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.
Uco Bank, Churchgate Branch Through Mr. K. Venkatachalam Vs. Kanji Man ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)ALLMR512; 2008(3)BomCR290; (2008)110BOMLR744; 2008(4)MhLj424
Ranjana Desai, J.1. The petitioner is a body corporate incorporated under the provisions of the Banking Companies Act, 1949, having its head office at 10, BTM, Sarani, Kolkata, and branch offices all over India, including one at Churchgate.2. Respondent 1 is a partnership firm constituted under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act and, the rest of the respondents are its partners.3. The respondents have availed various loan facilities from the petitioner's various branches as per the details given in paragraph 3 of the petition. For securing the said loans, the respondents had mortgaged their two flats situate at Malbar Hill, Mumbai (for convenience, 'the secured assets').4. It is the case of the petitioner that the loan account of the petitioner became irregular despite the efforts of the petitioner to regularise it and, hence, the petitioner declared the account of the respondents as Non Performing Asset (for convenience, 'NPA') on 31/3/2005.5. According to the petitioner, on...
The State of Maharashtra Through the Superintendent Engineer, Sangli P ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR868; 2008(3)BomCR669; (2008)110BOMLR669; [2008(117)FLR663]; 2008(4)MhLj652
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution impugns the Award passed by the Labour Court at Satara on 27/1/2005, thereby allowing Reference (IDA) No. 1 of 1996 partly. The petitioner-department has been directed to reinstate the respondent-workman on his previous post as labour on daily wages, with continuity of service w.e.f. 1/9/1985 but without any backwages.2. At the threshold Mr. Topkar, the learned Counsel for the respondent pointed out that the petition has been filed on 19/12/2006 against the Award dated 27/1/2005 i.e. almost after one year and 11 months and, therefore, it suffers from delays and latches.3. In the petition memo itself it has been pointed out that after the impugned Award was published, the petitioner-department had approached the State Government seeking sanction to file Writ Petition and the sanction order was issued on 30/11/2006. Hence, in my considered opinion the delay, if any, caused in filing this petition deserves to ...
Sou Seema Ashok Kamble Vs. the Collector and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)BomCR683; (2008)110BOMLR1042; 2008(3)MhLj781
D.B. Bhosale, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties Rule. Ms Cardoza, learned AGP, waives service for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr Kadam, learned Counsel, waives service for respondent nos 4 to 12. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally.2. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the orders dated 13.12.2006, passed by the Divisional Commissioner in appeal, and dated 26.9.2006, passed by the Collector, by which the petition against the no confidence motion passed against the petitioner in a meeting of the Grampanchayat held on 10.8.2006 has been dismissed.3. The petitioner is the elected Sarpanch of Khutbav Grampanchayat. The members of the Panchayat gave a notice to the Tahsildar for moving a no confidence motion against the petitioner. The Tahsildar received the notice on 2.8.2006. The meeting to consider the no confidence motion against the petitioner was held on 10.8.2006. This Grampanchayat has 11 elected ...
Madanlal Prakashchand and Company and ors. Vs. Agricultural Produce Ma ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)MhLj900
A.H. Joshi, J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable and heard by consent.2. The petitioners herein who are plaintiffs, have after the suit has proceeded without filing of written statement, moved an application for amendment. Certain words were sought to be deleted by the amendment applied for namely, 'as it is desolved due to partition in between its partners'.3. Consequent to the said amendment, the defendants who were proceeded 'without written statement, submitted application along with written statement and prayed that the written statement be accepted on record.The defendants' application has been allowed by order below Exhibit 74 dated 6-8-2007. This order has been challenged in the present petition.4. The grounds put forth challenged in the written statement which are narrated in extenso can be summarized as follows:(i) That, every amendment would entitle the defendant to file additional written statement or amendment to the written statement already on record in order to answer the...
S. Rangarajan Vs. Oyester Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR754; 2008(5)BomCR431
Sayed A.A., J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent and heard finally.2. This petition impugns the order dated 31st July, 2007 passed by the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Mumbai, whereby the order dated 6th November, 2006 of the learned Judge of the Co-operative Court, Thane, was set aside and the resolution of the Managing Committee and the General Body Meeting held on 23.5.2004, was held to be applicable to the petitioner and the petitioner is directed to pay service charges as per the bye-law No. 69(a)(vi) for each of his two flats.3. The petitioner is a member of the respondent Society and is the owner of two flats which are inter connected, being flat No. 405 and 406 on the 4th Floor of the building belonging to the society. The two flats were purchased under two separate agreements with the Builder. Subsequently the society was formed. According to the petitioner as the flats are inter connected and he had purchased the same on the understanding tha...
Hdfc Bank Ltd. Vs. Ashish Sheshmani Pandey
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)ALLMR753; 2008(3)ARBLR179(Bom); (2008)110BOMLR733; 2008(3)MhLj865
J.H. Bhatia, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Parties. 2. Admittedly the respondent/plaintiff had taken a vehicle loan in respect of vehicle No. MH-06 AG 178 from the defendant/bank, which is appellant before this Court. The plaintiff contended that he had paid all the dues in respect of the said vehicle loan and he requested the bank to issue No Objection Certificate. The bank refused to issue No Objection Certificate and, therefore, the plaintiff filed suit seeking direction to the bank. He also took out Notice of Motion No. 3263 of 2007 seeking direction for the same purpose. The defendant/bank admitted that in respect of the said vehicle loan all the dues have been cleared. However, the bank was not willing to issue No Objection Certificate because in respect of certain other transactions, certain amounts were due from the plaintiff. Bank took a plea that as per the terms of the contract, if there is any dispute, differences and/or claim arising out of or touching upon the sa...
Mrs. Savita Pradip Datar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR385; 2008(3)MhLj923
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Presiding officer, University Tribunal dated 31.1.1996 to a limited extent. By this order, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner and set aside the order of termination of service dated 30.4.1995. The Tribunal directed that the petitioner would be deemed to have continued in the post she was appointed in after 30.4.1995. However, the claim for back wages was denied by the Tribunal while directing that the petitioner be paid salary at the rate she was being paid in April, 1995.2. The petitioner responded to an advertisement issued by respondent No. 3 inviting applications for the post of Senior College Teacher in various streams including Zoology with specialization in Physiology. Pursuant to an interview, the petitioner was appointed on 7.12.1988 after being duly selected for one academic year. She was appointed against a post reserved for a candidate from the Scheduled Tribes. A fresh advertisement wa...
Radhey Shyam Associates (Engineers and Contractors) Through Its Partne ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ARBLR216(Bom); 2008(4)BomCR865; 2008(3)MhLj926
A.H. Joshi, J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable and is heard by consent.2. Petitioner herein is a contractor. Admittedly, there is a written contract. The contract contains an arbitration clause. Parties had agreed upon appointment of arbitrator. Arbitrator entered the arbitration and started the proceedings. The arbitration award was rendered in favour of the petitioner.3. Petitioner then filed application for execution thereof treating it to be an award passed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The application for execution of award as a decree was opposed by the respondents. The civil court ruled that the arbitration was not commenced and concluded under the provisions of new Act rather was governed by the provisions of Arbitration Act, 1940, and unless it was made a rule of court, it could not be acted upon.4. It is an admitted position, that the arbitrator has issued a communication informing the parties that he proposes to proceed under the new Act. This notice was ...
Bombay Gas Company Ltd. Vs. G.S. Baj and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-2008
Reported in: [2008(118)FLR530]; (2008)IIILLJ365Bom; 2008(4)MhLj88
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This petition impugns the award dated 9-12-1994 passed by the Industrial Tribunal at Mumbai thereby allowing Reference (IT) No. 77 of 1974.2. The facts leading to this petition and briefly stated are as under:The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Mumbai vide his order dated 14-3-1974 had referred the following two demands for adjudication under Section 10(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Industrial Tribunal and between the petitioner-company and its workmen at the Gas Factory, Lalbaug, Mumbai:(a) All the workmen employed in the Bombay Gas Company Ltd. at Gas Works and District Departments, Bombay, shall be paid basic wages and dearness allowance for all the days in a month effective from 1-3-1974, and(b) All the workmen employed in the Bombay Gas Company Ltd. at Gas Works and District Departments, Bombay, shall be paid in addition to the basic wages and dearness allowance for all the days in a month 6 1/2 per cent of the basic wages upto Rs. 200/- and 5...
Head Mistress, Fatimadevi English High School and ors. Vs. Smt. Marlya ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR56]; (2009)ILLJ196Bom; 2008(5)MhLj450
S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. By this Appeal, the appellant Educational Institution is challenging the order dated 11th September, 2002 passed by the learned Single Judge, wherein, the learned Single Judge had relied upon a judgment of this Court in General Education Academy v. Smt. Sudha Vasudeo Desai Ors. 2001 (3) Mh.L.J. 308 : 2001(2) CLR 79 and concluded that the respondent No. 1 Teacher is an employee and entitled to get gratuity. The respondent No. 1 is a Teacher employed in the appellant-school.2. There have been conflicting views 'whether a Teacher is an employee' covered by Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972?'The controversy is whether a Teacher employed in a school 'as an employee' is covered by Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972? The said question has been finally settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ahmedabad (P) Primary Teachers' Association v. Administrative Officer 2004 (1) CLR 495, wherein, in paragraph 23, the Hon'ble Supreme Court...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »