Mumbai Court September 2008 Judgments
Smt. Jaikumari Amarbahadursingh and 8 ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)BomCR407
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. In all these matters, overlapping issues have been raised by the respective Petitioners, for which reason, by consent, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment. 2. These matters broadly form two groups. One group pertains to land from erstwhile Central Provinces area (i.e. Nagpur, Bhandara, Gondia, Wardha and Chandrapur). The second group is in relation to lands from erstwhile Berar area (i.e.Amravati, Akola, Washim, Buldhana and Yeotmal). In most of the Petitions, it is asserted that the land in question is Nazul land. In other words, only in few matters the land in question may be a non-Nazul land. Nevertheless, the issue that needs to be addressed in all these matters is common. The term Nazul land as observed by the Apex Court in Narain Prasad Aggarwal v. State of M.P. reported in (2007) 11 SCC 736 means land or buildings in or near towns or villages which have escheated to the Government; property escheated or lapsed to S...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Deepak Ganpat Tari Vs. New Excelsior theatre Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-2008
Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR3476; [2008(119)FLR877]; (2009)ILLJ762Bom; (2009)1MLJ547
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The petition challenges the award in Reference (IDA) No. 396 of 1992 passed by the 6th Labour Court, Maharashtra, Mumbai dated 25.10.1996. By this award, the Labour Court has directed the respondent employer to pay Rs. 40,000/-as compensation to the Petitioner after concluding that the Petitioner's services were illegally terminated. He has also held that the respondent company did not prove that the Petitioner had abandoned his service.2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows:The Petitioner who was employed with the respondent company was instrumental in formation of a union of the workers employed by the Company in 1980. A charter of demands was served on the Company in 1981. The services of 2 members of the Union committee were terminated soon thereafter. A strike was declared and the workmen demanded that the termination orders issued against the 2 employees and other temporary workmen be withdrawn. The strike was declared illegal by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Ajit Ramchandra Inamdar Vs. the Divisional Joint Registrar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR202
ORDERV.C. Daga, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the petition. 2. This petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 3.5.2008, passed in Revision Application under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 ('the M.C.S.Act' for short) by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Pune Division Pune, whereby the order dated 24.3.2006 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Pune City (the Revisional Authority) came to be set aside.3. The facts, in nutshell, are that originally Late Shri Ramchandra G. Inamdar, father of the Petitioner and Respondent No. 4, was the member of the Girija Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (Respondent No. 3) ('the Hsg.Society'for short). Mr Ramchandra and Mr Anil, thus, became the members of the Co-operative Society. 4. According to the Petitioner, Late Ramchandra Inamdar wanted to transfer the said property in the name of his two sons; namely, the petitioner -Aj...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Balasaheb Chandrarao More and ors. Vs. Shri Suresh Kisanrao Porje ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR795
1. By both these petitions, the same order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal is challenged and therefore, both these petitions can be conveniently disposed of by a common order. 2. The facts that are relevant and material for deciding these two petitions are that by the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal which is impugned in the petitions, the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has decided three original applications i.e. original application No. 861 of 2005, 908 of 2005 and 159 of 2006. These three original applications were filed by the agricultural officers who were appointed on the recommendations of the Maharashtra Public Service Commission as per the recruitment rules. In these three original applications they challenged the Government Resolution issued by the Government of Maharashtra dated 23.9.2005, 26.9.2005 and 27.9.2005. By the Government Resolution dated 23.9.2005 issued under Article 162 of the Constitution of India the services of 755 perso...
Tag this Judgment!Maruti Bhagwanrao Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR875
Shinde S.S., J.1. The present appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 4.5.1990 passed by the Joint C.J.S.D., Osmanabad.2. The brief facts of the case are as under:The case arises out of land acquisition proceedings. The Land Acquisition Officer issued notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') on 25.11.1982, which was published in Maharashtra Government Gazette, Aurangabad supplement on 21st January, 1983. Section 6 notification was issued on 21st January, 1984 and it was published in the local newspaper dated 1.2.1984. Notices as required under Section 9(1) and (2) of the said Act were issued on 1.2.1984 and published at the prominent places in the village concerned. Individual notices as required under Section 9(3) and (4) of the said Act were issued and served on the interested persons. Some of the interested persons submitted their claims as required under Section 9 of the said Act. After collecti...
Tag this Judgment!Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Regional Office and anr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)BomCR295
Chaudhari A.B., J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.2. This is an application for review of the judgment rendered by this Court on 21.8.2008.3. Learned Counsel for the review petitioners made the following submissions:(1) During the course of hearing of the writ petition from which this review petition has arisen, this Court had expressed that it was inclined to allow the petition by imposing some costs on the review petitioners and that is why Counsel for review petitioners could not put forth all the points in the matter along with judgments which he wanted to rely upon and therefore, that is the error on the face of record.(2) The decision in the case of Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar and Ors. reported in : [1964]5SCR946 , has no application because in that case the suit had proceeded ex-parteand the provision of Order 9, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure fell for consideration of the Supreme Court, whereas in the instant case the provision of ...
Tag this Judgment!Sumitra Madhav State and ors. Vs. Nirmala Gangadhar Dande (Smt.) and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)BomCR390
Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. Heard Advocate Shri N.S. Deshpande, for the petitioners/original defendants and Advocate Shri V.V. Bhangde for respondents. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent. The suit for eviction & possession was dismissed by the Small Causes Court, and R.C.A. 437/2007 filed by the respondents (landlords) under Section 34 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 has been allowed by the District Judge No. 9, Nagpur on 27.6.20082. Advocate Deshpande contends that petitioner No. 3 who has been accepted to be nephew of original tenant Madhaorao Shete and whose joint residence with said Madhao has been accepted on record, ought to have been treated as direct tenant and there was no question of examining his status as subtenant. He contends that in fact agreement was negotiated by petitioner No. 3 and there are on record some documents of N.M.C. which shows such independent status of petitioner No. 3. He argues that as petitioner No. 3 is original tenant,...
Tag this Judgment!Khadi and Village Industries Commission Vs. Jagdish Balkarishna Patil ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR923]
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, by consent of Counsel returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents waives service. By consent of Counsel and at their request taken up for hearing and final disposal.The Petitioner before the Court is a statutory body constituted under the Khadi and Village Industries Commission Act, 1956. The activities of the Petitioner are subject to the supervision and control of the Central Government. The expenditure incurred by the Petitioner, including the salaries of its employees, is provided from the Consolidated fund. The Central Government appoints the Chairman and other Directors on the Board of Directors of the Petitioner.2. The two Respondents are unskilled workmen, who are engaged in an establishment conducted by the Petitioner at Dahanu, known as the Gajanan Naik Multidisciplinary Trading Centre. The workmen were initially engaged in 1988 as daily wagers. In 1992 their services came to be terminated. The Respondents challenged the d...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Zaverben Harilal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ1399
D.G. Karnik, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.12.1994 passed by the Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kolhapur (for short 'the Tribunal').2. The appellant United India Insurance Co. Ltd. is the insurance company with whom the motor vehicle in question, a truck bearing registration No. MHL 7121 (hereinafter referred to as 'the truck') is alleged to be insured.3. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are the widow and children of Harilal Kedia who died in a vehicular accident involving the truck. The respondent No. 4 is the owner of the truck and the respondent No. 5 was driving the truck at the relevant time. The respondent No. 6 Oriental Fire & Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. is another insurance company, but it is not insurer of the truck and consequently is not concerned in the appeal.4. On 4.4.1984, Harilal died in a vehicular accident involving the truck. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 made a claim for compensation against the appellant and the respondent Nos. 4 to ...
Tag this Judgment!Stellar Industries, a Registered Partnership Firm Through Its Partner ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-2008
Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR3380
A.B. Chaudhari, J.1. The petitioner-original plaintiff has put to challenge order dated 1.10.2005, below Exh.22 for making reference of the dispute to the arbitrator in view of Clause -19 of the purchase order.FACTS:2. The petitioner/plaintiff filed a summary suit for recovery of Rs. 20,65,275.63 paise from respondent/defendant. It was the claim of the petitioner that the respondent used to issue purchase orders to the petitioner from time to time with a stipulation of payment of 100% bill amount against receipt of the goods supplied by the petitioner. But there was no clause for payment of interest on unpaid bills. The respondent however, failed to pay certain amounts during the course of transactions and ultimately there was accumulation of outstanding bills which led to filing of summary suit for recovery.3. Respondent appeared in the suit and applied for grant of leave to defend the suit by filing written statement which was granted on 23.4.2004. No written statement was filed. The...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »