Mumbai Court February 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.
Shree Steel Castings (Pvt.) Ltd. Through Its Managing Director Vs. Vas ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR747; 2008(5)BomCR191; (2008)110BOMLR843; [2008(119)FLR418]; (2008)IIILLJ133Bom; 2008(4)MhLj524
R.C. Chavan, J. 1. This appeal, by employer, takes exception to the judgment of the learned single Judge allowing Writ Petition No. 243 of 1997, whereby the learned Judge allowed the complaint of the employees bearing No. 942 of 1995, under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, which had been rejected by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Nagpur. 2. The appellant-employer is a small scale industry which commenced production in the year 1985. On 17.10.1993 the appellant gave a statutory notice of closure, since due to financial difficulties, the appellant was not in a position to run the factory. On completion of the statutory period of sixty days, on 17.12.1993, the employees were paid compensation admissible under Section 25FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act. On 18.01.1994 the respondents, who claimed to be the representatives of employees, applied before the Labour Court complaining of an illegal change and illegal...
Smt. Revaben Ajay Dedhia and Ajay Korshi Dedhia Vs. Harshad Jethalal S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)BomCR436
J.H. Bhatia, J.1. This Revision Application is preferred against the decree for possession passed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. 2. To state in brief, the dispute is pertaining the suit premises i.e. shop Nos. 4 and 6, which are part of Shobha Godown, Amir Ali Merchant Chawl, Mantri Wadi, S.V. Road, Malad (West), Mumbai. The plaintiff filed the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act contending that on 3rd April, 1996, he had taken the suit shops on rent from the landlord Amir Ali Merchant and he had kept in the shops various articles such as auto-spare parts, tyrs, oil drums etc. which were required for the purpose of his business of transporter. He had also applied for a telephone connection and opened the bank account etc. Sometime in the last week of May, 1996, he had been to Hyderabad and then to Kutchh in Gujarat. He came back to Mumbai in the second week of June, 1996 and was shocked to notice that the su...
Mr. Padam Chandra Singhi, Vs. Dr. Praful B. Desai and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)BomCR367; (2008)110BOMLR795
ORDERV.C. Daga, J.1. This notice of motion taken out by the plaintiffs was rejected for the reasons to be recorded. Accordingly, reasons with factual backdrop is being recorded.2. The notice of motion claimed following relief:(a) that this Honble Court be pleased to direct the Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 47th Court at Esplanade, Bombay (who is presently trying the case) (i) to transmit the evidence of Dr.Earnest Greenberg of New York (U.S.A.) recorded by Commissioner, Ms.Usha Aiyar, Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai, as per Order of the Honble Supreme Court of India dated 1st April, 2003 in Appeal No. 476 of 2003 in case of State of Maharashtra v. 1. Dr. P.B. Desai & 2. Dr. A.K. Mukherjee being C.C. No. 82/P/1998 now CC No. 92/PW/2005 to this Honourable Court or in the alternative to allow the Plaintiff No. 1 abovenamed to produce in this Honble Court Certified copy of abovesaid evidence of Dr.Greenberg in lieu of it; and (ii) read the said evidence of D...
Sunderlal Laxman Mahyavanshi Vs. N.T.C. (Mn) Ltd. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)BomCR678; (2008)110BOMLR1159; [2008(118)FLR1140]; (2008)IIILLJ196Bom
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Heard Counsel for the Parties.2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. As short question is involved, in terms of the Order dated 20th December, 2007, hearing of the Petition proceeds forthwith, by consent.3. This Petition takes exception to the Judgment and Order passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act dated 22nd March, 2007 in Application No. M-26/2005-PG-Appeal. By this Order, the Appellate Authority has summarily rejected the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner for the sole reason that the said Appeal when presented by the Petitioner was not accompanied by the Application for condonation of delay, which was mandatory. The relevant facts for considering the point in issue are as follows.4. An order was passed by the Controlling authority on 20th April, 2005, copy whereof was received by the Petitioner on 5th May, 2005. Thereafter, the Petitioner proceeded to file the Appeal against the said decision only on 16th August, 2005. It is co...
Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. Shyam Bha ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-2008
Reported in: [2008(118)FLR970]; (2008)IIILLJ1025Bom; 2008(4)MhLj343
D.G. Karnik, J.1. Heard Mr. Mehta for the applicant and the learned APP for the respondent No. 2 State. Advocate for respondent No. 1 is absent when called.2. This revision application is directed against the order dated 29th of September 1999 of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 25th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai, discharging the respondent No. 1.3. The complainant, Inspector of Employees State Insurance Corporation (for short the 'ESI Corporation'), filed a complaint in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate against the respondent No. 1, alleged that respondent No. 1 had failed to pay employer's and employees' contribution, in accordance with provisions of Section 39 and 40 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short the 'E.S.I. Act') read with Regulation 31 of the E.S.I. (General) Regulations 1950. In the complaint it was further alleged that by non-payment of the compensation, the respondent No. 1 had committed an offence punishable under Section 85 of the E.S.I. Act.4. The complaint w...
Mohamad Zakir Mohamad Muktar Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ2519
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard. This appeal arises from the Judgment and Order dated 29th March, 2006 passed by the 5th Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai in Sessions Case No. 489/2004, whereby the appellant has been convicted for life holding him guilty of the offences punishable under Section 363, 364(A) and 365 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.2. The main contention which is sought to be raised on behalf of the appellant is that the appellant was juvenile in conflict on the date of commission of the offence and therefore, he is entitled for the acquittal of the offences under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. It is further case on behalf of the appellant that appellant was arrested on 22nd April, 2004 and since then he has been in jail.3. Undisputedly, the offence was committed on 13th April, 2004. Pursuant to the issue of being juvenile raised by the appellant, the necessary inquiry was ordered by the Sessions Judge and pursuant to the enquiry ...
Shri Shyamrao S/O Natthuji Wasnik Vs. State of Maharashtra Through the ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR274; 2008(6)BomCR321; [2008(118)FLR140]; (2008)IIILLJ1059Bom; 2008(3)MhLj660
K.J. Rohee, J.1. By this appeal the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 7.11.1996 in W.P. No. 664/1001 allowing the writ petition by State and setting aside the Award dated 11.12.1990 passed by the Labour Court in Reference (IDA) No. 68/1997 directing the reinstatement of the appellant in service with continuity of service and payment of half the back wages, is challenged.2. Prior to August, 1977, the appellant was working on daily wages with the Forest Department. By order dated 8.8.1977 by respondent No. 2, the appellant was appointed as Forest Guard in pay-scale of Rs. 80-110/- on temporary basis for a period of six months in clear vacancy. The order mentions that the appointment was purely temporary and was liable to be terminated without giving any notice. The services of the appellant were to be terminated within six months or on the day the candidate from the State Selection Board, Aurangabad was made available whichever was earlier. Accordingly the appellant joined the s...
Seema Jagdish Neviet Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR297; 2008(3)BomCR642; (2008)110BOMLR737; 2008(3)MhLj766
J.N. Patel, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.3. We propose to dispose of this petition at the stage of admission itself considering that the matter pertains to admission of P.B.B.Sc. (Nursing) degree Course for the academic year 2007-08.4. The petitioner after having passed the H.S.C. examination with Commerce subjects in the year 1991 completed her General Midwife Nursing Course which is the basic qualification for passing the post basic B.Sc course and since the year 1998 she is working with J.J. Hospital as a staff nurse.5. The respondent Nos. 2 issued an advertisement thereby calling applications from eligible candidates for the post of Basic B.Sc. (Nursing) degree course. The petitioner alongwith others applied in response to the advertisement and respondent Nos. 3 after scrutinizing the applications on 12.07.2007 published a provisional eligibility list in two categories i.e. the list of candidates from science stream and the ...
idea Cellular Ltd., a Company Incorporated Under the Provisions of the ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-2008
Reported in: (2008)215CTR(Bom)288; [2008]301ITR407(Bom)
R.S. Mohite, J.1. This petition filed by Idea Cellular Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner') impugns a notice dated 26.3.2007 issued by respondent No. 1 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, seeking to re-open the petitioners' assessment for the assessment year 2001-2002. It also impugns a further order dated 13.12.2007 issued by respondent No. 1 rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner to the re-opening of the assessment.2. The brief chronological facts of the case are as under:(a) On 30.10.2001 the petitioner filed a return in respect of the assessment year 2001-2002 which indicated a loss of Rs. 133,91,49,737/-. The said return was accompanied by a copy of the petitioner's audited accounts for the year ended 31.3.2001. In the computation annexed to the return, the petitioner had disclosed that a company named Tata Cellular Limited had amalgamated into the petitioner w.e.f. 1st January 2001. More details of the amalgamation were given in the directors' repor...
Dinkar Shankarrao Patil, Vs. Dr. Sheshrao Shankarrao Patil,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR707; 2008(3)BomCR676; 2008(3)MhLj833
S.B. Deshmukh, J.1. This writ petition takes an exception to the judgment and order passed by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Osmanabad in Enquiry Application No. 725 of 2007, dated 29.12.2007.2. This petition was listed before the learned Single Judge of this Court on 29.1.2008. After hearing learned Counsel Shri V.D. Salunke, appearing for the petitioners and Shri S.S.Jadhavar i/b Shri V.S.Janephalkar, learned Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2, learned Single Judge of this Court has passed an order directing the Registry of this Court to place this petition before the Division Bench of this Court and that is how, this petition is listed for admission before this Court. 3. Resume of few facts for consideration of this writ petition is relevant:(A). Bhartiya Rashtriya Shiksan Sanstha, Lohara, District Osmanabad ('the trust') is registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 ('the said Act'). This trust is having a constitution, copy of which ...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »