Mumbai Court October 2009 Judgments

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Hasina Haroon Jogia Laxman Jetha ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member Appellant and respondent No.1 absent despite of notice sent to them Under Certificate of Posting. Respondent No.2/Shri Shambhubhai Vora present through Advocate Mr.Ganesh Shirke. There is delay of 87 days in filing appeal. Therefore, application for condonation is also made. Perused the record. As per statement made in the application for condonation of delay, appellant has received copy of the impugned order/award dated 13/07/1998, on 03/02/1999. It is alleged that thereafter, matter was allotted to the Advocate (name not mentioned) and after receipt of advice on 25/05/1999 matter was further processed to file this appeal, which was actually filed on 28/06/1999. Thus, there is an inordinate delay in filing appeal and the delay according to us is not satisfactorily explained. Hence, application for condonation of delay stands rejected and consequently, appeal is not entertainable. Hence, the following order:- Order:...

Smt. Indirabai Bhalchandra Bhajekar, Vs. the Pune Municipal Corporatio ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR4251

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for, (a) a declaration that Final Plot No. 103 in Town Planning Scheme, Pune No. III is reserved for parking and not for school, (b) directions to the respondents to forthwith allow the petitioners to develop their land for the purpose of reservation for parking, (c) quashing and setting aside the notice dated 2/12/1997 issued under Section 88-89 of M.R.T.P. Act, 1966 as being illegal, (d) quashing and setting aside the Resolution No. 94 passed on 29/6/2000 along with such further actions based on the same by respondent No. 1-Corporation, (e) directions to the respondents to withdraw the proceedings if initiated under Section 37 of the M.R.T.P. Act to change the land use of parking on the subject plot, (f) declaration that the possession allegedly taken on paper of the subject plot by the Municipal Corporation is illegal, null and void and to restore the said possession in its original form.2. The pet...

Transport and Dock Workers Union and ors. Vs. Mumbai Port Trust and an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR277

D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. The principal relief claimed by the Petitioner in this petition is a direction to the Respondent No. 1-Mumbai Port Trust to fix 6 & 1/2 hours per day as the duty hours for the personnels holding the post of Typist-cum- Computer Clerks in relation to the personnel recruited after 1-11-1996.2. The facts that are relevant are that the Petitioner No. 1 is a registered trade- union, which represents the employees of the Respondent No. 1-Mumbai Port Trust, a body corporate constituted under Section 3 of the Major Port Trusts Act. The Petitioners Nos. 2 & 3 are working as Typist-cum-Computer Clerk with the Respondent No. 1 and were appointed to that post after 1-11-1996. The case of the Petitioners, in short, is that in relation to the personnels who were recruited as typist cum-computer clerks before 1-11-1996, their duty hours are 6 & 1/2 hours, whereas for the personnels who were recruited as typist-cum computer clerks after 1-11-1996 are 8 hours. According to the Petit...

Ramchandra Jyoti Jadhav Kaikadi and ors. Vs. Gajendra Nana Gund and or ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR4363

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The present Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of the additional District Judge, Solapur in Civil Appeal No. 438 of 1986 which confirms the decree passed by the trial Court in R.C.S. No. 23 of 1979.2. The plaintiff who expired during the pendency of the appeal is represented by his legal heirs, the respondents herein. He purchased 18 acres 30 gunthas from land bearing Survey No. 442/2 under a registered sale deed dated 21.1.1952. He purchased this land from the sons of one Tatya. According to the plaintiff, the sale deed was in respect of 18 acres 30 gunthas. At the time of consolidation of land bearing Survey No. 442/2 in block No. 1972, the total area shown was 12 acres 28 gunthas. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant took undue advantage of the wrong entry made at the time of consolidation of the lands in block No. 1792 and interfered with the plaintiff's possession of 18 acres 30 gunthas. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had...

Chandrakant Shikshan Sanstha Through Its Secretary, Shri P.M. Falke Vs ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)MhLj391

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The present writ petition in fact challenges the common judgment dated 25.08.1997 delivered by the School Tribunal in Appeal Nos. 51 of 1996, 52 of 1996, 54 of 1996 and 58 of 1996. However, the petitioner management has also sought a writ for quashing certain part of Rule 27 Sub-rule (d) of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 1981 Rules). In view of this challenge, the matter has been placed before the Division Bench.2. In order to avoid unnecessary facts, it is appropriate to state two challenges raised before us by the petitioner. First challenge is, after introduction of Rule 25-A in 1981 rules with effect from 20th October 1987, the termination of services of employees in a School which is de-recognized by the department is automatic and it is not subject to Rule 26. Hence, such termination, being not retrenchment, cannot be subjected to provisions of Rule 27, particularly Rule 27(d). Thou...

