Mumbai Court November 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.
Rajaram N.S. Bandekar and Company Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Oriental Insu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-2008
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR852
Britto N.A., J.1. This appeal is directed against that part of the judgment/decree dated 10/9/2003 of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Vasco-da-Gama by which plaintiffs' suit to recover an amount of Rs. 12 lacs with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from defendants No. 1 and 2, has been dismissed. The parties hereto shall be referred to in the names as they appear in the cause title of the civil suit. 2. The claim of the plaintiffs arose out of sinking of a barge known as 'M.V. Nitin' and having registration No. MRH 477 on the night of 13/14th of July, 1987 which was entrusted for major repairs to the yard of defendant No. 2 and which barge was owned by plaintiff No. 1 and was handed over by plaintiff No. 1 to plaintiff No. 2 pursuant to an agreement of sale dated 8/9/1986, as it could not be sold because it was hypothecated by plaintiff No. 1 to Madgao Urban Co-operative Bank, Margao-Goa towards a loan taken by plaintiff No. 1. There is no dispute that it is plaintiff ...
Marathwada GramIn Bank Karmachari Sanghatana and ors. Vs. Management o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-2008
Reported in: (2008)IIILLJ713Bom
1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. On August 29, 1981 relaxation/ exemption was granted to the original petitioner by the Appropriate Government under Section 17 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Relaxation/exemption continued for about 10 years. By communication dated October 14, 1991 the original petitioner was informed that the said relaxation stands withdrawn with effect from October 1, 1991 as the original petitioner failed to submit various returns and to constitute the Board of Trustees as per the rules. The original petitioner was also directed to implement the provisions of the, statutory scheme in respect of the employees of its establishment. It seems that the said communication was challenged by one of the Employees' Union before Aurangabad Bench vide Writ Petition No. 978/1992. However, the said writ petition was allowed to be withdrawn on April 8, 1994. Despite withdrawal of the said writ petition, it seems that the original petiti...
Dr. Percy Rutton Kavasmaneck Vs. Gharda Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-2008
Reported in: [2009]96SCL515(Bom)
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This petition is filed under Sections 397, 398, 402, 403 and 433(1)(f) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It was originally presented by seven Petitioners (hereinafter referred to as 'the Petitioners group') claiming to be minority group having 27.21 per cent share in, respondent No. 1 - company. However, after the admission of the Company Petition and before the same could proceed for final hearing, the petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 have withdrawn from the proceedings unconditionally. Thus, it is only the original petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 (hereinafter referred to as 'the present Petitioners') have decided to pursue this action. Notably, the shares held by the petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 together would constitute only about 6.66 per cent of the share capital of the respondent No. 1 - company.2. Briefly stated, sometime in or around 28-4-1962, a partnership firm consisting of four partners came into being which operated in the name and...
Arvind Deochand Mehta and ors. Vs. Genu Tukaram Bhoir Died by His L.Rs ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-12-2008
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR858
Kingaonkar V.R., J.1. By this petition, petitioners impugn Judgment rendered by learned Member of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, in proceedings No. MRT/AH/VI-9/85 (TNC.B. 182/85), dated 28th January, 1988 and also in review application which came to be dismissed.2. The fields in question were owned by Deochand Mehta, predecessor of the present petitioners and during their minority, were in the hands of their mother - Smt. Tarabai Mehta. Father of original respondents No. 2 and 3, namely, Dhavala Uma Rewate was in possession of the said fields as tenant. The petitioners asserted that Deochand Mehta died prior to 1st April, 1957 leaving behind them as minors as on 1st April, 1957 i.e. the tiller's day and, therefore, the tenant could not have acquired any right to ownership under Section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short, 'BT&AL; Act'). They asserted that it was necessary for the tenant to comply with provisions of Section 32-F(1-A) of the BT&AL; Act s...
Tikaram Ragho Choudhary (Since Deceased by His Heirs Sumanbai Pralhad ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-11-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)BomCR176; 2008(111)BomLR96
V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to judgement rendered by learned Additional District Judge, Jalgaon, in an appeal (R.C.A. No. 119/1983) whereby and whereunder judgement and decree of Trial Court in Spl. Civil Suit No. 28/1977 came to be reversed.2. Original defendants No. 2 to 14 are appellants herein. Respondent No. 1 - Shaikh Gaffar is original plaintiff and respondent No. 2 - Sugrabi is original defendant No. 2. Respondent No. 1 - Shaikh Gaffar is son of respondent No. 2 - Sugrabi. He filed suit (Spl. C.S. No. 28/1977) for setting aside alienation made by her and for his 7/8th share by way of partition and separate possession in respect of the suit fields.3. Briefly stated, case of the respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) before the Trial Court was that he and respondent No. 2 had filed a partition suit bearing Spl. C.S. No. 3/1956 against his uncles, etc. That suit ended in a compromise decree passed on 30th November 1956. By virtue of such compromise decree, the suit pro...
Municipal Council Vs. Bhartiya Nagar Parishad Kamgar Sangh and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-11-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)BomCR170
Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. All these three writ petitions challenge common order dated 14.12.2006 delivered by the Member, Industrial Court, Chandrapur, directing the petitioners-Municipal Councils to pay 15% incentive payable in naxal affected areas from August 2002 as per Government Resolution dated 6.8.2002 to its employees.2. This Court has on 13.8.2007, while issuing Rule, permitted the Municipal Councils to pay such allowance to its employees, if it wanted to implement its own resolution. By order dated 30.8.2007, this Court has granted interim relief and stayed the operation and effect of impugned order dated 14.12.2006.3. The facts are not much in dispute. Respondent No. 1 in all these writ petitions is a Registered Trade Union and had filed a Complaint (ULPA) No. 65 of 2005 on behalf of its members spread over in Municipal Council, Chandrapur, Municipal Council, Mul and Municipal Council, Ballarshah, contending that by not extending benefit of Government Resolution dated 6.8.200...
Sayyed I.H.A. Vs. Best Undertaking
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-11-2008
Reported in: (2009)IILLJ471Bom
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Petitioner was employed as a Vulcanizer with the Best Undertaking. A charge-sheet was issued to him on December 13, 2004 in which it was alleged that the petitioner had committed a theft of property belonging to the Undertaking. It was alleged that on November 10, 2004, the bag of the petitioner was checked at the gate of the Deonar Depot by the security guard and during the course of the check two aluminum strips were recovered. The petitioner was dismissed from service after a disciplinary enquiry. The petitioner filed a complaint of unfair labour practices before the Labour Court. The Labour Court by its judgment dated December 29, 2007 came to the conclusion that the enquiry was fair and proper and that the findings were not perverse. However, the Labour Court was of the view that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the charge of misconduct which was proved. Reinstatement with 50% back wages was accordingly awarded. The Undertaking moved the I...
ircon International Ltd. Vs. R.S. Jiwani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-11-2008
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR446; 2009(2)MhLj758
Vazifdar S.J., J.1. This is a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside an award dated 5.5.2005 passed by a learned sole arbitrator.2. The petitioner had been issued a contract by the Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd. (MSRDC) inter alia for constructing a rail over bridge (ROB). The petitioner in turn floated a tender for the construction of foundations substructure and approach road for the ROB. The respondent was awarded the contract by a letter of acceptance dated 19.1.1999. A contract dated 29.1.1999 was executed by the parties which incorporated several other documents. The work under the contract was of the value of about Rs. 5,00,00,000/-. The stipulated date for completion was 18.11.1999. The work was completed after considerable delay on 27.1.2002.3. Disputes and differences arose between the parties. One of the main questions was as to which of the parties was responsible for the delay. The respondent by a letter da...
Esteem Properties Pvt. Ltd., a Company Incorporated Under the Companie ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR642; 2009(1)MhLj638
Anoop v. Mohta, J.1. By consent, heard finally.2. The Petitioners- Original Plaintiffs have challenged the order dated 12th September, 2008 passed by the City Civil Court of Bombay, Dindoshi Branch, Mumbai in Chamber Summons No. 347 of 2008 in L.C. Suit No. 1177 of 2008 allowing the Application of Respondent No. 4 to join as a Defendant in the suit.3. As averred by the Petitioners, on 09/08/2007, the Petitioners being owner and having right on the said plot, made complaints to the concern office of the Assistant Municipal Commissioner, complaining about illegal encroachment on the said property.4. On 09/05/2008, pursuant to the complaint, Bombay Municipal Corporation (Respondent No. 1 hereinabove) issued Notice under Section 55 of M.R.T.P.Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') to Respondent No. 2 hereinabove as illegal and unauthorised structure on the suit property. Respondent No. 2 was refused to accept the said Notice and, therefore, the same was pasted at site. Pursu...
Ramchandra Sitaram Kale (Deceased) (Smt. Lata Wd/O Ramchandra Kale and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR645; 2008(111)BomLR84; (2009)IILLJ686Bom
A.B. Chaudhari, J.1. By the present petition, there is a challenge to the judgment and order made by the Industrial Court on 22.08.1995 in Revision ULP No. 6/1992 confirming the judgment and order made by the Labour Court, Nagpur in Complaint ULP No. 761/1988 decided on 18.12.1991 refusing the award of backwages to the petitioner.2. Mr. Jamal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, made the following submissions. The petitioner was sanctioned special leave with pay from 12.06.1986 to 01.10.1986 by the respondent-employer and he also received the sickness benefits for the period of illness as is clear from an order made by Works Manager, S. T. Central Workshop, Nagpur on 18.10.1986 (Annexure 'M' with this petition). The chargesheet was given to him on 13.03.1986 and thereafter a show cause notice was given to him on 22.06.1986. Finally, the respondentemployer issued dismissal order pursuance to the said show cause notice on 09.03.1987. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »