Mumbai Court May 2009 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Kisanrao Khobragade Education Society Through Its President Shri Bhagy ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-02-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)MhLj457
F.M. Reis, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and respondent No. 1. The petition has been filed to challenge order dated 4/5/2000 passed by respondent No. 2 whereby Misc. Civil Application No. 16 of 2000 filed by respondent No. 1 for condonation of delay was allowed. It is the case of the petitioners that on or about 3/3/2000 respondent No. 1 filed appeal under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 challenging his termination w.e.f. July, 1998 and prayed for relief of reinstatement with all back wages. As the appeal was not filed within the period of 30 days, respondent No. 1 moved an application for condonation of delay for preferring the said appeal. In the said application the grounds which were sought to be invoked by respondent No. 1 as a justification to file appeal beyond the period of limitation was that, he was pursuing another remedy in as much as he had filed representation before respondent No. 3 to get his grievances decided. According to res...
Vijay Agarwal of Mumbai, Indian Inhabitant Vs. Lehman Brothers Advisor ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-02-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR134
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The Petitioner has invoked Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the Act'). There is an arbitration clause in the Employment Agreement between the parties dated 22nd May, 2007. Admittedly, there is an employer and employees relationship between the parties.2. The Petitioner's personal service agreement in question was initially terminated by letter dated 13th February, 2009 w.e.f. 13th March, 2009 which subsequently modified by further letter dated 19th March, 2009 and 10th April, 2009 was made effective date for the alleged termination of the service.3. The basic notice of termination refers a proposal for full and final settlement also. Admittedly, the Petitioner has not signed the same. The Petitioner has not accepted the full and final proposal. The Petitioner has resisted the termination notice in all respect and invoked the Arbitration clause as there arose dispute between the parties. The said Arbitration clause provides to res...
Suzlon Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-02-2009
Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR3135; (2009)225CTR(Bom)177; 2009(243)ELT497(Bom); [2009]18STJ175; 2009[15]STR529; [2009]22STT176
Ferdino I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith. 2. The petitioner on 21st January, 2009 had filed an application under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 35C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and under inherent jurisdiction of CESTAT for passing supplementary order and for formulating revised questions, if needed. The matter arose thus : In an appeal preferred by the petitioner therewas difference of Opinion disclosed in the orders passed by two members and consequential questions were framed for determination of a third member.The third member has listed the matter for final hearing on 22nd May, 2009. Earlier when the matter came up for hearing before the third member the petitioners informed the third member that an application dated 21st January 2009 was filed for passing a supplementary order. The third member only indicated that he has no jurisdiction to hear such an application and that he will dispose of the difference of opinion without going into the correctne...
Babu Thomas Maj (Ret.) Vs. Goa Shipyard Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-02-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR523
Salvi U.D., J.1. The petitioner has moved this Petition in order to challenge the order of dismissal dated 21.1.1997 passed by Chairman and Managing Director of the respondent - M/s Goa Shipyard Limited as well as the order of rejection of his appeal against the said order by the Appellate Authority on 27.9.1997 and to further seek directions of his reinstatement of service of the respondent with full back wages.2. The respondent - M/s. Goa Shipyard Limited, is Government of India Public Sector undertaking incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Initially, it is revealed, the petitioner was appointed as a Joint Manager (Security) in March, 1991 and thereafter he was made officiating Manager (Personnel and Administration) with respondent company w.e.f. August, 1991. According to the petitioner, he was framed up in a case of criminal misconduct on the allegation of collecting/accepting illegal gratification from one Mr. Chinnaiah, a Labour Contractor of the respondent company and was...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›