Mumbai Court October 2009 Judgments

The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, South East Central Railway V ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR311

A.B. Chaudhari, J.1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.2. The petitioners South East Central Railway, Nagpur, has taken exception to the judgment and award dated 20th March, 2008, passed by Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T - cum - Labour Court, Nagpur in Case No. CGIT NGP 36/42.Facts3. Appropriate Government had made two references containing two lists of 63 and 143 workmen with the CGIT Cum Labour Court (for brevity hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'). Upon consolidation thereof, the tribunal took up the same for adjudication. The gist of the reference by and large was whether these persons claiming to be parcel porters were workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and whether they could be regularized as Railway employees. The Union which represented the workmen, namely the General Secretary, Parcel Porter Sanghatana, S.E. Railway, Nagpur Division, Motibag, Nagpur-12, filed its statement of claim through one Manish Saxena, in two sets with ...

Adarsha Shikshan Sanstha Through Its Secretary and Head Master, Krishi ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR4613

P.R. Borkar, J.1. This writ petition is challenging the order passed by the Labour Court, Aurangabad, in Complaint (ULP) No. 162 of 1987, decided on 17.02.1993, whereby it is declared that the present petitioners have engaged in unfair labour practice under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act (for short 'MRTU & PULP Act'), by terminating services of the complainant and they were directed to desist from indulging in any unfair labour practice and to reinstate the respondent No. 1 in service with continuity and back wages w.e.f. 15.06.1987, which order further came to be confirmed by the Member, Industrial Court, Aurangabad, by order dated 10.05.1995, passed in Revision (ULP) No. 41 of 1993.2. Admittedly, respondent No. 1 Jaiprakash Lohia was working as a peon in the school run by petitioner No. 1 of which petitioner No. 2 was Headmaster. As stated by the Labour Court in para 2 of its judgment, respondent No. 1 claimed to have appoint...

Shri Kisan Bhiku Chikane, by D.L. Gandhi and Sons, Mumbai Vs. MomIn Co ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member. (1) This appeal has been filed by the Original Complainant himself who is aggrieved by the judgement/order dated 29/09/2007 passed in Consumer Complaint No.399/2002, which has been dismissed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, District Satara. (2) The facts to the extent material may be stated as under: Complainant filed consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party a Building Contractor. Complainant pleaded that he wanted to construct house at Village Chorade, Taluka - Khatav, District Satara and for construction of house he approached Opposite Party Company. He paid Rs.90,000/- from time to time for construction of house, which was to be constructed in RCC structure. Within three months it was to be constructed, but Opposite Party left construction of house at incomplete stage. Whatever construction he made is defective and full of lacunae. The Opposite Party sent letter to h...

Shri Vasant Ambadas Hanchate, Through Shri Jayant Vasant Hanchate and ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Mr. S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member: This appeal arises out of order/award dated 29/03/2007 passed in consumer complaint no. 569/2001, Shri Vasant Ambadas Hanchate V/s. Rajkamal Synthetic Ltd. by District Consumer Forum, Pune (Additional) (Forum below in short). None for appellant. We heard Shri Mahendra Jadahv/ Authorised Representative for respondent. Authority letter taken on record. There is delay of 179 days in filing the appeal. Therefore, appellant has filed an Misc.Application No.1626/2007 for condonation of delay. We have carefully considered the submission made as per Misc.Application No.1626/2007. It could be seen that there is hardly any ground mentioned which to be held as sufficient ground to condone the inordinate delay of 179 days. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:- Order-: 1. Misc. Application No.1626/2007 for condonation of delay stands rejected. 2. Consequently, appeal does not survive for consideration. 3. No order ...

M/S. Chandrasavitri Developers and Builders, Pune and Others Vs. Kumar ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Mr. S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member: This revision petition is directed against the order dated 04/08/2008 passed in execution proceeding no.E-05/2008 arising out of award passed in consumer complaint no.315/2006, Kumari Vanmala Aatmaram Badhe V/s. Ms/, Chandrasavitri Developers and Builders and Ors. by District Consumer Forum, Pune (Additional). We heard Adv.Shri K.K.Waghmare for petitioners and Adv.Shri K.D.Kulkarni for respondent. In the instant case after getting the award passed, execution proceedings was filed under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred as Act for sake of brevity). The Forum below instead of proceeding with the trial as per procedure prescribed under the Act itself, in an impugned order observed that certain compliances not made and accordingly directed the complainant to comply it. Such directions are not contemplated under the Act and for which the said execution proceedings is filed. Such directions ...

Mrs. Sumangala W/O. Manoharrao Sakharkar Vs. the State of Maharashtra ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)MhLj63

R.C. Chavan, J.1. This petition by a teacher is directed against orders passed by respondent No. 3 Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur on 30.06.2004 and 02.02.2005 whereby he held the petitioner to be junior to respondents No. 6 to 8 in respondent No. 5 school run by respondent No. 5 society.2. Facts which are material for deciding this petition are as under:The petitioner who was B.A. B. Ed. was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 05.01.1981 temporarily up to the end of academic session 198081. After vacation her appointment was continued from 29.06.1981 till the end of academic session 198182. On 18.06.1992, she was again appointed for academic session 198283. She was appointed w.e.f. 27.06.1983 on a continuous basis. All these appointments were approved by respondent No. 3 from time to time.3. The breaks in the service of the petitioner (summer vacations) from 10.05.1981 to 26.06.1981, 09.05.1982 to 17.06.1982, 08.05.1983 to 26.06.1983 were condoned. She had alre...

Kapil Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Through Its Secretary and Dr. Rajendra ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)MhLj627

S.S. Shinde, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 17th April, 2002 passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Aurangabad in Appeal No. 131 of 1999.2. The background facts of the case are as under:The present respondent No. 1 was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 16.6.1994 in the petitioner school. It was the case of respondent No. 1 before the School Tribunal that his appointment was on probation since 1st May, 1997. The Respondent No. 3 Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded has granted approval to his service. After completion of the Summer Vacation, original appellant respondent No. 1 herein went to joint the school on 14.6.1999 at about 11 a.m. but, the petitioners did not allow the respondent No. 1 to sign the muster roll and to take classes.3. The respondent No. 1 challenged the oral termination by way of filing appeal before the School Tribunal. His case is that he is a permanent teacher and served since 1994 and the Educat...

Shri Mukesh Chothani Vs. Lakhanlal Ramchand and Others

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member This appeal arises out of order/award dated 21/04/1999 passed in consumer complaint No.269/1998 Lakhanlal Ramchand and Ors. V/s. M/s.Asia Pacific Investment Trust Ltd. and Anr. by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Nashik (Forum below in short). In the instant case, respondent Nos.1to3/original complainants kept deposit of Rs.8,162/- with respondent No.4/M/s.Asia Pacific Investment Trust Ltd., Hyderabad (Original O.P.No.1). Complainants were to get Rs.11,000/- on 13/02/1998. However, after maturity, said amount was not paid and therefore, this consumer complaint is filed. It is alleged that in this transaction, appellant/org. O.P.No.2/Mr.Mukesh Chothani acted as an agent of O.P.No.1. Forum below by impugned order allowed the complaint and directed the O.Ps. (it is not made clear that both opponents or one opponent is directed because phraseology used is in singular). Feeling aggrieved by said order, O.P.No.2...

The Assistant Regional Manager Bank of Maharashtra, Nashik Division, N ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member This appeal is filed by Bank of Maharashtra, Nashik Division against the judgment and award passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in consumer complaint No.141/2005 whereby while allowing complaint, Forum below has directed Bank of Maharashtra to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.40,000/- within one month and also to pay to the complainant Rs.500/- as cost and Rs.1,000/- for the delay. Aggrieved by this order, Bank of Maharashtra has filed this appeal. This order was delivered on 31/03/2006 and this appeal came to be filed on 19/03/2009. So, there is delay of 2 years and 8 months in filing this appeal. In the appeal memo, it has been clearly mentioned on page-8 that delay should be condoned for the reasons that the Bank had rendered services by disbursing part of the amount of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent, asked the respondent to furnish quotations for purchase of goods, CTS extracts or lease agreeme...

M.M. Shah Consultants Ltd., Pune and Others Vs. Ravikumar Budharaja an ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member. (1) This Revision Petition has been filed against the order passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, District Pune, hereinafter referred to as Forum Below by its order dated 12.03.2009, who was pleased to reject the application filed by Original Opposite Parties dated 02.09.2008. Facts to the extent material may be stated as under: (2) Consumer Complaint No. 277/2004 is pending on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, District Pune. It was on sine die list. It was taken out from sine die list and notices were sent to both the parties by the District Forum. Opposite Parties appeared when notice was issued by District Forum, but, the Complainants did not turn up. Notice sent to the Complainants at Harekrishna Mandir Road, came back to the office of District Forum with the remark that the Complainants do not reside at that address. The 23.07.2008 was returnable date of notice sent by District Forum. The Forum below ...