Mumbai Court August 2012 Judgments
Abbott Laboratories (i) Ltd. (Now known as Pfizer Ltd.) and Others Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
1. The above cross Petitions impugn an order dated 27th October, 2005 passed by the Labour Court, Mumbai in an Application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the I.D. Act”) filed by 13 former employees (hereinafter referred to as “the Applicants”) of Abbott Laboratories (I) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the Company”) seeking payment of 12 months wages for lock-out period and 20 months wages in the form of ex-gratia payment by way of settlement of general Charter of Demands. 2. The operative part of the impugned order reads as follows: “1. The application is partly allowed. 2. The Opponents are directed to pay 12 months lock-out wages to all the applicants at the rate of last drawn wages mentioned in the Annexure to the application Exh.U-1. 3. Copy of this order be sent to Government.” 3. Writ Petition No. 64 of 2006 is filed by the Company aggrieved by the direction to pay 12 months w...
Tag this Judgment!Maharashtra Film Stage and Cultural Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. M ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
The Petitioner, a Government of Maharashtra Corporation, (original Respondent) has challenged Arbitral Award dated 28 July 2008. The operative part of the Award is: “(a) The Respondent is ordered and directed to pay to the claimant the sum of Rs.3,16,30,770/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum to be calculated as under: I) On Rs.86,30,770/- from 18.04.2002 till payment or realisation, whichever is earlier; II) On Rs.1,70,00,000/- from 14.05.2002 till payment or realisation, whichever is earlier; III) On Rs.60,00,000/- from 23.10.2002 till payment or realisation, whichever is earlier. (b) the Respondent is ordered and directed to pay to the Claimant further sum of Rs.1,61,27,759/- with interest thereon to be calculated @ 12% p.a. From the date hereof till payment or realisation, whichever is earlier; (b)(i) Counterclaim is not considered for want of jurisdiction; (c) the Respondent is ordered and directed to pay to the Claimant the costs of arbitration quantified at Rs.26,...
Tag this Judgment!Kotak Securities Ltd. Vs. Gaurav Goel and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
The Petitioner has challenged the Award dated 8th May, 2007, passed by an Arbitral Tribunal constituted under the rules, regulations and bye laws of the National Stock Exchange of India Limited (NSEIL). The operative part of the Award is as under: “Resultantly we award Rs.26,16,321.00 to the claimant and if the respondent does not deposit the amount within one month the claimant shall be entitled to future interest @ 12% p.a. on the said amount till the amount is paid” 2. The basic events/dates as per the Petitioner are as under: On 1st November, 2004, the Petitioner and the Respondent No.1 entered into a Member Client Agreement (The agreement). The transactions/dealing took place accordingly. 3. On 28th December, 2004, Respondent No.1 allegedly wrote a letter with hole month standing instructions. It was handed over to Mr. Abishekh Bhargave, who was at that time, was a Relationship Manager of the Petitioner. As per the letter, as Respondent No.1 was. going to have a very b...
Tag this Judgment!Amey Prakash Kasbekar Vs. the Director, Medical Education and Research ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. The Petitioner was admitted to the Krishna Medical College at Karad, a Deemed University, in July 2009 for pursuing the M.B.B.S. degree course. The Petitioner passed his first MBBS examination on 26 July 2010. The Petitioner submitted an application for transfer from Krishna Medical College to Lokmanya Tilak Municipal Medical College, at Mumbai on or about 8 September 2010. The Petitioner obtained, before submitting the application, a no objection certificate of the relieving institution. On 14 September 2010, the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences (`MUHS') also granted its approval for the transfer/migration of the Petitioner to the Lokmanya Tilak Municipal Medical College at Mumbai. The Petitioner was informed by a letter dated 30 December 2010 of the Director, Medical Education and Research, Mumbai that his name was not listed in the transfer list because of a restriction on the number of transfers from the receiving college for the regular batch o...
Tag this Judgment!Panna Atmaram Bhansali Vs. Tinoo M. Bhansali and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
1. The plaintiff is one of the daughters of the deceased one Shakuntala Mansen Damodardas Bhansali. The deceased executed her last will and testament on 28.04.1977 which is sought to be probated. The plaintiff is one of the 4 executors/executrices appointed under the will of the deceased. 2. It is the plaintiff’s case that the will has been executed by her mother in the presence of 2 attesting witnesses, her solicitor and the solicitor’s clerk when she was in a sound and disposing state of mind. 3. The defendant is the brother of the plaintiff. It has been the defendant’s contention that the will was not validly executed at the volition of his mother and that the plaintiff has by certain misrepresentation and influence got the will executed. 4. Based upon these pleadings the following issues have been framed which are answered as follows: ISSUES 1Whether the writing and document being Exhibit “A” to the petition is the last will and testament of the deceas...
Tag this Judgment!Zalaksingh S/O Tikarambhau Bisen and Others Vs. Pramodkumar S/O Prahal ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 3rd September 1994 passed by Additional District Judge, Gondia in Regular Civil Appeal No.74/1994 whereby judgment and decree dated 31/7/1992 passed by the trial court in Regular Civil Suit no.34/1971 dismissing the suit was confirmed. 2. One Tikaram died leaving behind him three sons who are original plaintiffs 1 to 3 – appellants 1 to 3 herein and a widow who is original plaintiff no.4 – appellant no.4 herein. Plaintiffs pleaded that the land Khasra No.189, area 8.22 acres, situated at village Gondia (Buzruk.) was their ancestral property. During his life time Tikaram was addicted to vices. On 21/1/1959 Tikaram sold the land area 3.20 aces out of Kh. No. 189 to the defendants by executing sale deed. Plaintiffs filed Regular Civil Suit no.131/1963 against the defendants for setting aside the said sale deed. The judgment and decree passed in that suit was challenged in an appeal and now it has reached t...
Tag this Judgment!Mazda Construction Company and Others Vs. Sultanabad Darshan Chs Ltd. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
Oral Judgment: 1 Heard. 2 Rule. The Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 3 By this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners are challenging the order dated 11.04.2012, copy of which is at Annexure-A to the Writ Petition, by which the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai City-3 and Competent Authority under Section 5A of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (for short “MOFA”), on an application bearing No.55/2011 has directed as under:- “In exercise of the powers conferred on me under Section 5A of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963, I, S.P.Ghorpade, District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai City (3), Competent Authority under Section 5A of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963, 1....
Tag this Judgment!Angel Capital and Debt Market Limited Vs. Sharad Munot
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
The Petitioner-stock broker, has challenged award dated 16 May 2009, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, in the matter of Arbitration under the Bye-laws, Rules and Regulations of the National Stock Exchange of India Limited (for short, “NSEIL”). 2 The operative part of the order is as under:- “AWARD 1 The claim of the Applicant, Mr. Sharad Premraj Munot is accepted for Rs. 1,63,11,371/- being the losses incurred by him on account of squaring off position by the Respondent. 2 The additional claim of Rs.1,17,21,022/- for not selling the shares of pool account on 21st January 2008 stands rejected. 3 The claim of Rs. 37,88,787.50/- stands fulfilled as the Applicant has already received credit for Rs.47,01,570.96/- from the Respondent against this amount. 4 The claim of Rs.80,000/- towards losses on account of short sale of Hindustan Unilever shares also stands fulfilled as the Respondent has agr...
Tag this Judgment!Sadashiv D. Naik Vs. Umesh Krishna Sawanth
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
This is plaintiff's Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiff had filed Regular Civil Suit no. 23/1999 against the respondent (defendant) for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant, his agents, servants, etc. from interfering with and doing any illegal construction of house in the suit paddy field and for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to fill the trenches and to demolish any construction done in the suit paddy field during the pendency of the suit and to restore the land to its original condition. 3. It was alleged by the plaintiff that he is a cotenant in possession of the suit paddy field known as “Karpan Moli” bearing survey no. 307/10 situated in the village of Arambol at Varcha Wada and his name is recorded in the tenant's column of Form No. I and XIV as co-tenant. By virtue of Fifth Amendment to the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 (Agricultural tenancy Act), he became the deemed purchaser of the suit paddy field along with other co-tenan...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Bombay Trading Co. Vs. M/S. Jai Santoshi Maa Enterprises
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
By this Summons for Judgment, the Plaintiff seeks that judgment be entered for the Plaintiff in this suit against the Defendant for Rs.11,32,569.54 and for interest and costs. 2. The suit is based on an invoice dated 26th January, 2008. The Plaintiff is registered partnership firm and carries on business of manufacturing of Ayurvedic products under the head of “Noorani Tel (Oil)”. It is the case of the Plaintiff that vide invoice dated 26th January, 2008, the Plaintiff supplied a bulk of quantity of Noorani Tel (Oil), an Ayurvedic product to the Defendant for a sum of Rs. 6,99,117/-. The said goods were delivered to the Defendant. The Defendant received the invoice. There is no dispute that in respect of the earlier transaction held between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, payment has been already made by the Defendant to the Plaintiff. 3. It is the case of the Plaintiff that since Defendant did not make payment in respect of invoice dated 26th January, 2008, the Plaintiff ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »