Mumbai Court November 2009 Judgments

Shri Bhanji B. More Vs. the State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)BomCR187; 2010(1)MhLj524

Ferdino I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. By consent, heard forthwith.2. The petitioner claims to be the leader of the Republican Party of India,which has 5 seats in the Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation. According to the petitioner, Lok Bharati Party, Shiv Sena, Congress (I) and B.J.P. Have formed a front which is the ruling front in the said Corporation.3. NCP is a party having 15 seats in the Corporation and MNS is having 2. In other words, NCP is having the largest strength outside the Agadi in the Corporation.4. Section 19-IAA of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 provides for appointment of a Leader of the Opposition. It reads as under:19.IA. Leader of Opposition - (1) An elected Councillor who is, for the time being, the Leader of the Party in opposition, having greatest numerical strength and recognised as such by the Mayor, shall be the Leader of the Opposition.Explanation: Where there are two or more parties in the opposition, having the same numerical strength, the Ma...

Arora Combines Vs. Damaji Ganpat Mankar and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(112)BomLR215; 2010(1)MhLj754

ORDERD.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The Motion has been filed in order to seek relief under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. By the award of the Labour Court dated 8th March, 2007 the following relief was granted to the workman:i. The 2nd party workman, Mr. Damaji Ganpat Mankar is entitled to get 75% of back wages from the date of dismissal till today.ii. The 2nd party workman is also entitled to get continuity of service w.e.f. 21.9.2000 till today with attendant benefits.iii. The 2nd party is also entitled to get 40% of wages from today till the date of retirement on superannuation by way of compensation instead of reinstatement. The 1st party if does not desire to pay compensation is at liberty to allow 2nd party to reinstate 2nd party/workman.3. In paragraph 41 of the award the Labour Court held that having regard to the conduct of the workman, it was not desirable that reinstatement should be granted. As the operative part of the award would show, the Labour Court grant...

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Office Iii Through Its Division ...

Court: Mumbai

A.P. Bhangale, J.1. The First Appeal is taken up for final hearing, with the consent of the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties.2. By this appeal, the appellant Insurance Company, seeks to challenge the order dated 9th April, 2007 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhandara, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 102/2006 (Exh.5), on an application Under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( in short, 'the Act of 1988').3. The facts in brief are that : A truck bearing registration No, MH31/W 6364 met with an accident on 23rd April, 2006 while proceeding from Karsala. It dashed against a Babhul tree by the side of the road resulting in serious injuries to one Premlal Pandurang Jangle, who died while receiving medical treatment at Government Medical College, Nagpur. It appears that an application Under Section 140 of the Act of 1988 was filed by the claimants (wife and father of deceased Premlal) on the ground that accident arose out of ...

Mr. Jagdish S. Kalakeri Vs. Manager, Vijaya Bank Opp. Padma Talkies, S ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member Heard. There is delay of 8 days in filing this appeal. Therefore, application for condonation of delay is filed. Delay is properly explained in condonation of delay application. Medical ground has been made out to seek condonation of delay. Relying on the ground mentioned, we are satisfied owing to just and sufficient ground, appellant could not file appeal within prescribed time. As such, we are inclined to condone the delay in the interest of justice. Application for condonation of delay is allowed and delay is condoned. We heard both parties on merits. We are finding that complaint was filed by the complainant against Vijaya Bank alleging deficiency in service on the part of Bank. According to the complainant, he had applied for loan of Rs.2,50,000/- from the Vijaya Bank. Out of this loan, amount of Rs.1,25,000/- was to be paid by Vasant Naik Vimukta Jatis and Nomadic Tribes Development Corporation (hereinafter referred as C...

Shri Ramesh Kumar Karnal, Navi Mumbai Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Justice Mr. S.B. Mhase, Honble President: This appeal is directed against the order passed by District Consumer Forum, Thane (Additional) decided on 19/12/2008 in consumer complaint no. 163/1998. The complaint filed by the appellant has been dismissed. The appellant is owner of Scorpio CRD SLX motor vehicle bearing no.MH-43 R 0263. It was purchased and thereafter, it was insured for a period from 27/11/2007 to 26/11/2008 with the respondent/insurance company for an amount of Rs.6,27,000/- being comprehensive insurance policy. It appears that the said motor vehicle was stolen away on 05/12/2007 from Vashi, Navi Mumbai. Accordingly, it was informed to the insurance policy. The said vehicle was traced on 04/03/2008 at Calicut and accordingly, it was informed to the insurance company. Insurance company thereafter, asked the appellant whether he will bring the vehicle from Calicut to Navi Mumbai or the insurance company shall arrange to bring the vehicle from Calicut. The ...

Lord Sai Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Sangli and Others Vs. Sh ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member We heard Mr. Subodh Gokhale, Advocate for the petitioners. He has filed Revision Petition against the order passed in execution of the award passed in consumer complaint No.292/2007. Directly there cannot be Revision Petition filed challenging the award passed by the District Consumer Forum. The judgment debtors, who were opposite parties in the complaint at the time of passage of award by the Forum below, must file appeal challenging the award passed by the District Consumer Forum. Instead of filing appeal, they have filed Revision Petition against some order passed in execution against them. We are of the view that they ought to have filed appeal in place of Revision Petition they have presented. Advocate Mr.Subodh Gokhale, therefore, seeks permission to withdraw this Revision Petition. Permission granted. Hence, the following order:- Order:- 1. Revision Petition stands dismissed as withdrawn. 2. Misc. Appl. No.1...

M/S. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Mrs.Harjeet Kaur Batra and O ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Oral Order:- Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member This appeal filed by org. O.P.No.1/Insurance Company is against the judgment/award passed by District Consumer Forum Raigad in consumer complaint No.61/2007 decided on 18/01/2008. While allowing the said complaint, Forum below directed the Insurance Company and other three opponents to pay jointly and severally an amount of Rs.7,88,700/- to the complainant with interest @ 12% p.a. from 16/06/2006 and also directed all the O.Ps. including appellant herein to pay Rs.25,000/- towards compensation and cost to the complainant and also directed O.P.No.4 not to recover the loan amount from the complainant by use of force. Aggrieved by this order, the individual appeals have been filed by O.P.Nos.1to4. This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company. After issuance of notice, today appeal is fixed for notice before admission (due admission), we called the appellant and their Advocate, but none are present. We heard Mr.U.B. W...

Smt. Sughrabai SadruddIn Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) Through the Secr ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR4660

Bilal Nazki, J.1. The petitioner is the mother of one Sadik Sadruddin Chunara. Against the said Sadik, an order of detention has been issued on 31-10-2005 in terms of Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the COFEPOSA') by the Competent Authority. This order has neither been revoked nor quashed. On 25-1-2008, a Notice in terms of Section 6(1) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SAFEMA') was issued against the petitioner and her son Sadik by the Competent Authority wherein it was mentioned that on 31-10-2005 an order was passed for detaining Sadik. The petitioner was informed that she was a person covered under Section 2(2)(b) of the SAFEMA and, therefore, there were reasons to believe that the property set out in the schedule to the Notice was an illegally acquired property within the meaning of Clause (c) of Sub...

New Hariyana Dal Mill Through Its Proprietor, Shri Shivcharan S/O Mada ...

Court: Mumbai

A.H. Joshi, J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.2. Petitioner is challenging the Notification issued by Central Government under Section 2(1)(c)(v) of the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [for short, Secu.R.F.A & E.S.I. Act ], copy whereof is at Annex. E.3. Ground of challenge is that such a notification is impermissible in view of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the observations contained in the Judgment in case of Greater Bombay C-operative Bank Ltd. v. United Yarn Tex. Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. : AIR 2007 SC 1584.4. It is then urged that:[a] What is held judicially as impermissible cannot be done by a Legislative act, or an Executive fiat.[b] The Notification is in the nature of a delegated legislation through an Executive action, and it results in encroachment upon Legislative powers of the State, in view that as per the List-II of Schedule-VII of the Constitution, Entry No. 32 pertains...

Anjumaniislams M.H. Saboo Siddik College of Engineering Vs. the Genera ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(112)BomLR98

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against an Interim order passed by the Industrial Court, staying an order of transfer, at the interlocutory stage, in a complaint under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The Second Respondent was working as a clerk at AnjumanIIslams' M.H. Saboo Siddik College, Mumbai. By a communication dated 24th December 2008, the services of the employee were transferred to a Secondary School under the same management at Vashi, Navi Mumbai. The Third Respondent was working as a peon in the same institute at Mumbai. By a communication dated 24th December 2008, his services came to be transferred to a Polytechnic at New Panvel under the same management.2. Clause 35(1) of the Standard Code 1998, provides for transfer in the following terms:The competent/Appointing authority may transfer the employee on a post in the cadre in which the employee is serving. ...