Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2010)ILLJ81Bom
C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant feeling aggrieved by the rejection of the application filed by the appellant before the Employees State Insurance Court at Margao under Section 77 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948.2. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows:The Inspector of the respondent No. 2 visited the establishment of the appellant on November 18, 1981 at Sancoale Industrial Estate where he was told that the entire records were maintained by the Head Office at Vasco-da-Gama and therefore, the said inspector went to Vasco-da-Gama at the Head Office. Partner of the appellant's firm produced all the records before the inspector. He produced the three attendance registers, one pertaining to the workshop at Sancoale, the second of the ship division or ship repairs and the third was of the Head office of the appellant. It was found by the said inspector that two persons were engaged at the workshop, nine persons were engaged in ship repa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(5)BomCR469; 2009(6)MhLj991
Chandiwal K.U., J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants.2. The judgment and decree directing the defendant to execute sale-deed in favour of plaintiff (respondent) is under challenge in second Appeal.3. The facts of the case are:The defendant and his brother Gangaram has agreed to sell 2 acres 4 gunthas land for total consideration of Rs. 11,000/- and plaintiff paid an amount of Rs. 8,000/- and he received possession on the next day of Registered agreement of sale (Exh. 83). After 4 years, the plaintiff again paid Rs. 500/- under a receipt (Exhibit-89) to the defendant on 10.3.1977. It was agreed, the defendant to execute sale-deed in respect of suit land after he had obtained permission from Collector. The application for Collector's permission remained with plaintiff, since it was not submitted any time. It is alleged, the defendant was avoiding to obtain the permission. The plaintiff asked defendant and his brother by notice dated 30.11.1979 to execute the sale-deed.4. Defenda...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(111)BomLR1233
C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. This revision is preferred by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree passed by Civil Judge whereby she dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs Under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.2. The facts are as follows:The plaintiff No. 1 was engaged by the defendants as a sacristan and the plaintiff No. 2 as his assistant. They were the employees of the defendants. They came to be appointed in the year 1976. The defendant No. 1 is the head and administrator of the defendant No. 2. The plaintiffs were working under the control and supervision of the defendant No. 1. The plaintiffs were to assist the priest in the Church during the religious services and administration of sacraments. The plaintiff No. 2 was also required to do clerical work in connection with the function of the said Church. At times, the plaintiffs were required to work during night hours also. As a result of this, the defendants provided one room to the plaintiffs. The said room has a separa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2009)IVLLJ101Bom
J.H. Bhatia, J.1. All these petitions may be disposed of by common judgment as the common question of law and facts are involved though the dates of appointments of the respondent No. 1 in each of the cases may be different.2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. In all the petitions with consent of the learned Counsel for the parties the matters are taken up for final hearing immediately.3. To state in brief, the petitioner claims to be a registered public trust running Anathalaya or Orphanage for the orphan children and is also getting certain grants from Divisional Social Welfare Officer respondent No. 2, who is the Office under Government of Maharashtra. Admittedly respondent No. 1 in each of these 14 petitions was working with the petitioner and according to the petitioner the seniority list of: the staff members was prepared and was also exhibited. These respondents were working either as Dai, Nurse or Nurse-cum-Dai. The seniority list prepared by the petitioner, reveals the nam...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009CriLJ2540
ORDERS.S. Shinde, J.1. This, application is filed, challenging, the impugned judgment and order dated 7-11-2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge; Parbhani in Criminal Revision No. 113/2001.2. The present, applicant filed Regular Criminal Case No. 76/2001 against the respondent No. 1 under Sections 418, 420, 468, 471 and 218 of the Indian Penal Code on 15-6-2001 before the Judicial Magistrate. First Class, Purna praying therein to direct the police of Purna Police Station to investigate and reglstek4lhe crime under Section 153(3) of Criminal Procedure, Code and to submit the charge-sheet within stipulated period in the Court.3. Background facts of the case are as under:It is the case of the complainant/applicant herein that the complainant was intending to purchase vehicle of Mahindra and Mahindra Company. The respondent No. 1, being the Manager of the Finance Company, has assured to hand over jeep on hire-purchase on repayment of some equal instalments at the rate of 11.18%. Acc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2009)IIILLJ466Bom; 2009(4)MhLj95
Mridula Bhatkar, J.1. Perused Petition. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent, of parties.2. The Petitioner has challenged the Order dated 11th April 2008, passed by the Industrial Court, Pune by which it set aside the order of the Additional Registrar cancelling the Registration Certificate of the Respondent No. 1 - the Trade Union.3. FACTUAL MATRIX:Petitioner was the Unit President of the Respondent No. 1 Trade Union when the application for the Registration Certificate of Respondent No. 1 Union was made. However, the Petitioner, due to internal clashes, was expelled from the Respondent No. 1 Union. There were some disputes between the Respondent No. 1 and one other Union namely Bhartiya Kamgar Sena (BKS) pending before the Industrial Court. The Petitioner being the active member in the labour movement and interested party, filed an application under Section 10 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (Amended Act- 2001) before the second Respondent i.e. the Additional Registrar,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [2009]152CompCas609(Bom); [2009]92SCL376(Bom)
S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. This appeal under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 challenges an interim order passed by the Company Law Board dated 21-1-2009 in a petition filed by the first respondent inter alia under Sections 111, 397 and 398 of the said Act.2. The first respondent is the petitioner. The appellant is respondent No. 5 in the petition. Respondent Nos. 2 to 9 in the appeal are respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 to 9 in the petition. Respondent No. 2, Cowtown Land Development Private Limited, is the company in respect of which the petition has been filed. Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are individuals belonging to the Lodha family who in turn control respondent Nos. 6 to 9 companies.I will for convenience refer to the first Respondent as the Petitioner, the Appellant as the Appellant, the second Respondent as the company and the other parties as the other Respondents.3. By the impugned interim order the Board of Directors of the company has been restrained from allotting shares to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(6)BomCR490
Sayed A.A., J.1. This motion has been filed on behalf of the plaintiffs for restoration of the suit, which was dismissed by this Court on 22nd October, 2007 for non-prosecution.2. An affidavit in support of the motion has been filed by an Assistant Advocate working with M/s. Gordhandas and Fozdar, Advocates for the plaintiffs. The suit was instituted in September 1977 and it was numbered sometime in 1979. The suit is filed for damages in a sum of Rs. 3,62,920/- together interest @ 15% per annum from the date of the suit till payment, in respect of non-delivery of goods to the plaintiffs by the defendants. The evidence was recorded before the Commissioner appointed in the matter. The suit was then kept for arguments before the Court. The arguments on behalf of the defendants by their Counsel were advanced and completed and the arguments on behalf of the plaintiffs, were partly heard. Thereafter because of the change of the assignment, the matter was notified before another Judge.3. On 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(6)BomCR443
Tated K.K., J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Mrs. A.B. Dube, learned Counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 2. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.2. The present petition filed by the petitioners under Articles 14, 19, 21, 300A, read with 226 of the Constitution of India seeking writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the entire action initiated by respondent No. 2 on the basis of inspection carried out on 22-6-2007.3. It is the case of the petitioners that they entered into agreement dated 2-7-1983 with respondent No. 2. By the said agreement, respondent No. 2 appointed the petitioners as their dealer for the retail sale or supply of petrol/diesel/motor oils/Greases and such other products as may be specified by respondent No. 2 from time to time. It is specifically stated in the agreement that the said agreement will remain in forc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(6)BomCR460
Dongaonkar S.R., J.1. Heard Shri Darda, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri Ghare, Advocate for respondent.2. Rule. Made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent parties.3. Petitioner is challenging the order of Judge, Small Causes Court, below exhibit 14 in M.J.C. 4/08 the proceedings for fixation of fair rent instituted by the petitioner.4. The petitioner was served with the suit summonses on 28.4.2008. He was expected to file written statement on or before 27.5.2008. Petitioner then applied for leave to file Written Statement on 19.7.2008. However, that application was rejected and the defendant was not allowed to file written statement on record. This order is challenged in this petition.5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.6. It does appear that the date on which the petitioner had applied for leave to file Written Statement was within a period of 90 days. No doubt the petitioner has failed to make out a specific case or exceptional circumstance for allowin...
Tag this Judgment!