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.
Hemlata Eknath Waje Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR507; 2007(6)BomCR57; 2007(6)MhLj695
D.G. Karnik, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel for the respondents waive service.2. By consent, called for hearing. Heard the counsel.3. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a mandamus or a direction to the respondents, i.e. State of Maharashtra and the Municipal Corporation of Thane, to provide a separate and independent reservation of seat for the councillors belonging to the scheduled tribe/s in the Municipal School Board of the Thane Municipal Corporation (the respondent No. 2) to be formed under Section 3 of the Bombay Primary Education Act, 1947.4. The petitioner belongs to a scheduled tribe and was elected as a councillor of the respondent No. 2 Municipal Corporation in a seat reserved for scheduled tribes. Section 3 of the Bombay Primary Education Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') contemplates formation of a municipal school board for each municipality. Section 4 of the Act says that the municipal school board shall consist of members not less than 12 and not mor...
Kishor K. Mehta Vs. Hdfc Bank Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)MhLj451
Abhay S. Oka, J.1. By this order I am deciding the following questions which have arisen for consideration:(i) Whether the decision of this Court in the case of Re. Deepak Cochhar and Anr. - Debtors and Indusindh Bank Ltd. - Creditors : 2006(3)BomCR520 is no longer a good law in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Paramjeet Singh Patheja v. ICDS Ltd. : AIR2007SC168 ?(ii) Whether an insolvency notice under Sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 (for short PI Act) can be issued on the basis of a recovery certificate issued under The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the RDB Act)?(iii) Whether an insolvency notice under Sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the PI Act can be issued on the basis of an Award made by a Cooperative Court under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short the Co-operative Societies Act)?(iv) Whether an insolvency notice unde...
Society of St. Peter School and anr. Vs. Mrs. Rosalind C. Joseph
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)MhLj628
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. This writ petition has been filed against the order of the Industrial Court dated 20-9-1994 as well as of the Labour Court dated 20-8-1993.2. The Labour Court had held that the complaint filed by the respondent who was a non-teaching employee of the school, was maintainable under the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act. The Labour Court then came to the conclusion that the petitioners had committed an unfair labour practice and directed them to pay to the workman Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and to consider her in continuous service and to pay her full backwages upto the date of the order. The Industrial Court in revision held that the decision of the Labour Court directing the payment of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation was incorrect and directed that the respondent should be reinstated in service with continuity and full backwages. The writ petition challenging this order is admitted on 30-11-1994. It appears that the respondent approached the School Tribunal in Appeal No. 19 ...
Shrikant V. Gawas Vs. Tulsiani Chambers Premises Co-operative Society ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-2007
Reported in: [2007(115)FLR655]; (2008)ILLJ905Bom
1. By this Appeal, the appellant challenges the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2164/2000. The facts that are material and relevant for deciding this Appeal are that the respondent filed Complaint (ULP) No. 158/1987 under the Unfair Labour Practices Act before the Labour Court making a grievance about the termination of his service by the respondent-Co-operative Society. The grievance of the employee-appellant was that his services have been terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. One of the objections raised on behalf of the respondent Co-operative Society was that it is not an 'industry' for the purpose of the Unfair Labour Practices Act and, therefore, the complaint is not maintainable. The Labour Court dismissed the complaint holding that the appellant has not been able to prove that the respondent is guilty of unfair labour practice. The Labour Court however, did not record any fin...
Shakil Meer Khan Vs. Probal S. Ray and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR621; 2008(3)BomCR878; 2008(2)MhLj145
S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. Both the Notices of Motion are disposed of by a common order as the subject matter of both the suits is the same and the disputes between the parties in both the suits are similar and raise common questions of fact and law.2. The Plaintiff and Defendant Nos.1 and 2 in Suit No.1183 of 2007 are Defendant No.1, Defendant No.2 and the Plaintiff respectively in Suit No.592 of 2007. 3. For convenience I will refer to facts and the parties as arrayed in Suit No.1183 of 2007. 4. Defendant No.1 is the mother of the Plaintiff in Suit No.1183 of 2007. Defendant No.2 i.e. the Plaintiff in Suit No.592 of 2007 is a third party to whom Defendant No.1 sold the suit flat. 5. Defendant No.2 filed Suit No.592 of 2007 prior to Suit No.1183 of 2007. In Suit No.592 of 2007, Defendant No.2 has sought an order directing the Plaintiff to hand over possession of the suit flat against the payment of Rs.36,25,000/- being his 50% share in terms of an order dated 14.10.2003 passed by the learned...
Bhagwan Rangu Jadhav Vs. Manihar Devanand Kotiyan and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)MhLj598
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant -original opponent No. 5, respondent No. 3 - original opponent No. 2 and respondent No. 5 - original opponent No. 4.2. The appellant, who was the owner of the tractor with trolley in question, has challenged the impugned award dated 12th November, 1990 passed by the Member, M.A.C.T. Satara whereby the appellant along with others have been directed jointly and severally to deposit Rs. 1,30,000/- with 12% p.a. interest from the date of filing of the petition (i.e. 19-4-1996) till realisation.3. By the said Award, the tribunal dismissed the claim Petition against Opponent No. 2. By an order dated 22-11-1994, the First Appeal also stood dismissed against original opponent No. 1 i.e. respondent No. 2 herein, who was the driver of luxury bus.By an order dated 22-3-2006, the matter also stood dismissed against original opponent No. 3 - i.e. respondent No. 4 herein, who was the owner of luxury bus. Therefore, there is n...
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Vs. Keshav Eknath Pophale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)BomCR568; [2007(115)FLR1052]; 2008(1)MhLj166
Mhatre Nishita, J.1. These two petitions challenge the order of the Labour Court decided on 21.7.1997. The Labour Court had directed the Municipal Corporation which is the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 6502 of 1997 to pay to the workman who is the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4221 of 1998 and respondent in Writ Petition No. 6502 of 1997 a sum Rs. 55,238/- and costs of Rs. 1000/-. This amount was towards pay and allowances, difference of revised gratuity and personal cash. The main contention of the corporation in its petition is that the workman was not entitled to any relief under Section 33-C(2) as the claims made by him were on the basis that he disputed his superannuation w.e.f. 1.10.1986. It is submitted that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act to decide as to whether the order of superannuation passed by the Municipal Commissioner on 1.11.1988 was valid and proper.2. The workman was employed by the Corporation as a Junior...
Dhansukh K. Sethia Vs. Rajendra Capital Services Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ARBLR368(Bom); 2008(1)MhLj114
A.S. Oka, J.1. Submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were heard on the last date. This is a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act).The petition arises out of the award dated 1st September, 2003 made by an Arbitral Tribunal as well as the award dated 17th January, 2005 by the Appellate Bench.2. The petitioner was a registered Sub-Broker of the respondent since the year 1997. The respondent was a Member of the Stock Exchange, Mumbai. According to the case of the petitioner as a sub-broker, he was catering to the retail clients with full knowledge and consent of the respondent. The petitioner had a running account with the respondent. The respondent was the main broker. According to the case of the petitioner, the respondent being the main broker used to dictate all the terms. It will be necessary to refer to the dispute which was referred to the arbitration. According to the case of th...
Shrikrishan Jindal and ors. Vs. S.K. Laul and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-2007
Reported in: [2008]305ITR353(Bom)
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. This petition is filed to challenge the order dated February 25, 1993, passed by the appropriate authority under Section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short).2. The facts relevant for the present petition are that by an agreement dated May 30, 1987, the petitioners agreed to purchase from respondent No. 4 Flat No. 111, situated at Warden Road, Mumbai - 400 026 for a consideration of Rs. 40 lakhs. On an application made in Form No. 37-I, the appropriate authority under the Income-tax Act passed a purchase order on August 20, 1987, under Section 269UD(1) of the Act without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.3. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 2891 of 1987 in this court. By an order dated December 17, 1992, the said petition was allowed by setting aside the order dated August 20,1987, and the appropriate authority was directed to decide the issue afresh in the light of the judgment of the apex c...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›