Mumbai Court September 2007 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.
Nashik Workers Union Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-2007
Reported in: [2007(115)FLR1046]; (2008)ILLJ132Bom; 2007(6)MhLj797
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. This petition has been filed against the order of the Industrial Court in Revision Application (ULP) No. 128 of 1995. This revision application was filed against the order of the Labour Court. The facts involved in the present petition are as follows:2. The petitioner contends that the respondent Company employed some workmen through contractors. The petitioner apprehended that the services of the workmen would be terminated as a result of the change of contractors sought to be introduced by the respondent No. 1 Company. The petitioner, therefore, filed the complaint under Item 1(a), (b), (d) & (f) of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971. The contention raised in the complaint, which was registered as Complaint (ULP) No. 118 of 1993 was that the workers whose names figured in Annexure-A to the complaint were employees of the respondent No. 1 Company and that the respondent No. 1 had 'inducted' contractors as a camouflage. It was pleaded that this arrangement was effec...
Sciaky Wire Cut Pvt. Ltd. Co. and ors. Vs. Sudhir Vishnu Dhotre and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-2007
Reported in: (2008)IILLJ41Bom; 2007(6)MhLj521
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. Writ Petition No. 5493 of 1996 has been filed by the employer in which the order of the Industrial Court dated 9-8-1996 in revision application (ULP) No. 49 of 1996 is challenged to the extent that it remands the complaint (ULP) No. 54 of 1996 to the Labour Court for hearing. Writ petition No. 5491 of 1996 has been filed by the employee in which the order of the Industrial Court in Revision has been challenged. The issue involved in both these petitions is whether the employee is a workman as defined under Section 3(5) of the MRTU and PULP Act read with 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court has held that the complaint is maintainable since the employee is a workman. The Industrial Court on the other hand while exercising powers under Section 44 of the MRTU and PULP Act has reappreciated the evidence and held that the employee is not a workman. While doing so, he has considered several documents which were not produced before the Labour Court. After ...
Kirloskar Mahle Filter Systems Ltd. Vs. Chandrakant Tukaram Ubhe and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-2007
Reported in: [2008(116)FLR274]; (2008)ILLJ687Bom; 2007(6)MhLj749
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. This petition challenges the order of the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 800 of 1997. This complaint was filed under Items 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971. The Industrial Court has concluded that the petitioners have committed unfair labour practices under the aforesaid items and has directed them to extend the benefits of permanency to the respondents herein, from the date they completed 240 days in service. The Industrial Court has also directed the petitioners to absorb the complainants - the respondents herein, as permanent employees.2. The main contention raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the Industrial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in view of the fact that there was no employer employee relationship between the respondent Company and the workmen themselves. He submits that, in view of the judgments in Cipla Ltd. v. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union and Ors. report...
Galaxy Plastics (Bombay) Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-2007
Reported in: (2007)(123)ECC200
1. All these appeals are directed against the Order-in-Original No.03-05/1995 dt. 25.1.1995.2. The issue involved in this case is regarding the classification of the product "PVC Corrugated roofing sheets, PVC rigid plain sheets", etc. The assessee was classifying the said products under Chapter 84 while it is the contention of the Revenue that the said product will fall under Chapter 39 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Show cause notice dt. 3.3.1994 was issued to the appellant for confirmation of demand of the differential duty and also for confiscation of the excisable goods which were found unaccounted in the factory premises during the visit of the officers. Show cause notice was adjudicated by the Ld. Commissioner and vide his order-in-original dt. 15.2.1995 he came to the following conclusion. In view of my above findings I find that 3519.249 kgs. out of 16745 Kgs. seized goods on 22.9.93 in form of PVC sheets which were not accounted for in RG-1 register ...
thermax Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-2007
Reported in: (2008)12STT89
1. The appellants are the manufacturers of industrial boilers, heaters, pollution control equipment, heat pumps, chillers, etc., for industrial use falling under Chapter 84 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.The appellants are also registered under service tax for providing services under the five categories, viz., consulting engineering, installation and commissioning, repairs and maintenance, technical testing and analysis, franchise service.2. During the scrutiny of their records, the CERA auditors observed that the appellants are also engaged in the business of leasing and hire purchase of some equipment from July 16, 2001 onwards and have received lease receipts/financial charges for providing these services.This service appeared to be covered as taxable service under the category of "banking and other financial services" as per Section 65(12) of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 (as amended) with effect from July 16, 2001. Further, Ministry of Finance vide its circular No.B...
The Maharashtra State Co-op. Cotton Growers Mkt. Federation Ltd. Vs. A ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-2007
Reported in: (2007)109BOMLR2318; [2008(116)FLR183]; (2008)IILLJ393Bom; 2008(1)MhLj750
V.M. Kanade, J.1. Both these Petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment since the question involved in both these Petitions is identical. 2. Petitioner is a Co-operative Society formed by the Government of Maharashtra for implementation of the Scheme which has been evolved for protection of cotton growers in the State of Maharashtra. The respondents in both these Petitions were working on contract basis with the Petitioner herein. The respondent in Writ Petition No. 2568 of 2005 was appointed on contract basis in the year 1998 and was doing the work of typing and was also a Computer Operator. The respondent in Writ Petition No. 2569 of 2005 was appointed in the year 1992 on contract basis and was a steno-typist. In 2001, respondents filed complaint of unfair labour practice under item Nos. 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971, alleging that the Petitioner had committed unfair labour practice and also sought permanency in the said posts. When the Petitions ...
Fulchand Baburao Gedam Vs. Lokmat, Proprietors, Lokmat Newspapers Ltd. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)BomCR28; (2007)109BOMLR2029; (2008)ILLJ125Bom
A.H. Joshi, J.BACKGROUND:1. These letters patent appeals arising out of common judgment and raising common question of law, are being disposed of by this judgment.ADMITTED FACTS:2. The appeals proceed on certain admitted premises, which are narrated as follows:(a) The appellants claim to be employed by respondent.(b) Appellants filed separate complaints before the Industrial Court, Maharashtra Bench at Nagpur, under Sections 5, 28, 30 r/w Section 26 & 27 of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union, and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), with similar prayers in all complaints which are as follows:i) declare that the Respondent has engaged in and is still engaging in the unfair labour practices complained of;ii) direct the Respondent to cease and desist from engaging in the unfair labour practices complained of;iii) direct the respondent to withdraw temporarily during the pendency of these proceedings and also finally the impugned unfair l...
Bharat Dharmaji Bawadhankar Vs. Bajaj Auto Ltd. and
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)BomCR556; [2008(116)FLR1056]
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The petitioner challenges the award of the Labour Court, passed in Reference (IDA) No. 120 of 1988. By this award, the Labour Court has rejected the reference.2. The facts in this case are not in dispute. The petitioner was an office bearer of Trade Union, representing the workmen employed in the respondent factory at Pune. He was issued a charge sheet on 4th July 1979. Three specific acts of misconduct were alleged against him. The respondent had alleged that the petitioner had misrepresented and the workmen of the Engine Assembly and Automobile Department that one of their co-workers had been charge sheeted. He instigated the the workmen to commit acts of violence, criminal trespass, criminal assault, riot, criminal mischief and arson. This led to a large scale damage of the respondent No. 1's property. It was also alleged that the petitioner had stopped work in the department and instigated others in the department to accompany him for a meeting with the General...
Vishwa Bandhu Pearyelal Gupta and Santosh Vishwa Bandhu Gupta Vs. S.K. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-2007
Reported in: (2008)214CTR(Bom)385; [2008]302ITR157(Bom)
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. In this petition, the challenge is to the order dated 25th February, 1993 passed by the Appropriate Authority under Section 269UD(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) whereby 'Abhishek Bungalow' situated at 4 Bungalows, Off Linking Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400 058 ('property in question' for short) is sought to be purchased by the Appropriate Authority under Chapter XX-C of the Act.2. The facts relevant for the purpose of the present petition are that by an agreement dated 5th October, 1989 the petitioners agreed to purchase from the respondent No. 5 the property in question for a lumpsum price of Rs. 45,00,000/- subject to the tenancy of respondent No. 6. On an application made in form No. 37-I the Appropriate Authority under the Act passed an order on 28th December, 1989 purporting to purchase the said property without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.3. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed a Writ Petition bear...
Raghunath Narayan Bokil Vs. Vithal Sawala Limbhore Through His Lrs. Ma ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)BomCR815; 2007(6)MhLj834
V.M. Kanade, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. l(b) to l(g).2. By this Petition, petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Revenue Tribunal in Review Application No. MRT-P-IV-5/83 whereby MRT was pleased to review its earlier order dated 16-10-1982 passed in Revision Application No. MRT-P-VI-5/80 and the order passed in Revision Application by the MRT was set aside so also the Order passed in Tenancy Appeal No. 16 of 1976 dated 10-3-1980 and the order dated 6-5-1976 in Tenancy Case No. 2/75 was confirmed.3. It is necessary to state the facts little elaborately in this case since the matter has a chequered history. Gat No. 416 admeasuring 3 Hectares 90R situated at village Hirve, Taluka Purandhar, District Pune was the land which was owned by the petitioner herein. The Exemption Certificate was issued to the petitioner under Section 33B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lan...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »