomCR438; [2005(106)FLR541]; 2005(3)MhLj59
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The First Respondent was working as a Receptionist cum Clerk at the Bombay Hospital. On 28th May 1994, a chargesheet was issued to her alleging that on 20th April 1994 she was on duty in the first shift between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m. Mr.M. G. Joshi, an employee who was handling cash at the counter was on his lunch break between 12 noon and 1 p.m., during which period the First Respondent was stated to be handling cash at the counter. When Joshi returned, the First Respondent is stated to have handed over five receipts of indoor patients with an amount of Rs.35,500/-. However, when Joshi checked the counter statement, he found that during the time when the First Respondent was working at the cash counter, she had received cash from six indoor patients amounting to Rs.45,500/- and that she had in fact, handed over only five receipts to him. On being asked to produce cash in the amount of Rs.10,000/- and the sixth receipt which had been issued to an indoor patient, the F...
Madura Coats Employees Union Vs. Madura Coats Ltd. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-2005
Reported in: (2005)IIILLJ577Bom
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The Industrial Tribunal has ruled on a wage reference that was referred to it for adjudication. The Union has confined the challenge before the Court to the award to the extent to which it accepted the plea of the management in a notice of change under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and substituted a fresh scheme for dearness allowance for the existing scheme which had held the field for over 30 years. The existing pattern of providing dearness allowance was based on a dual linkage - linkage based on slabs of basic pay and linked to the Consumer Price Index. As a result of the award, the Tribunal accepted the case of the management and while removing the linkage with basic pay approved the payment of dearness allowance confined only to a variation based on the Consumer Price Index. The Union representing the workmen challenges the award to this extent under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. Madura Coats Limited came into existence on 1st July 19...
Madura Coats Limited Vs. Madura Coats Employees Union and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)BomCR897; [2006(110)FLR600]; (2005)IIILLJ539Bom; 2005(3)MhLj122
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The award of the Industrial Tribunal has been challenged in these proceedings by the management only in so far as the question of the age of retirement is concerned. The Tribunal has enhanced the age of retirement from 58 to 60 years subject to ascertainment of the physical fitness of a workman to continue in service after the age of 58. The management has been authorised to discontinue the services of a workman who is not found to be medically fit.2. The award of the Tribunal was passed on 17th April 2003. The award was challenged by the Union on the question of basic wages and Dearness Allowance on 26th December 2003. The present petition was filed on 1st February 2005 nearly two years after the award. Though the explanation that is tendered before the Court is that since the award had not been published, the petition was not filed earlier, the fact, however, remains that the award was published only on 10 th March 2005 and the Petition was instituted on 1st Fe...
Bales Sardara Paracha Vs. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR218; 2005(4)BomCR577
Ranjana Desai, J.1. The appellant ('the plaintiff ', for convenience) has challenged in this appeal Judgment and Order dated 5th February, 2005 passed by the City Civil Court at Mumbai in Long Cause Suit No. 90 of 2005. 2. Respondent No. 1 ('defendant No.1', for convenience) is the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay. Respondent No. 2 ('defendant No.2', for convenience) is the landlord. 3. The suit was filed praying for a declaration that the notice issued by defendant No. 1 under Section 55(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 ('the MRTP Act', for convenience) dated 15th December, 2004 is bad in law, void ab initio and not enforceable. The plaintiff had also prayed for an injunction restraining the defendants from taking any action of demolishing the suit premises, i.e., a structure admeasuring 17'4' x 8'9' and 9' x 5'4' situate at Rita Building Compound, Telli Galli, Shahu Maharaj Road, Mumbai 400 093 (suit structure, for short). 4. In short, the case of the...
Lalchand Govindrao Dhoke Vs. Industrial Court, Maharashtra Nagpur Benc ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)BomCR886; [2005(106)FLR1081]; 2005(3)MhLj497
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner employee challenges the part of the order of Industrial Court dated 9-9-1992, by which the learned Member, Industrial Court directed payment of only 50% backwages to him while ordering his reinstatement in service.2. The facts are - services of petitioner were earlier terminated in the year 1977, and therefore, he filed ULPA Complaint No. 74/1977. After summons in this complaint was served upon the employer, petitioner was taken back, and petitioner did not attend the Court and hence Labour Court on 10-7-1978 dismissed the complaint in default. In view of this dismissal, the respondent/employer again terminated his services orally by asking him not to report for duty on 28-9-1978. This oral termination was challenged by the petitioner by filing Complaint under Section 28 of MRTU and PULP Act, bearing ULPA Complaint No. 103/1984, before the Labour Court. The Labour Court by its ...
The Manmad St. Xavier's Society and Fr. Alex Colaco of Nasik Vs. the S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-2005
Reported in: (2005)107BOMLR194; 2006(3)MhLj852
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This petition under Article 287 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the decision of the Schools Tribunal, Bombay, dated June 7, 1985, in Appeal No. GEN/NAS/5 of 1983. By the said order, the Tribunal has set aside the order of termination passed by the Petitioners against Respondent No. 4 dated 22nd February 1983 and ordered reinstatement of Respondent No. 4 to the same post, which he was holding at the relevant time, and requiring the Petitioners to pay arrears of emoluments, including pay and allowances as due and payable to him from 1st March 1983 till the date of his reinstatement.2. By this petition, the Petitioners originally challenged the validity of Sections 8 and 13 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and Rules 28 to 33 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 ('hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') being...
Akola Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. and anr. Vs. Anurag Anilkumar Rathi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR879; 2005(4)MhLj97; [2006]66SCL255(Bom)
K.J. Rohee, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 2. Admit. Taken up for final hearing with the consent of the parties. The learned counsel for the respondents waive notice.3. The applicants, who are defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in Special Civil Suit No. 18/2004 instituted by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Wardha for declaration and permanent injunction, have challenged the order dated 5-4-2004 passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Wardha holding that Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the said suit and thereby answering preliminary issue in the affirmative.4. According to the applicants they are the secured creditor and the debt obtained by respondent No. 3/defendant No. 3 was classified as non-performing asset. Hence on 15-3-2003 the applicants issued notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruc...
Gujarat Textronics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-2005
Reported in: (2005)(192)ELT203Tri(Mum.)bai
2. The issue involved is that of refund claim for Rs. 3,96,984/- got debited towards written off semi finished goods in the books of accounts. The claim was made on realizing that the payment was made by mistake of law.3. Initially the claimant had filed refund claim for Rs. 3,96,984/- which was rejected by then Dist. Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dated 15.3.99. The Commissioner (Appeals) had remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication on the principle of natural justice.4. The claim of appellants was again rejected after hearing him vide Order-in-Original dated 13.11.2001. On filing appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), vadodara, has confirmed the O.I.O. and rejected the appeal vide Order dated 28.01.2003. Hence this appeal.5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by both side.The crux of the matter lie in interpretation of the Board Circular dated 22.02.1995 so as to know whether material, which has been written off by the claimant, would be covered under ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »