Mumbai Court September 2011 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.
The Agricultural Produce Market Committee Vs. the Hon
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-07-2011
1. This petition is filed by the Agricultural Produce Market Committee challenging the judgment and order dated 17-12-2005 passed by the Industrial Court, Nagpur, in Complaint (ULPN) No.574 of 2002. The Industrial Court, by the impugned judgment and order, has directed the petitioner-Market Committee to pay to the respondent No.2-complainant the subsistence allowance as per the provisions of Clause 25(5-A) of the Model Standing Orders till the suspension of the respondent-complainant is revoked or till the final order is passed after completion of the departmental enquiry, whichever occurs earlier. 2. In the complaint filed under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 invoking Item 9 of Schedule IV of the said Act, it was alleged that the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 [for short, "the Employment (Standing Orders) Act"] were applicable to the establishment of the petitioner-Marke...
Ms.Borochemie (India) Pvt. Ltd Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.): 1. Rule; by consent returnable forthwith. With the consent of Counsel and at their request the Petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. The Petitioners engage inter alia in the importation and sale of goods such as Borax Pentahydrate. The goods imported are sold to customers across the country. The Petitioners submitted an application on 21 January 2002 for obtaining Central Excise registration of their premises. The Third Respondent - the Superintendent of Central Excise, Range-II, Division-H, Mumbai IV - issued a registration certificate on 25 January 2002. At the time of registration, the Petitioners were carrying on business from the following address: "Plot No.25-A, Besant Street, Santacruz (West), Mumbai-400 954." The Petitioners filed Central Excise returns before the Third Respondent. With effect from 7 June 2004, the Petitioners shifted their office to new premises, namely, 40-44A, Dheeraj Heritage, 4th Floor, S.V.Road...
Both of Bombay, Indian Inhabitants, Partners. Vs. the Trustees of F.E. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per P.B. Majmudar, J.) 1. Both these petitions are directed against the order of the Charity Commissioner dated 27th April, 1994 passed under Section 36 (2) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter "the Act"), by which the Charity Commissioner has revoked the sanction granted for sale of the land belonging to F.E. Dinshaw Trust ("the Trust"). The said order of the Charity Commissioner is challenged by the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 1486 of 1994 in whose favour sanction was granted for sale of the land as well as by the Trust by way of Writ Petition No. 1814 of 1994. The Trust has filed the said writ petition only for expunging the remarks made against the Trust by the Charity Commissioner in the impugned order. 2. The subject matter of the proceedings under Section 36 of the Act is the huge property belonging to the F.E. Dinshaw Trust situated at Malad, bearing Survey No. 79 (Part), CTS No. 226 (Pt.), admeasuring 94,511 sq.mtrs. The said Trust made an ap...
Tejus Proprietary Concern of Tejus Rohitkumar KapadiA. Vs. Union of In ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.) : 1. This appeal is directed against two orders passed by the CESTAT. By the first of the orders dated 9 May 2011, the Tribunal on an application for waiver of pre-deposit directed the Appellant to deposit an amount of Rs.30 lakhs. The Appellant had, before the Tribunal, relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs vs. Sayed Ali,1 to contend that the Additional Director General, DRI was not a proper Officer within the meaning of Section 2(34) of the Customs Act, 1962 and had no 1 2011 (265) ELT 17 (SC) jurisdiction to issue a notice to show cause. The grievance of the Appellant was that though the judgment of the Supreme Court was cited before the Tribunal and was referred to in paragraph 7 of the decision, the Tribunal had not considered the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court though it ought to have followed a binding precedent of the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the Appellant moved an application for mod...
Raju Balaram Gujrathi Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-2011
1. Present Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellant/accused challenging the order dated 2nd & 5th April, 2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge of City Civil & Sessions Court in Sessions Case No.308 of 2003. By the impugned judgment and order, present appellant/accused was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 449, 392, 394, 397 & 302 of Indian Penal Code. For the offence punishable under Section 449 of IPC, he was sentenced to suffer R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to suffer further R.I. for 1 year. For the offence punishable under Section 392 r/w. S.397 IPC he was sentenced to suffer R.I. for 7 years and to pay fine Rs.1000, in default, to suffer further R.I. for 1 year. For the offence punishable under Section 394 IPC, he was sentenced to suffer R.I. for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.1000, in default, further R.I. for 1 year. For the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, he was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fi...
Shivu Chandram Loni Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-2011
1. Present sole appellant-accused was convicted by III Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli by judgment and order on 8th October, 2004 in Sessions Case No.78 of 2003. 2. The appellant-accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for six months. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction the accused has preferred present appeal. 3. Rival submissions are heard at length. Perused the notes of evidence. Also perused the reasoning given by learned Additional Sessions Judge while convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. 4. In order to appreciate the rival submissions and mainly the defence raised on behalf of the appellant-accused, the case of the prosecution is narrated, as under:- 5. The accused is a married person, having his family and children, residing in the vicinity of one ...
Sadashiv Sakharam Patil and ors. Vs. Chandrakant Gopal Desale and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-2011
1. The main challenge is to the order of injunction restraining creation of third party interest in the suit properties under the impugned order of the Second Joint Civil Judge (S.D.) Thane dated 23rd November 2010. One Sakharam had three children: two daughters, Narmadabai and Muktabai and one son, Sadashiv. The two daughters predeceased him. His son succeeded him. 2. Muktabai died in 1978. Narmadabia, the other daughter died in 1987 prior to Sakharam who died on 4th October 1995. Sadashiv, claiming to be the sole heir and successor of Sakharam, got the Revenue records altered showing a mutation entry dated 3rd December 2002 reflecting his name. 3. The son of Muktabai filed the suit claiming the share of Muktabai in the properties of her father Sakharam. He claims that the properties of Sakharam are ancestral properties or properties purchased from the proceeds of the sale of ancestral properties. Sadashiv, who is the Defendant No.1 in the suit, claims that the properties were purchas...
M/S Ashok Sahakari Sakhar Vs. the Regional Provident Funds
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-06-2011
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With consent of the learned respective counsels for the parties, the petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the Judgment and order dated 15.10.2010, passed by the Learned Employees Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, in Appeal No ATA No. 121[9]2010. BACKGROUND FACTS AS DISCLOSED IN THE PETITION ARE AS UNDER: 3. Petitioner is a Co-operative Society registered under the Provisions of Maharashtra Co- Operative Societies Act, 1960, having its Registered Office and works at the place mentioned above. It engages in manufacture of sugar from sugar cane and it's allied products. It is a factory and Industrial Undertaking. The petitioner is covered under the Employees Provident Funds (Misc. Provisions) Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act") and regular in remitting the contribution payable under the said Act. Petitioner used to and had cleared PF amounts such employees ...
Western Coalfields Limited and anr. Vs. Rajesh S/O Nandlal Biyani and ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-06-2011
1) This appeal challenges the order 5.4.2011 passed by the Third Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, allowing the application Exh.5 for grant of temporary injunction, restraining the appellants from invoking the Bank Guarantees furnished on 19.2.2008 filed in Special Civil Suit No.236 of 2011 by the respondent no.1/plaintiff. The appellants are the defendant nos.1 and 2, the respondent no.1 is the plaintiff and the respondent no.2 is the Oriental Bank of Commerce and the original defendant no.3. 2) The facts not in dispute are stated below-- On 18.5.2007, the appellants/original defendant nos.1 and 2 awarded the contract for the work of diversion of Motaghat Nallah (Phase-II and Phase-III) at Padmapur Open Cast Mine of Chandrapur area, to the respondent no.1/plaintiff. An Agreement No.08/2007-2008 was entered into between the parties. The total cost of contract was of Rs.13.95 Crores. The period of completion of work prescribed under the contract was from 23.7.2007 to 28.10.200...
Rukhminibai Pratishthan Vs. Ravindra Deoram Patil and ors.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-06-2011
1. This writ petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 17th July, 2010 passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nashik in Appeal No.JAL/36/2009. This Court on 13th December, 2010 directed this matter to be listed for final disposal. Accordingly, the matter is taken up for final hearing with consent of the parties. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. 3. The background facts of this case are, as under: The petitioner herein runs four schools namely, (1) Saraswati Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Sadawan, Tal. Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon; (2) Kirti Vijay Patil Army School, Shirdon, Tal. Panvel, Dist. Thane; (3) Nawal Bhau Madhyamik Vidyalaya,Tade, Tal. Erandol,Dist. Jalgaon; and (4) Nawal Bhau Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Tade, Tal. Erandol,Dist. Jalgaon. All the four schools are functioning in different districts. The respondent No.1 herein - original appellant before the School tribunal filed an appeal stating therein that the management of the petitioner institute did not mainta...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »