Mumbai Court July 2008 Judgments

Voltas Ltd. and anr. Vs. Additional Collector and Competent Authority ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(5)BomCR746

Deshmukh D.K., J.1. The facts that are material and relevant for deciding this petition are that the first petitioner is a company incorporated pursuant to the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 and now governed under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The second petitioner is a shareholder of the petitioner No. 1 company.2. The first petitioner is the owner of lands situated at Village Panchpakhadai, at Thane and Village Majiwade at Thane. On the commencement of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the ULC Act'), pursuant to the first petitioner's return dated 14th August, 1976 under Section 6(1) of the ULC Act, the Competent Authority passed an order dated 28th September, 1984 under Section 8(4) of the ULC Act declaring a large area as surplus vacant land. The first petitioner challenged the aforesaid order before the Additional Collector, Thane, who by his order dated 29th April, 1985 stayed the operation of the order dated 2...

Govind Vishwanath Bansode and Radhabai W/O Jaiwantrao Kshirsagar Vs. M ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR555; 2009(1)BomCR617; (2008)110BOMLR2666; 2008(6)MhLj715

V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. This second appeal arises out of judgement rendered by learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Nanded, in an appeal (RCA No. 67/1983) whereby and whereunder partition decree rendered by learned Civil Judge (J.D.), in Suit bearing RCS No. 16/1976 came to be reversed.2. Subject matter of the partition Suit comprises of three (3) agricultural fields and a residential house mentioned below:(i) Survey No. 17/A, admeasuring 9 acres 18 gunthas.(ii) Survey No. 18/A, admeasuring 12 acres 29 gunthas.(iii) Survey No. 22/B, admeasuring 11 acres 22 gunthas, situated at village Bori (Kd.) and(iv) Residential House No. 534 to the extent of northern half portion as described in the claim clause of the plaint.3. There is no dispute about correctness of following pedigree table.Gangaram (Died in 1947)|------------------------------------------ Vishwanath Manika Bhujanga Shankar(Died in (Deft. (Deft. (Deft.1975) No. 1) No. 2) No. 3)----------------------------------------------------...

Shri Sant Sawtamali Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Vs. State of Maharashtra ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(6)MhLj529

P.B. Majmudar, J.1. Rule. Mr. Bhosale, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-teacher, waives service of rule. Mr. Vanarase, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of Rule on behalf of the State of Maharashtra. With the consent of advocates, matter is heard today finally.2. By filing this petition, the petitioner-management has challenged an order passed by School Tribunal, Pune Region at Sholapur, dated 25th March, 2008 in Appeal No. 98 of 2006 by which the School Tribunal allowed the appeal of the respondent-teacher and set aside the order of termination dated 14th November, 2005.3. The respondent-teacher (hereinafter 'the respondent') had preferred an appeal before the School Tribunal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The case of the respondent is that he was appointed as an Assistant Physical Teacher in the school on 11th June, 2001 as he possessed q...

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rehana Begum and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009ACJ2580

S.R. Dongaonkar, J.1. By this appeal, the appellant United India Insurance Co. Ltd., is seeking exception to the judgment and award passed by the Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Claim Petition No. 74 of 1995, by which the claim petition of respondent Nos. 1 to 7 under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was allowed and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, i.e., present appellant and the respondent No. 8 were directed to pay the compensation of Rs. 5,30,000 jointly and severally along with the interest, etc., besides the costs.2. Brief facts leading to this appeal can be stated thus:One Ashfaque Abdul Gaffar Ansari, the husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondent Nos. 2 to 7 was returning to home on 23.10.1995 by his scooter. One truck bearing registration No. MH 31-4157, owned by respondent No. 8 and insured with the appellant, dashed against him, resulting in his death. The respondent Nos. 1 to 7, i.e., applicants claimed that he was the only earning mem...

Prabhakar S/O Marotirao Dalal Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through the ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR306; 2009(1)BomCR413; (2008)110BOMLR2465

F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith.2. The issue, which arises in this petition, is whether the petitioner is entitled to interest for what the petitioner contends is delay in payment of gratuity.3. A few facts may be set out. The petitioner was in the service of respondents. A disciplinary inquiry was initiated against him in the year 1996. He retired on 28.2.1999, but the inquiry was continued. An Inquiry Officer came to be appointed on 12.4.2001. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 31.10.2001. The disciplinary authority did not agree with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and called on the petitioner to show cause.The petitioner filed a reply on 15.9.2004.The disciplinary authority, being not satisfied with the reply, issued a show cause notice dated 26.7.2005 and thereafter was pleased to impose punishment by order dated 31.2.2006. The punishment imposed was deduction of 10% from the petitioner's pension. The gratuity in fact was paid on 18.4.2006.4. The learned Coun...

Dilip S/O Vishnuji Kolte and ors. Vs. Dattatraya S/O Babuji Peche and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR261; 2008(6)MhLj150

Vasanti A. Naik, J.1. Since common questions arise for consideration in these Second Appeals, they are heard together and are decided by this common judgment.2. The Second Appeals were admitted by the orders dated 13th April, 1999, but no substantial question of law was framed while admitting the same.3. By the Second Appeals, the appellants challenge the judgment passed by the 3rd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Amravati, in Special Civil Suit No. 57/1980 on 10-12-1987 and that of the Joint District Judge, Amravati dated 10-2-1997 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 17/1998. By the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed and permanent injunction was granted against the defendants from publishing, printing and circulating 'Leela Charitra' in any form with the objectionable contents of the mischievous statements, incidents and episodes. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were directed to recall the books which were already circulated and stop further cir...

Twenty First Century Printers Ltd. Vs. K.P. Abraham and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2008(119)FLR883]; (2009)IILLJ378Bom

S.A. Bobde, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the award dated January 28, 2005 by which the learned Presiding Officer, 4th Labour Court, Mumbai, held that the respondent No. 1 is a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', and that the termination of his services with effect from August 12, 1995 is illegal. The respondent No. l's services as a Purchase Officer were terminated without following the procedure required by the Act. The learned Presiding Officer has directed reinstatement of the respondent No. 1 with continuity of service and payment of full back wages with effect from August 12, 1995.2. The petitioner is a company, engaged in the manufacture of printed packing material. They had appointed the respondent No. 1 as a Purchaser Officer. Apparently, in the course of employment, the petitioner asked the respondent No. 1 to carry some article from Mumbai to Ahmedabad. The respondent No. 1 declined. The incident took an ugly turn and t...

Allan John Waters and Duncan Alexander Grant Vs. State of Maharashtra ... Overruled

Court: Mumbai

Appeals No. 476 and 681 of 2006 are filed by the accused persons against their convictions, whereas Appeal No. 603 of 2006 is filed by the State for enhancement of the sentence of the accused persons.2. There were three accused. Two of them faced trial. They were tried for offences under Sections 372, 373, 377, 323 read with Sections 109 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. They were also tried under Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. These cases were filed against the accused persons in unusual circumstances. A Criminal Writ Petition was suo motu entertained by the High Court, being Writ Petition No. 585 of 1985. Ms. Maharukh Adenwalla was appointed amicus curiae in this Writ 4Petition and also in another Criminal Writ Petition. She had also been appointed amicus curiae in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1107 of 1996 by this Court.3. It appears that in the year 1985, a girl had been brought from Gujarat to Mumbai as a maid servant. A news item ap...

Janhit Manch Through Its President Bhagvanji Raiyani, Vs. the State of ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR299

Bilal Nazki, J.1. This petition was filed in public interest claiming various reliefs. The matter has been pending in Court for a long time and when the matter was taken up by this Bench on 30th January, 2008 we had directed the Chief Secretary Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 5 Corporation to file their respective affidavits for the reasons given in the order itself. There are many reliefs claimed by the petitioners. We have heard petitioner No. 2 in person and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. Some of the reliefs claimed are the reliefs which could not be granted because they relate to geographical areas which are outside the jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, the petitioner made a submission that he will confine this petition to the reliefs claimed for the areas which fall within the State of Maharashtra. The said reliefs are:(a) To immediately ban the practice of immersion of any idols of gods, goddesses, tajia or otherwise under religious rituals or under a...

Paul Dias and Sons by Its Partner, Mr. William Dias Vs. Sds Shipping P ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009CriLJ3804

R.C. Chavan, J.1. This appeal by the complainant takes exception to judgment rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vasco in Criminal Case No. 536/04 whereby the learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.2. The facts which led to filing of the complaint are as under:The complainant/company are Ship Chandlers who provide various ship stores to ships which call at Mormugao Port. The respondent/company has been arranging for supply of such stores through the complainant as Agents of Russian Vessel A. A. Sidorenko. The respondent has issued cheques No. 353919 and 353921 dated 22.08.2003 and 30.09.2003 drawn on Centurion Bank at Vasco for Rs. 2,00,000/- each towards ship stores supplied to the said Russian Vessel A.A. Sidorenko. The complainant presented the first cheque No. 353919 for clearance on 25.08.2003 through their bankers, which was returned back for want of funds. It was again present...