Indian Hotel and Restaurant Association Vs. State of Maharashtra and o ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR924

Kathawalla S.J., J.1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners Indian Hotel and Restaurant Association which is a registered body representing the wholesale and retail vending establishments selling liquor in the State of Maharashtra. By this writ petition the petitioners are seeking to set aside the order dated 14th September, 2009 issued by the Collector, District Mumbai and Suburban District, Mumbai (respondent No. 2 herein) to the extent of ordering the concerned licence holders to keep their transactions closed from 5.00 p.m. onwards on 11.10.2009, though the elections to the Legislative Assembly in Maharashtra are scheduled to be held only on 13th October, 2009. It is the case of the petitioners that the licence holders cannot be asked to keep their transactions closed, two days before the elections and that they should be asked to keep their transactions closed only from 12.10.9 ie. one day before the said elections.2. Admittedly, the Election Commission, respondent No. 4 ...

Mr. Premji Dana Jogadia Vs. Shri Shridhar J. Amberkar

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Mr. S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member: This appeal filed by the org. complainant/Shri Premiji Dana Jogadia being not satisfied with the impugned order dated 21/01/2009 passed in consumer complaint no.03/2002 by District Consumer Forum, Mumbai Suburban. The impugned order is in his favour partially allowing the complaint. We heard Adv. Shri Anand Patwardhan for the appellant. The respondent/org.opposite party waived the notice and appeared through Barrister Shri J.M.Baphana, who filed undertaking to file vakalatnama, taken on record. Undisputed facts are that the appellant/org.complainant agreed to purchase the flat for a consideration of Rs.1,67,750/- bearing no.32-B having area 670 sq.ft. from the respondent/org.opposite party as per the agreement dated 24/01/1992. It is alleged by the appellant that the opposite party/builder (hereinafter referred as builder) demanded more amount than the agreed price and consequently, consumer complaint was filed on ...

Navbharat Press Employees Union, Mafatlal Employees Union Vs. State of ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR4347

Ranjana Desai, J.1. Rule. The respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, taken up for hearing forthwith.2. The petitioner is a trade union of employees registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. Respondent 5 is a Company registered under the Companies Act. It publishes Hindi daily newspaper 'Navbharat' which has huge circulation in the country. It owns a printing press. According to the petitioner, it is filing this petition on behalf of the employees who are its members. Respondent 2 is the Commissioner of Labour, Mumbai. Respondent 3 is the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Thane and respondent 4 is the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Thane.3. The gist of the case of the petitioner is as under:(a) The vast majority of the employees employed by respondent 5 at its press are the members of the petitioner-union. The service conditions offered by respondent 5 are very poor and not comparable to other newspaper establishments. The petitioner has repeatedly taken up various cau...

Kum. Manjula Govind Shetye and Smt. Godavari Govind Shetye (Both Prese ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR4303

Roshan Dalvi, J.1. The Appellants have challenged the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 1007 of 1996, dated 27th October 2004, under which they have been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to suffer rigourous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-each and in default, to suffer further simple imprisonment for three months each.2. The prosecution case is that the Appellants were the sister-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased Vidya Shetye, respectively. They lived in the same house with Vidya and her husband one Prakash. There were frequent quarrels between the appellants and Vidya. A criminal complaint was also filed by Vidya's brother against the Appellants as well as her husband for ill treating and harassing her. It is the prosecution case that on 4-1-1996 when the Appellants were in the house with Vidya, Appellant No. 1, he...

New India Assurance Company Ltd. through It's Divisional Manager Vs. S ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR319

R.K. Deshpande, J.1. The notice in this appeal was issued on 17th June, 2009 making it clear that the matter is to be decided finally at the stage of admission. On 5th September, 2009, the matter was listed for admission, however none appeared for the respondent No. 4, the owner of the vehicle and hence the matter was again posted for final disposal on 9th September, 2009 to be heard at the end of admission board. The matter was thereafter listed for final disposal at the end of admission board on 14th September, 2009. Shri. S.G. Chapalgaonkar, the Advocate appeared for the appellant insurance company whereas, Miss.Swapna Bahalkar, the Advocate appeared for the respondent No. 3-claimant. None appeared for the respondent No. 4, the owner of the vehicle. Admit. Heard by the consent of parties, finally.2. This is an Appeal preferred by the Insurance Company-orig respondent No. 2 in M.A.C.P. No. 607/2005 challenging the Judgment and Award dated 17.11.2008 passed by the learned Member, Moto...