Mumbai Court November 2009 Judgments

Pratibha Pandurang Salvi, Vs. State of Maharashtra and Nazim Ahmed Zar ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010CriLJ730

Mridula Bhatkar, J.1. This Criminal Revision Application is filed against the order of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri dated 7/8/1999 by which the applicant Nos. 1,2 and 3 were held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 352 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant No. 1 was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicants were sentenced to undergo R.I. for one month and to pay fine of Rs. 100/- each.2. Respondent No. 2 is the original complainant , who has filed a private complaint against the appellants who are the police officials. Respondent No. 2 was called for the purpose of enquiry to Ratnagiri police station as the complaint was made by his wife and other tenants that respondent No. 2 landlord has refused permission for electricity connection to the tenants. At the police station the applicants detained him in police lock up and threatened him. The offence was committ...

Pune Labour Union Through Its President Vs. State of Maharashtra, Indu ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(112)BomLR250; 2010(1)MhLj806

F.I. Rebello, J.1. The petitioners are the registered Union seeking to represent the workmen earlier employed with respondent No. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that there were more than 100 workmen in the year, 1998 and between March and April, 1998, 16 employees were retrenched from service. Earlier the Mazdoor Union sought to raise a dispute, but, the concerned authority did not refer the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court. By its order dated 10.6.2002, the Appropriate Government was pleased to reject the request for reference for adjudication. Considering Section 12(5), the reasons are set out in the said order.2. It is the case of the petitioners that thereafter 16 workmen in the Establishment organized themselves under the Pune Labour Union and sought to redress their grievances. It is their case that their services were terminated on 31.3.1998 and 1.4.1998 as retrenched, without following due process of law and even without seeking permission of the Appropr...

L and T Finance Limited Vs. International Hometex Limited

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR196

Chandrachud D.Y., J.1. The petitioner entered into an agreement for lease on 7th March, 2007 in regard to certain plant and machinery. Under the agreement the petitioner granted a lease finance facility in the amount of Rs. 50lacs. The First respondent undertook to pay lease rentals of Rs. 33.85 per thousand aggregating to Rs. 43,03,292.50 in accordance with the schedule to the lease agreement. Under the schedule the company was liable to pay delayed payment charge of 18% per annum with monthly rests. The lease period was thirty six months. The First respondent fell into arrears in the payment of lease rentals. By a statutory notice dated 15th December, 2008 under Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, the Advocate for the petitioner called upon the company to pay a sum of Rs. 39.61 lacs comprising of overdue lease rentals of Rs. 14.02 lacs; delayed payment charges of Rs. 1.32 lacs and the unmatured lease rentals of Rs. 24.26 lacs. There was no reply to the statutory notice. ...

Motiram Raibhanji Nighot Vs. Harishchandra Govindrao Aadkine and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR205

Naik Vasanti A., J.1. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by Tahsildar/Mamlatdar on 25.3.2003 as also the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati on 17.4.2004 dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner and upholding the order passed by the Mamlatdar directing the petitioner to remove the encroachment on the suit way and permitting the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to use the suit way.2. The petitioner is the owner of land gat No. 238, admeasuring 0.82 R. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are the owners of gat Nos. 253 to 256. On 24.1.2003, the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 made an application before the Tahsildar under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar Courts Act stating therein that they have a right of way over the field gat Nos. 238 and 239 belonging to the petitioner. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 sought a direction to the petitioner to remove the encroachment on the way of the Mandir and to their fields, as the same was obstructed by the petitioner. By the...

Shri Arjun Pralhad Ghatule Vs. Shri Mahaveer Babgonda Patil and Others

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member This is an appeal filed by the org. O.P.No.3 against the judgment/award passed by District Consumer Forum Sangli in consumer complaint No.74/2006 wherein the award has been passed by District Consumer Forum Sangli on 09/10/2006 directing all the O.Ps. to refund the amount in deposit with interest to the org. complainants and also to pay cost of Rs.500/-. The facts to the extent material may be stated as under :- Complainant Nos.1to7 members from one family and resident of Timber Area, Sambhaji Colony, Plot No.35, Near Samaj Mandir, Sangli, filed complaint for recovering fixed deposit amount from Nikhil Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha and complainants had impleaded the Founder and Chairman and Directors of the said Patsanstha. It appears that O.P.Nos.1,2,3,5and6 and 8to14 had been absent and therefore, were proceeded ex-parte. Some of the O.Ps. contested the matter and on the basis of affidavits filed by the parties, For...

Sanjeev Indravadan Dani Vs. Mrs. Rupal Sanjeev Dani

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR266; 2010(1)MhLj918

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Heard. Admit.2. Counsel for the Respondent waives service. As short question is involved, Appeal was proceeded for final hearing forthwith at admission stage by consent.3. This Appeal takes exception to the Judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 10th November, 2008 in Writ Petition No. 6485 of 2008 thereby dismissing the Writ Petition preferred by the Appellant and confirming the order passed by the Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai dated 21st June, 2008 below Exh. 5 and 7 in M.J. Petition No. A-218 of 2007.4. Briefly stated, the Appellant(husband) instituted a Petition for restitution of conjugal rights, being M.J. Petition No. A-1773 of 2004, in the Family Court of Bombay at Bandra against the Respondent(wife) some time on 2nd November, 2004, on the assertion that they had solemnised their marriage on 27th November, 1988 and that two children were born out of the said wedlock, i.e., one daughter and one son now aged about 17 and 7 y...

ivp Limited Vs. Ivp Limited Workers Union and the Industrial Tribunal

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR201; 2009(111)BomLR4542

Swatanter Kumar, J.1. The present appeal is preferred against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge declining to interfere in the award dated 19th July, 2007 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai. The appellant is a Public Limited Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is having various factories engaged in manufacture of various products like Vanaspati including bakery shortening and refining of edible oils and processing of industrial chemicals etc. Their factory at Reay Road was in operation till it was closed on 24th August, 2006. The appellant had filed an application on 19th May, 2006 (which was subsequently revised on 26th May, 2006) came to be dated 26th May, 2006 under Section 25O(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) seeking permission for closure of its undertaking at Ghorapdeo, Mumbai on various grounds including economical unviability due to high cost, high wages and sala...

Maharashtra Housing Board Low Income Group Tenements Housing Societies ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR4688

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties.2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Counsel waive service for respective Respondents.3. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the Petitioners have questioned the validity of allotment of a portion from the larger property bearing Survey No. 287, C.T.S. No. 19 at Juhu Vile Parle Development Scheme (JVPD Scheme), which is described as Pump Station House, Water Tank and Garden in favour of Respondent No. 5. The Petitioners have further prayed for direction against Respondents 2 and 4 to demolish and ensure demolition of all construction carried on by Respondent No. 5 and/or 6 on the disputed property and/or by utilising the FSI or the TDR Potential or any other benefits in respect of the disputed property. The Petitioners have further prayed for writ of mandamus to direct Respondents 1 to 6 not to interfere with the peaceful use, occupation possession and management of the disputed property by Petitioner ...

Seva Nivrutta Karmachari Sangh Through Its Chairman Shri Ramesh Son of ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)MhLj647

A.H. Joshi, J.1. Leave to amend. Amendment be carried out forthwith. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the parties.2. The petitioner's grievance is very limited.3. Petitioner is an Association of retired employees formerly serving with respondent No. 2.4. The case proceeds on admitted facts, namely:[a] The Municipal Council has resolved to extend the benefits of Fifth Pay Commission to its employees. As such Petitioner's members are entitled for payment of arrears in the pay and allowances.[b] Municipal Council, the Respondent No. 2, has been paying the arrears in installments and dues are still unpaid.[c] It is also a common ground that respondent No. 5 has issued directions asking the Municipal Councils that fifty per cent of the octroi reimbursement quantum should be paid towards arrears of benefits arising out of recommendations of Fifth Commission to retired employees.[d] The 50% quantum indicated above is inadequate to meet the liability towards arrears...

Anita Dilip Gaidhane and anr. Vs. Bajirao Madhavrao Gaidhane and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR178

Bhangale A.P., J.1. By this appeal, appellants challenge judgment and order dated 18th September, 1997 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Chandrapur in Succession Case No. 6 of 1994 refusing to grant Succession Certificate to applicants i.e. widow and daughter respectively of deceased Dr. Dilip Gaidhane. The securities in respect of which the certificate was applied for were four insurance policies described in the application.2. Respondent No. 1 father was nominated by deceased Dilip while effecting the policies. Section 39(i) of the Insurance Act provides that in the event of death of a policyholder amount of policy shall be paid to the person or persons nominated by him, was reason for the trial Court to reject application for succession certificate made by appellant No. 1 wife. Learned trial Court however held that since nomination indicates the hand which is authorised to receive the proceeds of policy, applicants are entitled to take up appropriate remedy available...