Mumbai Court November 2013 Judgments
M/S. Ocean Creations Vs. Manohar Gangaram Kamble and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-2013
1] Rule was issued in this petition on 06.08.2007 with directions to deposit 50% of the back wages with effect from 01.11.1998. This direction is reported to have been complied with. 2] The challenge in this petition is directed against the judgment and award dated 05.10.2006 passed by the 4th Labour Court, Mumbai (hereafter referred to as 'impugned award') directing the Petitioner (employer) to reinstate the Respondent No. 1 (workman) with continuity of service along with payment of 75% of the back wages. 3] It is the case of the Petitioner that the Respondent No. 1 abandoned services with effect from 01.03.1999. On the other hand it is the case of the Respondent No. 1 that his services were terminated by the Petitioner with effect from 01.11.1998 without issuance of any show cause notice, conduct of any enquiry and in breach of the provisions contained in Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('said Act'). The controversy in this petition therefore almost entirely raises ...
Tag this Judgment!Sunil Shamrao Thokal Vs. the Salvation Army, Evangeline Booth Hospital
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-29-2013
1. Heard learned Advocate for the respective parties. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. The petitioner-employee was appointed as a Store Keeper with the respondent-employer in 1989. On 19.12.1992, 12.5.1993 and 18.1.1994, the respondent issued charge sheets-cum-show cause notices to the petitioner, alleging negligence, improper maintenance and mis-appropriation against him. After conclusion of the domestic enquiry, he was issued with a second show cause notice dated 13.3.1995. The petitioner claims to have received the said notice on 25.3.1995. It is an admitted position that the dismissal order was dated 31.3.1995. 4. The petitioner being aggrieved by the dismissal order, filed Complaint (ULP) No.20 of 1995 before the Labour Court at Ahmednagar. It was alleged that the respondent did not wait for seven days' period, while dismissing the petitioner, which was provided to him to submit his reply to the second show c...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Shahida Sharriff and Others Vs. Amanullah and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-2013
Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 2 The Appellants-Original Plaintiffs have challenged order dated 15 October 2013 passed by the learned Judge of City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai, thereby returned the plaint for its presentation in the Small Causes Court, Mumbai by invoking the Order 7 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). 3 The Appellants are the sisters and Respondent No.2 is the wife of Respondent No.1. The Suit was filed in the year 2010 before the City Civil Court at Mumbai for declaration that the Respondents should not disturb the joint possession of the Appellants along with Respondents in the suit premises. The Suit was not for recovery of possession and/or relating to the recovery and/or rent and/or licence fee. There was no relationship of landlord and licensor and/or licensee between the parties. All the legal heirs of the deceased-tenant (the father of Defendant No.1 and the Plaintiffs). The Plaintiffs therefore claiming equal rights and...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Vs. the State Information Commissioner and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-29-2013
1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. This writ petition takes exception to the order passed by the State Information Officer, Nashik dated 27/03/2012 in Appeal No. 31/2011. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that, respondent No. 2 herein, filed application and sought certain information from the office of the petitioner under the Right to Information Act,2005 (for short, "said Act") on 30/11/2010. After receipt of the said application immediately the petitioner on 13/12/2010 forwarded the said application/part of the said application to the concerned Talathi and Block Development Officer and instructed them to provide the information required by respondent No. 2 to enable him to provide the same to respondent No.2 and accordingly, informed in this regard to respondent No. 2. It is further case of the petitioner that, respondent No. 2 in stead of filing first appeal before the first appellate authority, chosen wrong remedy and filed appeal before respondent No.1 by...
Tag this Judgment!Adv. Aires Rodrigues Vs. State by Chief Secretary, Government of Goa, ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Nov-29-2013
Heard the petitioner in person and learned Advocate General for the respondents. 2. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs: (A) For a Writ of Mandamus, or a Writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, directions or any other commanding the Respondent No. 3 to withdraw Order Ref. No. 4/1/2008/LD-Esst./217 dated 12.2.2013 and Order Ref. No.14/1/2008/LD-Estt./398 dated 14.3.2013. (B) For a Writ of Certiorari or writ in the nature of Certiorari, quashing and setting aside order dated 6.6.2013, passed by the Special Judge, North Goa at Panaji in Criminal Misc. Appln. No. 22/2013, after calling for records and proceeding and examining it for its legality, proprietary and correctness. 3. Petitioner, in short, has alleged as follows: The petitioner lodged a complaint dated 04/02/2013 with respondent no. 4 against Shri Manohar Parrikar, the Chief Minister of the State of Goa alleging th...
Tag this Judgment!Suman Shivaji Dolas Vs. Ahmednagar Zilla Parishad
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-28-2013
Per Court: 1. Heard Shri P.V. Barde, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Shri S.T. Shelke, learned counsel for the Respondent. 2. The Petitioner is wife of deceased employee Shivaji Dolas. 3. The deceased joined employment on 7th April, 1967 as a Mixer Attendant with the Respondent. While on duty, the deceased suffered an accident on 23rd October, 1967 resulting into amputation of his right hand wrist. The Respondent paid him compensation and continued him by giving an alternate job of oilman. The deceased performed his duties as an oilman till 1992. 4. According to the Petitioner, in 1990, after attaining the age of 55, he was referred to the medical board, which found him medially unfit for work. The deceased retired from services due to such unfit certification by the Medial Authorities. 5. The deceased demanded medical pensionary benefits, which are more than the normal pensionary benefits available to an employee under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. Sinc...
Tag this Judgment!Housing Development and Infrastructure Limited Vs. Mumbai Internationa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-2013
G.S. Patel, J. 1. This appeal is directed against an order dated 23rd August 2013 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the Appellants petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Arbitration Act). By consent, we took up the matter for final disposal at the stage of admission. We heard learned Counsel for the appearing parties at considerable length. I 2. The Airports Authority of India (AAI), constituted under the Airport Authority of India Act, 1994, is responsible for the development, management, and maintenance of airports in India. It owns or controls about 1,980 acres of land in Mumbai. This is the land of Mumbais Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport (CSIA; the Airport). An estimated one-sixth of this land is encroached and is unavailable for CSIA operations and use. Some of the slums and shanties on this encroached land are in perilous proximity to the CSIA. In the past decade or so, and particularly with the entry of priva...
Tag this Judgment!Manoj and Another Vs. Chandrakishore and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Nov-28-2013
1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. The petitioners are the original plaintiffs, who have filed a suit for declaration that they are the owners of Shop No.169/1, admeasuring 220 sq. ft. in Survey No.18/1, Nazul Sheet No.7D of Tumsar, District Bhandara, and the defendants have no right to the said property. A decree for permanent injunction has also been claimed, restraining the defendants from disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property. The plaintiffs have also filed an application Exhibit 5 for grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing their possession over the suit property. A further order of temporary injunction is also claimed restraining the defendants from executing the decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No.2 of 1996. 3. The respondents are the original defendant Nos.1 to 5. One Smt. Nandrani Devi, widow of Shalikram Chaurasia, along with the res...
Tag this Judgment!Ms. Rani Shashank Doshi Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-2013
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1 In this Criminal Application the only point that arises for our consideration is whether an offence punishable under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is cognizable or non-cognizable. 2 The facts that are necessary to appreciate this question are that on 27.04.2011 the Applicant was driving a motor vehicle when she was signalled to stop by an officer of the N.M.Joshi Marg Police Station, Mumbai. The Applicant was further put to a Breath Alcohol Analysis Test and after the test was conducted, no statement was recorded nor was any report given to the Applicant. The Applicant was further directed to deposit a sum of Rs.2000/- for which the Applicant was furnished a receipt. The Applicant was further directed to attend the Court of Special Metropolitan Magistrate (Morning Court), Bhoiwada, Mumbai on 03.05.2011. Thereafter, the Applicant was allowed to go as per the directions of the officers of Respondent No.3. 3 It is stated that on 03.05.2011 the Applic...
Tag this Judgment!Mansub Bhagwat Khillare Vs. Parigabai Mansub Khillare
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-28-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 2. Though I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents at length, it is not necessary to discuss the rival contentions in depth in the view that I am taking. The petitioner who has been ordered to pay maintenance to his wife Parigabai and daughter Yogita the respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein, by the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vaijapur under the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, being aggrieved thereby had approached the Court of Sessions in revision challenging the said order. His revision application also came to be dismissed and therefore, he has approached this court invoking its Constitutional jurisdiction. 3. In the oral submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, his learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is a disabled person and that, he is not having sufficient means. According to the lea...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »