Mumbai Court November 2008 Judgments

Chairman-cum-managing Director, Western Coalfields Ltd. and ors. Vs. A ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2009)IILLJ680Bom; 2009(2)MhLj290

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The petitioners before this Court are officers of Western Coal Fields Limited, a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. They challenge the order dated September 28, 2004, passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner, Nagpur and Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, rejecting their appeal and further revising the order of Controlling Authority to their prejudice.2. The present respondent No. 2, a Medical Officer, working as Deputy Chief Medical Officer with petitioners approached the Controlling Authority under the Gratuity Act and claimed that she has not been paid her full gratuity. For the purpose of present matter, it is not necessary to go into the length of service or other aspects because those details are not in dispute. The complication has arisen only because of the date of termination of her services. The respondent No. 2 claimed that she worked up to September 30, 1997 and employer therefore could not have cal...

Prakash Alias Sanjay S/O Kerbaji Barse Vs. State of Maharashtra Throug ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(111)BomLR207

R.C. Chavan, J.1. This appeal is directed against conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act and sentence of R.I. For 10 years and fine of Rs.1 lakh or in default R.I. For one year imposed upon him by the learned Special Judge under Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act at Nagpur in Special Case No.77/2004.2. Facts which led to prosecution of the appellant are as under:On 30.8.2004 P.I. Purundare of P.S. Kanhan received information from Police Control Room on wireless at 00.45 hours that Ganja was being transported in a Tata Sumo Vehicle bearing Registration No. MH-26-L- 717 on Nagpur -Jabalpur road. This information was recorded in the Station Diary vide Sr. no. 19 and conveyed to Superior Officer S.D.P.O. Shri Gautam who too started chasing the vehicle. Police party saw the vehicle which slowed down, two persons jumped off the vehicle and started running. Some policemen went to chase these perso...

Shivdhari Kalu Singh Vs. Ruby Mills Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2009)IILLJ570Bom

K.K. Tated, J.1. The present appeal is preferred by the original petitioner against the judgment dated April 2, 2007 in Writ Petition No. 546/2007 by a single Judge arising from judgment dated October 31, 2006 passed by the President, Industrial Court, Maharashtra Mumbai in Appeal (IC) No. 94/2004 arising out of judgment dated February 26, 2003 passed by the Judge, 11th Labour Court, Mumbai in Application (BIR) (REIN) No. 81/1999.2. It is the case of the appellant that he joined the services of the respondents as a watchman in Watch and Ward department with effect from May 1, 1999. It is the case of the appellant that he worked throughout the month and in addition for more than 20 days in the month commencing from December, 1998. The appellant further submitted that he earned wages for 29 days in May 1999 and then for 28 days in the month of February 1999. It is the case of the appellant that in the month of March 1999 and April 1999 he worked and earned wages for 31 and 30 days respec...

Sau Varsha PravIn Patil Vs. PravIn Madhukar Patil

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2009Bom60

V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to judgment and decree for divorce rendered in matrimonial proceedings under Section 27(1)(b) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, bearing Spl. M.P. NO. 9/2009. By the impugned judgement, divorce is granted to respondent by learned Adhoc Additional District Judge Jalgaon on ground of desertion.2. This is a case in which love marriage between the parties could not sail smoothly and fell on rocks within is short span. Admittedly, appellant Varsha and respondent Pravin are inhabitants of same locality of Chopda township. The parental house of appellant Varsha is situated leaving only one house midway of the parental house of respondent Pravin. They were in love each other priority to settlement of the marriage. The marriage settlement took place before about couple of months of registration of the marriage. Their marriage was roistered at the Marriage Registrar's office, Jalgaon, on 22nd December, 20003. It is and admitted fact that responde...

Mr. N.P. George Vs. Br.Manager, Central Bank of India, Mumbai and Anot ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order: Per Mr. P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the complaint no. 344/2006, the original complainant has filed this appeal challenging the judgment passed by District Consumer Forum, Mumbai Suburban on 12/10/2007. Facts to the extent material may be stated as under: Complainant is having proprietary firm styled as M/s.Geetech Enterprises. His proprietary concern was granted by overdraft facility by Central Bank of India. The complainant was asked by the bank to settle the account by letter dt. 30/08/2005. The complainant after having discussion submitted a proposal on 07/03/2006 to settle the overdraft account for Rs.9 lakhs in terms of full and final settlement and enclosed a cheque of Rs.2 lakhs along with proposal. But the complainant was informed by the Bank that account will be settled by the bank for Rs.9,72,000/-. The complainant accepted this proposal and paid Rs. 1 lakh on 29/05/2006. Thus, total amount paid by the comp...

Ramesh Shriram Sule Vs. Dilipraj Niranjankumar Goenka and Harmindarsin ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(2)BomCR118; 2008(111)BomLR315; 2009(1)MhLj429

C. L. Pangarkar, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith.2. Heard with consent of parties.3. This appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff.4. The facts are as follows: Plaintiff is the Chief Promoter of Society known as .Seth Kisanlalji Goenka Puram Akola.. The Society entered into a contract of purchase of land with respondents. The defendant/respondent No.1 was not ready to perform his part of the contract. Plaintiff, therefore, instituted a suit for specific performance of contract.5. Defendant had filed Written Statement and had resisted the suit. We are not much concerned with the contention in the Written Statement. Issues were framed by the trial Court and trial Court even recorded part of evidence. The suit is instituted in the year 1989 but the defendants moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Order 1 Rule 8 Civil Procedure Code on 29/06/2006.6. Trial Court heard this application and allowed the application and rejected the plaint. Aggrieved by this rejection of plaint ...

Digambar Ambadas Magar (Died Through L.Rs. Indubai Digambar Magar and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR461

S.R. Dongaonkar, J.1. The Petitioner by this Petition, claims a direction to Respondent No.2 and No.3 to make payment of compensation of the Petitioner's land which was acquired from Survey No.128/1 situated within the area of Municipal Council, Osmanabad for construction of D.P. Road, with solatium and interest.2. According to the Petitioner, he is the owner of land Survey No.128/1 situated in Osmanabad Municipal Council area. The same was taken into possession by Respondent No.2 and No.3 for the development and constructing D.P. Road, 12 Meter wide from T.V. Centre to Ramnagar and from T.V. Centre to Irrigation Colony, Osmanabad. It was in accordance with the development plan of Osmanabad. It is alleged that Respondent No.2 and No.3 approached to the Petitioner and requested for giving possession of the land mentioned above for the construction of D.P. Road and by way of mutual understanding between the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 and No.3, Petitioner agreed by way of private nego...

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Through the Divisional Co ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(111)BomLR191; [2009(121)FLR146]; 2009(1)MhLj576

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. By this Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/employer has challenged concurrent judgments of Labour Court and Industrial Court granting relief of reinstatement with full back wages to respondent No. 1/employee. This Court has on 26/10/2005 while issuing rule in the matter, granted stay only to back wages and consequently respondent No. 1 has been reinstated in December, 2005.2. Advocate Mehadia for the petitioner states that respondent No. 1 was working on contract basis and was being paid Rs. 450/- per month and as such her termination could not have been held to be retrenchment under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is further argued that merely because the provisions of Section 25-F are found to be violated, relief of reinstatement with full back wages could not have been granted. He also invites attention to judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. ...

Kum Nirmala Tikana Giripo Vs. the State of Maharashtra,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(111)BomLR113; 2009(1)AllMR91

V.C. Daga, J.1. Heard. Perused petition.2. Rule returnable forthwith. Petition is taken up for hearing by consent of parties.3. This petition is directed against the order dated 8.2.2008 passed by the Respondent No. 3 - the Hon'ble Minister, Food and Civil Supplies, Mantralaya - Mumbai, whereby the order of allotment of the ration shop in favour of the Petitioner is set aside and direction to the Respondent No. 2, the Controller of Rationing, to allot the ration shop to the Respondent No. 4 - Smt Sharmila Surendra Gupta is issued.FACTUAL BACKGROUND.4. The Controller of Rationing issued an advertisement in the newspaper on 17.2.2007 inviting application on or before 26.3.2007 for allotment of a new ration shop for village Versova, Andheri (West), Mumbai 400 095. Three applications including that of the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 4 were received by him.5. The aforesaid three applications were processed by the Deputy Controller of Rationing. He appears to have visited the shop prem...

Jinadas Dhondiappa Mangalwedhekar Vs. Shamrao Baburao Kale

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR559; 2009(2)MhLj841

Mohta Anoop V., J.1. The petitioner-Landlord has challenged the impugned reversal order dated 3rd October, 1996 passed by the Additional District Judge, Pandharpur whereby allowing the Respondent-tenant's Appeal, in the Judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pandharpur in Regular Civil Suit No. 393 of 1983, the decree of possession is set aside and the petitioner-plaintiff's suit is dismissed.2. The alleged facts are:3. In the year 1983, the petitioner filed a Regular Civil Suit No. 393 of 1983 before Civil Judge, Junior Division at Pandharpur for eviction of the Respondent tenant under Section 13 of Bombay Rent Act.4. On 31/07/1995, the suit was decreed on the ground of acquisition of suitable alternate accommodation by the Respondent.5. In the year 1995, the respondent carried an appeal being Regular Civil Appeal No. 84 of 1995 in the Court of the Additional District Judge at Pandharpur.6. On 28/2/1996, the learned Appellate Court heard the appeal peremptoril...