Mumbai Court October 2008 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.
Uttam Bhikaro Naik Vs. Goa University and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)BomCR471
Deshpance A.P., J.1. Heard. The petitioner was working as a Deputy Finance Controller in the Department of Accounts, Kadamba Transport Corporation Ltd., since the year 1981 till the year 1998. In the year 1998, respondent No. 1 University of Goa issued an advertisement inviting applications for various posts, including the post of Finance Officer. The petitioner applied for the post of Finance Officer. The petitioner came to be selected and was issued an order of appointment. The appointment order dated 17.9.98 clearly mentions that 'The appointment is for a term of 5 years or till the age of 60 years whichever is earlier'. The petitioner chose to resign from the post that he held with Kadamba Transport Corporation Ltd., and joined the post of Finance Officer with the University with effect from 20.11.1998 pursuant to a joining report submitted by the petitioner to the Registrar of Goa University.2. Prior to the expiry of the term of appointment of the petitioner, the University issued...
T. Natarajan Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ1470
D.G. Karnik, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.8.1995 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal').2. The applicant was travelling in a second class compartment of the Borivli-Churchgate local train No. 408-Up on 29.10.1993 on ticket No. 99498. When the train was at Matunga Road Station, there was a bomb blast in the train and several persons received injuries. Appellant also received some injuries on his legs. It is the case of appellant that some foreign body entered in his both knees and his right leg lost sensation. He was admitted to Sion Hospital on 29.10.1993 as an indoor patient and was discharged on 3.11.1993. Thereafter he took treatment as an outdoor patient in that hospital till 22.11.1993. According to the appellant, thereafter he took treatment in a private hospital from 7.12.1993 till 16.12.1993 as an indoor patient and for four weeks thereafter as an outdoor patient. He filed a claim for compensation before the Trib...
Arati Durgaram Gavandi Vs. Managing Director, Tata Metaliks Limited an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)BomCR1; (2008)110BOMLR3625; (2009)ILLJ767Bom
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The Petitioner was employed in a Company by the name of Usha Ispat Limited, initially as a commercial trainee in 1992. Upon being confirmed in service as a Junior Assistant, she was promoted from time to time and held the post of a Senior Supervisor. In 1993, the Company set up an Integrated Steel Plant at Satarda at a distance of about 24 kms. from the plant at Redi. The Petitioner was sent as a Supervisor and was subsequently promoted as a Senior Supervisor. The project at Satarda was not completed. Some of the employees were retrenched, while others were absorbed in the plant at Redi. A skeletal staff remained at the Satarda Plant, one of them being the Petitioner. 2. The grievance of the Petitioner is that she was subjected to sexual harassment by an officer, namely, the Third Respondent, who initially joined the Company as Deputy Manager (Personnel) and was promoted as Senior Manager and thereafter, as Deputy General Manager. The Petitioner has averred that ...
Bapusaheb Sakharam Salunke and Pandurang Dattu Patil Vs. Vithal Buwaji ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR813
R.S. Mohite, J.1. Heard Advocate for the appellants. Respondents are absent though served. 2. This is a second appeal filed by the original defendants Bapusaheb Sakharam Salunke and Pandurang Dattu Patil. It impugns a concurrent judgment and decree passed by the two lower courts. The trial court decreed the plaintiffs suit and held that the plaintiffs were entitled to draw water from the suit well situated in Gat No. 2359 at Village Arag to the extent of 8 annas share. The defendants were also held entitled to draw water from the suit well for the remaining 8 annas share. The decree was confirmed by the first appellate court and that is why this second appeal has been filed by the original defendants. 3. The brief facts of the case were as follows: a) The suit well as admittedly situated in old Survey No. 808. On 31.12.1887, the dispute had arisen between the predecessor in title of the plaintiffs and one Morebhat Babaji Joshi who was predecessor in title of one Bhau Damodar Joshi. The...
Ranjyotsingh Gurudayalsingh Vs. the State of Maharashtra (at the Insta ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ2530
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The Appellant and his coaccused, Dharmendra Ratansingh Walmiki were convicted on 4th October 2004 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai of offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. They have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/and in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. The Appellant before the Court, Ranjyotsingh Gurudayal Singh, was arraigned as Accused No. 1.2. The deceased, Kuljinder Singh, resided at Jama in the district of Hoshiarpur in Punjab. Kuljinder Singh was found dead in Room 303 at Hotel Yatree at Santacruz (East), Mumbai, on 15th February 2001. The body of the deceased bore as many as eighteen incised wounds on vital parts.... The case of the prosecution is that between fifteen to twenty days prior to the incident, the Appellant visited the residence of Dharamsingh Keharsingh Sandhu (PW 8) who was the father of the deceased together w...
Sau. Wandana Ramkrushna Neskar, Sarpancha Gram Panchayat Kalashi Vs. S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR890
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Heard finally by consent of parties. Advocate for petitioner points out that in order dated 3.8.2007 the Additional Collector, Amravati has found that though the meeting was not held on 30.8.2006, it was shown to have been conducted on 31.8.2006 and hence there is no disqualification as required by Section 36 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act 1958. He points out that because of proviso to said Section 36 the order becomes final and therefore, it was not open to respondent No. 1 to entertain any revision against it under Section 155 thereof. In the alternative he also points out that the revisional authority could not have removed petitioner from post of Member of Gram Panchayat also. 2. Mrs. Deshpande, as also learned A.G.P., state that Section 36 itself expressly gives finality to finding of Additional Collector only on the aspect of sufficient cause. Both of them urged that Additional Collector in present matter has not recorded any such finding and the con...
Ramdayal S/O Sukhram Gudewar Vs. the Principal, Industrial Training In ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR893; [2008(119)FLR876]
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Heard Advocate Choudhari for petitioner and learned A.G.P. for respondents. Only argument of Advocate Choudhari is that though Industrial Court in impugned order dated 20.9.2004 found everything in favour of petitioner, it has remanded the matter back to Labour Court to enable respondent/ employer to fill in lacuna. He points out that Labour Court has in terms found that Section 25F was complied with and therefore dismissed ULP Complaint filed by the petitioner. Industrial Court did not agree with those findings and found the story of employer about compliance with provisions of Section 25-F to be incorrect. Still it has remanded the matter back. 2. Learned A.G.P. in reply states that considering the position of respondent as Government Officer, the Industrial Court found it proper to enable to government to place necessary material before Labour Court. He contends that it cannot be ignored that petitioner was Daily Wager and in view of specific defence that r...
Wasudeo Pralhad Phopse Vs. Industrial Court, Maharashtra Bench and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)BomCR209
Dhamadhikari B.P., J.1. Heard Advocate Gordey for petitioner and A.G.P. for respondent No. 1 to 3.Short grievance made by Advocate Gordey is that petitioner who validly entered the service in 1986 as Field Worker could have been regularized as per scheme of circular dated 30.1.1992 at Exhibit 32 and circular dated 9.2.1988 he had completed M.P.W. Training. He points out that employees admittedly junior to him were sent for such training in 1994, but petitioner was never deputed for such training. Because of this the petitioner approached the Industrial Court at Yavatmal pointing out that denial by respondents to send him to training by contending that he was overage amounted to unfair labour practice. He argues that relevance of age of petitioner in the process has been lost sight of by the Industrial Court. According to him when petitioner was already a seasonal worker or temporary worker and his case was to be considered for regularization i.e. for grant of permanency, the question o...
Vitthalrao Sadashivrao Tarale Vs. Moharashtra State Electricity Board ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)BomCR210
Dhamadhikari B.P., J.1. Heard Advocate Patil for petitioner and Advocate Hussain for respondent No. 1. Nobody appears for respondent No. 2. Considering the nature of controversy, the matter is heard finally.2. Advocate Patil points out that Court below has not condoned the delay of 26 days in filing appeal on the ground that petitioner has brought certificate of doctor from some other place with which he had no connection. Advocate Patil informs that brother in law of petitioner resides at that place and petitioner has taken treatment from doctor practicing there. He also invites attention to statement made on affidavit in this petition. Hence he states that the delay ought to have been condoned. Even if it is accepted that reasons put forth in application are not just and sufficient, because of small delay, the same deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice. Advocate Hussain defends the impugned order and he states that the application as filed could itself have been self suf...
Lazarus D'Souza Vs. National Small Scale Industries Co-operation Ltd. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)BomCR452
Deshpande A.P.1. The petitioner questions the legality and validity of an order dated 25/2/2002 passed by the respondent No. 3, the Deputy Collector and District Recovery Officer whereunder a sum of Rs. 2,97,859/- is directed to be recovered from the present petitioner on account of he having furnished personal guarantee for higher purchase loan sanctioned to the respondent No. 2. The second respondent is a proprietary concern of which one Mr. Marshall D'Souza is the proprietor. Mr. Marshall D'Souza is the brother of the petitioner and is the principal borrower. The respondent No. 1 is a Corporation which had advanced higher purchase loan to the respondent No. 2 borrower.2. The proceedings in question are governed and regulated by a special statute called the Goa, Daman and Diu Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1986. Section 2(c) defines 'Corporation' so as to mean the Financial Corporation established or functioning in this Union territory and includes any other Corporation owned ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »