Court : Mumbai
This Petition has been filed by the Petitioner, a Government Company registered under Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956, impugning the order of the Labour Court dated 23 December 2004 and the order of the Industrial Court dated 1 July 2006 in Appeal. The Labour Court found that the enquiry held against the Respondent-employee (hereinafter referred to as the employee) was not fair and proper and was perverse and granted him full back wages from 18 January 1982 till superannuation with all monetary benefits. In Appeal, the Industrial Court modified the order of the Labour Court and granted full back wages from 4.4.1994 with all appended benefits till the date of his superannuation i.e. till 1999. 2. The employee had joined the services of one of the units of the Petitioner viz. Apollo Textile Mills Ltd. on 22 November 1963 as a Piece Checker. In January 1992 the employee was working as Semi Clerk in the Folding Department of the Mill. There was a general strike in the Textile Indust...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
P.C. Heard extensively. These nine petitions deal with common question of law and facts. Hence, by consent, taken together. Heard finally. 2. This is second round of litigation in this Court initiated by the petitioners questioning legality, propriety of orders of issuance of process. In the first round the canvass projected was, in respect of want of service of statutory notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and jurisdictional inquiry under Section 202 (amended provisions) of Cr.P.C. The petitioners by order dated 24.9.2010 failed in the respective criminal applications, same was questioned before the Honble Supreme Court and the petitions before the Honble Supreme Court were also dismissed. 3. Mr.Thakore, the learned Counsel for petitioners contended, there could not be multiple proceedings permitted to the bank as a creditor to initiate against the petitioners-the borrower. He states that loan of Rs.12 crores was availed by the petitioners, Rs.6 crores each, an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal is filed by the State against the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sanguem in Criminal Case No. 3/S/2009. 2. The said Criminal Case was culmination of a charge sheet filed by Curchorem Police Station against the respondent (accused) alleging that on 22/04/2008 at 11.30 hours at Ambeudak Sanvordem, the respondent drove a Tipper Truck bearing registration no. GA-01-W-6952 in rash and negligent manner endangering human lives and gave dash to on coming Hero Honda Passion Motorcycle bearing no. GA-09-B-3357 thereby causing grievous hurt to the rider of the Motorcycle namely Prakash Yadav. The respondent( accused) was charged for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution examined eight witnesses. PW1 Abhay Naik, who was Motor Vehicle Inspector, at the relevant time, had inspected the Truck and the Motorcycle and had issued the Accident R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri M. Pereira, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri A.D. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waives service. 3. The above petition challenges an order dated 10/10/2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Vasco whereby the evidence of the petitioner came to be closed in view of the absence of the witness of the petitioner. 4. Shri M. Pereira, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order essentially on the ground that the petitioner had sought two adjournments and thereafter the advocate appearing for the petitioner returned the brief. The learned Counsel further pointed out that on the subsequent date when the advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner sought an adjournment, witness of the petitioner was not present and, as such, the learned Judge passed the impugned...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioner is the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Savari, Tq. Nilanga. The proceedings were initiated by present respondent Nos.4 to 6 purportedly U/Sec. 7 and 36 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act seeking disqualification of the petitioner to be a Sarpanch on the ground that the petitioner has failed to conduct the necessary gram sabhas and the monthly meetings. The Additional Collector, Latur allowed the said proceedings and disqualified the petitioner to be a member of the Gram Panchayat. Aggrieved thereby the present writ petition. 3. Shri Thombre, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner has taken the necessary Gram Sabhas as is evident from the report of the Block Development Officer. According to the learned counsel in respect of two monthly meetings which are not held, the petitioner has given reasons that at the relevant time there was model code of conduct in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: [A.R. Joshi, J] 1. Heard rival submissions on this Criminal Appeal preferred by all the three appellants - original accused Nos. 1 to 3 challenging the judgment and order of conviction dated 30.03.2005 passed by II Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Sangli in Sessions Case No. 79 of 2003. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellants were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 200/- each, in default RI for six months each. The appellants were also convicted under Section 316 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 200 each, in default RI for three months each. The appellants were further convicted under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for one year and to pay find of Rs. 200 each, in default RI for one month each. Learned Sessions Judge directed all theses sentences to run concurrently. 2. The case of the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: (A.P. Lavande,J.) Heard Mr. Ramani, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Sonak, learned Counsel for the respondents in both the appeals. 2. Both these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment since they arise out of the land acquisition references made pursuant to the notification dated 28.7.1996 issued by the Government of Goa. 3. By notification dated 28.7.1996, published in the local news papers on 6th September, 1996, large tracts of land were acquired by the Government in Village Bhimpal and Pissurlem of Sattari Taluka for the purpose of expansion of Honda Industrial Estate. An area admeasuring 54,057 sq. metres of survey No. 24/1 of Village Pissurlem, belonging to the appellant in First Appeal No. 283/2007 and an area admeasuring 88,435 sq. metres of the very same survey number, belonging to the appellant in First Appeal No.285/2007 were part of the acquired land. 4. The appellant in First Appeal No. 283/2007 claimed compensation at the rate of R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
A.R. Joshi, J. 1. Heard rival submissions on this Criminal Appeal preferred by appellant/orig.accused No.2 challenging the judgment and order of conviction dated 9th July, 2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai in Sessions Case No.221 of 1999. In the said Sessions Case, initially two accused persons were tried including the present appellant. Both the accused were convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and they were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5000/each, in default to undergo further sentence for one year each. Both the accused were also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section 34 and were sentenced to suffer RI for thre years each. They were also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section 397 and 34 of IPC and were sentenced to suffer RI for seven years each. They were also convicted for the offence punishable under Section...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
S.J. Vazifdar, J. The petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the communications dated 16th December, 2005 and 22nd June, 2006, rejecting its application for the allotment of a plot admeasuring about 3 acres and the allotment of plots of land admeasuring 17 acres and 6 acres adjacent to its factory to respondent Nos.4 and 5 respectively. The petitioner has also sought the allotment for itself a portion of the said land admeasuring 3 acres. 2. Respondent No.2 is the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC). Respondent No.3 is the Regional Officer of the MIDC. Respondent No.4 is M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra Limited. Respondent No.5 is an individual, one Abhay Kulkarni. 3. The petitioner, a small-scale industry engaged in the business of manufacturing, inter-alia, luggage, tools and moulds, is a lessee of Plot No.F-18 admeasuring 4050 square meters in the industrial area in which it seeks the allotment of a plot for itself and cancellation of the allot...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
NareshH. Patil, J. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent heard finally. 2. The petitioner challenges validity of the order passed on 9th October, 2012 by the In-charge Commandant, State Reserve Police Force, Group No.3, Jalna, cancelling permission for keeping beard. The petitioner submits that he is a Muslim and professes Islam religion. He was appointed as a Police Constable in the State Reserve Police Force on 16-1-2008. At present he is discharging his duties as Police Constable in the State Reserve Police Force Group No.3, Jalna. He had applied for keeping beard on 28th February, 2012. It is contended that initially respondent No.3 - Commandant, SRPF, Jalna granted permission to keep beard in view of letter dated 8-3-1989 of Government of India. By the impugned order dated 9th October, 2012 the respondent No.3 cancelled the Order dated 7-5-2012 under which the petitioner was permitted to keep beard. The petitioner was given opportunity to apply for keeping beard for a temporary pe...
Tag this Judgment!