Mumbai Court August 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.
Manjeri Vijaysinh Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Its Departmen ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR817; 2009(1)MhLj371
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. Rule. Learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of the learned Advocates, rule is made returnable forthwith.2. By filing this petition, the petitioner, who is a student, has raised an important issue for consideration of this Court as to whether at the time of taking Common Entrance Test ('CET' for short) examination, any deviation can be made by the respondents in the matter of giving marks contrary to Rules and instructions given in this behalf.3. The petitioner has cleared her HSC Examination from the Maharashtra State and Higher Secondary Education Board, Pune and secured 62% marks in the subjects of Physics, Chemistry and Biology. The State of Maharashtra, for the purpose of admission for medical and dental courses framed rules and introduced CET. As per the said Rules, the duration of the examination is three hours. The method of answering the questions is also prescribed in the Rules. As per the...
In Re: Sections 100 to 104 and 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956; ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)BomCR782; (2008)110BOMLR2820; 2008BusLR898(Bom); [2009]148CompCas70(Bom); [2008]88SCL255(Bom)
S.A. Bobde, J.1. Heard.2 In the course of these proceedings under Section 391 of the Companies Act, a meeting of the shareholders has been convened. The Resolution has been passed by the majority of 96.15% shareholders. However, there is an objection by 3.85% shareholders.3. The circumstances in which objections has been raised are as follows: Hoganas India Limited has a shareholding as follows:96.15% Held by Hoganas AB Sweden 01.82% Held by subsidiary of Hoganas AB Sweden 02.01% Held by other shareholders 4. Apparently, the company was de-listed from the Stock Exchange and therefore its shares could not be treated on the floor of the Stock Exchange. Due to the repeated enquiries from shareholders it decided to grant liquidatory options to all the shareholders except the promoter company i.e. Hoganas A.B. Sweden for consideration. Accordingly it offered three alternatives:(i) The shareholders could sell their shares for a consideration of Rs. 177/-;(ii) That the shares could be exchang...
The Best Workers Union, a Union Duly Registered Under the Provisions o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR848; (2008)110BOMLR2692
A.A. Kumbhakoni, J.In view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case the learned Counsels appearing on behalf of all the parties requested us that instead of hearing them for admission of this petition, particularly on the issue of interim relief, we may hear all of them for final disposal of this petition at the admission stage itself, as in their submission they would be advancing similar arguments for both the purposes. Even otherwise this petition raises such issues which require detail scrutiny at our hands. Hence we grant Rule and make it returnable forthwith. All the learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the Respondents waive service of the rule on the respective respondents. We have heard all of them for couple of hours each for almost seven consecutive working days and reserved the judgement, which is being delivered today.1. The petitioner is a Recognised Representative Union of workers of 'Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking' (hereinafter referr...
Leelabai Sakharam Bhagwat and ors. Vs. Shobha Industries
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR530]; (2009)ILLJ589Bom; 2008(6)MhLj569
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The petition challenges the order of the Industrial Court, Pune dated 18-12-1995 dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioners. The petitioners were all employed with respondent No. 1 for about 2 or 3 years prior to the closure of the establishment of respondent No. 1. It appears that the respondent was not paying minimum wages to the petitioners and had not complied with various provisions of law in respect of providing attendance cards, contributing to ESI and Provident Fund, etc. The workmen filed complaint (ULP) No. 312 of 1990 for redressal of their grievances. The complaint resulted in an agreement on 27-2-1992. The respondent agreed to pay minimum wages and issued attendance cards, ESI cards, letters of permanency, etc. to the workmen. The complaint was withdrawn and the workmen resumed work with the respondent. All the terms of the settlement were complied with by the respondent.2. However, on 31-3-1992, a notice of closure was displayed on the notice b...
Bank of Maharashtra Vs. Bank of Maharashtra Karmachari Sangh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-2008
Reported in: (2009)ILLJ586Bom
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. Mr. Dharap who has filed his appearance of the respondent-union states that the respondent has instructed him to withdraw his appearance in the matter as the workman concerned had retired. He, therefore, submits that he no longer appears in the matter.2. The petitioner bank takes exception to the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal dated June 23, 1994 in Reference (CGIT) No. 2/32 of 1991. By this award, the Tribunal has allowed the Reference and granted certain reliefs to two employees, Shri Ranade and Shri Athavale.3. A settlement was arrived at between the petitioner and their employees represented by various trade unions. Under this settlement dated April 13,1987, certain posts were termed: as allowance posts. An allowance post is defined as one in which a workman is assigned certain duties for which special allowance is payable as specified in the bipartite settlement i.e. the settlement arrived at by the nationalised banks with trade unions ope...
Balasaheb Rodoba Nagpure Vs. Ashok Card Centre and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR527]; (2009)ILLJ744Bom
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the award of the Labour Court in Reference (IDA) No. 198/1988. The petitioner was working as Binder in the Printing establishment run by respondent No. 1. His last drawn wages were Rs. 850/- per month. Admittedly, the petitioner was a permanent workman. It appears that the petitioner was orally terminated from service on August 1,1987. According to the petitioner, he was falsely implicated in a criminal case of theft by the Proprietor of the respondent, leading to termination of his service. The petitioner was acquitted on September 15, 1989 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune.2. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute after his services were terminated on August 1, 1987. The dispute was referred for adjudication and registered as Reference (IDA) No. 198/1988. The petitioner filed his statement: of claim contending that the respondent which was a proprietary concern was a shop registered under the Bombay Shops and Establishments...
Dinesh Bulakhi Harijan and Laxman Anandu Bhagat Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ114
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rahul was eight years of age and resided with his parents at Andheri. His father had a business in Shoes. The two accused - Dinesh and Laxman - were, according to the prosecution, employed at the workshop for the purposes of the business. The case of the prosecution is that the accused stayed at the workshop from Monday to Saturday. They had their meals at the residence of Rahul's father - Ganeshprasad Punit Mahato, P.W. 1. Rahul was a student of the second standard and attended school between 10 a.m. and 3.30 p.m. On 1st February 2003, PW 1 was informed that Rahul had not returned home since five in the evening. A search having been futile, a complaint was lodged with the Police. The accused used to go home on Saturday evenings to Airoli. PW 1 is alleged to have made enquiries on 2nd February 2003 at their residence. The accused were brought to the workshop by their father-in-law on 2nd February 2003 but they denied knowledge of the whereabouts of Rahul. After b...
Mangal S/O. Balasaheb Deshmane Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Distri ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-2008
Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR2814
B.R. Gavai, J.1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 17th May 2006 passed by the Range Forest Officer, Ahmednagar, to the effect that the jeep bearing No. MH-17/K-752 be deposited to the Government as the same was used in cutting of sandal trees unauthorizedly. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 1st December 2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shrirampur, in Criminal Appeal No. 16/2006, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the present petitioner.2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present petition are as under:A complaint came to be lodged by one Namdeo Bapurao Javale on 9th December 2005, alleging therein that on 9th December 2005, he heard sound of a tree falling. He states that when he got up, he was assaulted by stick by three persons. The complainant further states that the relatives of the complainant came there and there was a scuffle between the thieves and the villagers. It is further stated that the ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Indo Saudi Services (Travel) (P) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-2008
Reported in: (2008)219CTR(Bom)562; [2009]310ITR306(Bom)
S.J. Kathawalla, J.1. The above appeals are filed by the Revenue impugning the common order dt. 31st Oct., 1999 passed by the Tribunal, Mumbai 'C Bench, Mumbai in Appln. No. 266/Mum/1997 of the assessee under Section 234 of the IT Act, 1961, arising out of ITA Nos. 2870/Mum/1995 and 711/Mum/1996 for asst. yrs. 1991-92 and 1992-93.2. When the matters came up for final hearing, Mr. Vimal Gupta appearing for the appellant stated that though the appeals were admitted on two substantial questions of law, the appellant in both the appeals is pressing only one common question of law which is set out hereunder:Whether the incentive commission paid to the sister company which was more than other sub-agents allowable for deduction3. The relevant facts giving rise to the present appeals are briefly set out hereunder:(i) The assessee's business is that of being general sales agents of Saudi Arabian Airlines. The assessee earned commission @ 12 per cent from Saudi Arabian Airlines on the tickets bo...
Vishal Damodar Patil Vs. Vishakha Vishal Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ107
ORDERA.S. Oka, J.1. The submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were heard on the last date. With a view to appreciate the submissions, it will be necessary to refer to the facts of the case in brief.The first respondent filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The learned Magistrate passed an order on 4th January, 2008 on the said application directing the petitioner-husband to pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- p.m. The learned Magistrate also directed that the first respondent-wife was permitted to reside in a snared house situated at village Shedung, Post Ajiwali, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad. An Appeal was preferred by the petitioner by invoking Section 29 of the said Act. The Appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by order dated 15th July, 2008.2. The submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »