Mumbai Court November 2013 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.
Jalindar Ganpat Lawate and Another Vs. Pravara Medical Trust, Loni, at ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-28-2013
1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petitions are heard finally. Both the petitions are taken up together for decision. 3. The question raised before me, in both the petitions is, as to "whether the Industrial Court can refuse to register a Revision (ULP) filed under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971?" ABOUT WRIT PETITION NO.6396 OF 2012 4. The petitioner in this petition is taking exception to the impugned order dated 7.7.2012, passed by the learned Industrial Court, Ahmednagar in Rejected Application No.6 of 2012. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Revision Petition filed before the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar is refused registration by the Industrial Court on the ground that the impugned order in the Revision Petition is an interlocutory order passed by the Labour Court. The Revision Petition seeks to challenge suc...
Sangamner Nagar Parishad Vs. Tanaji Madhav Abhang
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-28-2013
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. Brief facts leading to file present writ petition, as disclosed in this petition, are as under: The respondent herein, was working as Head Clerk with the Municipal Council, Sangamner. The respondent filed Complaint (ULP) No. 19 of 2006 before the Labour Court, Ahmednagar and contended that, he is illegally dismissed from the services on 04/04/2006 by the petitioner and inquiry held against him is not legal, fair and proper and order of dismissal is illegal. 3. The petitioner Municipal Council filed written statement before the Labour Court stating therein that, the respondent has committed serious misconduct thereby indulging himself in 150 proposals of Gunthewari and fabricated signatures of the Chief Officer on the said proposals and also committed serious illegalities/irregularities. 4. The Labour Court by the judgment and order dated 22/06/2012 dismissed the com...
Mahesh Kumar Agarwal Executive Engineer (W) Hq Vs. Union of India, Thr ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-2013
A.J. Rohee, Member (J). 1. By this application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant seeks direction to the respondents to refix his pay at Rs.8750/w.e.f. 01.03.1996 by allowing him to exercise the option in terms of Railway Board letter dated 29.05.1998, with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay and interest thereon at the rate of 12 % p.a. 2. The applicant's case in short is that he was appointed on the post of Inspector of Works Grade-I on 30.03.1988 and thereafter he was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer Group 'B' post on 20.11.1995. The applicant received further promotion to the post of Executive Engineer Group 'A' w.e.f. 26.07.2002. On account of the fact that the applicant joined the initial post in the month of March, the date of annual increment was 01.03.1996. After he received first promotion, he exercised the necessary option for fixation of his pay in the promotional post w.e.f. 01.03.1996 and the same was accord...
Kotla Krishna Kumar, C.G.S. Colony Vs. Union of India Through the Secr ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-2013
Mrs. Chameli Majumdar, Member (J). 1. The applicant has filed two Original Applications, being O.A. Nos.380/2009 and 860/2010. The O.A. 380/2009 was filed on 17.06.2009 challenging the Show Cause Notices dated 15.01.2009 and 02.02.2009. The Show Cause Notice dated 15.01.2009 was issued directing the applicant to submit an explanation as to why his absence from duty since 01.01.2009 without prior permission of the Controlling Authority and without giving any intimation to the Department regarding his absence should not be treated as unauthorized leave and why disciplinary action should not be initiated against him. The second Show Cause Notice dated 02.02.2009 was issued for remaining absent from 15.01.2009 to 31.01.2009 and in the same terms as mentioned in Show Cause Notice dated 15.01.2009. 2. The applicant filed O.A. No. 380/2009 being aggrieved of the issuance of charge sheet dated 25.11.2010 whereby the disciplinary action was sought to be taken against him for applying for the po...
Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust Vs. Afcons Infrastructure Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-2013
1. These two Petitions are filed U/s.34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for setting aside the award dated 17 th September, 2007 under two contracts entered by and between the parties for construction of the extension of Port Craft Berth at the B premises of the Petitioner. 2. Both contracts are contained in the letter of the Petitioner dated 25th February, 1999, 1st March, 1999 and the tender submitted by the Respondent dated 15th March, 1999 and 17th March, 1999 and further correspondence between the parties as set out in the letter of the Petitioner dated 1st September, 1999. 3. Under clause 17 of the contract between the parties they agreed to refer their dispute to two arbitrators, one to be nominated by each of them and the third to be nominated by the arbitrators. Under the arbitration clause the parties agreed that only the questions and disputes raised for the execution of the work until its completion would be referred to arbitration. The disputes arising thereaf...
Shakuntala Shamsing Mali and Another Vs. Housing Development Finance C ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-27-2013
Per Court: 1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. None appeared for respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 though served. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that the petitioners had borrowed loan of an amount of Rs.23,000/- from respondent No. 1/Bank. An amount of Rs.11,447/- was repaid to the said Bank. Balance amount of Rs.11,526/- stood in the loan account of the petitioners. 3. Respondent No.4, on 10/06/1988 purchased suit property of petitioner no.1 for an amount of Rs.1,93,000/- out of which an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- was to be paid and Rs.13,000/- were earmarked to be paid to respondent No.1 bank as against existing loan amount of the petitioners. 4. Respondent/Bank initiated Spl.C.S.No.301/1996 before the learned Civil Judge, S.D. Nashik for recovery of the amount of Rs. 33,540/-. The petitioners, though served, did not participate in the said proceedings. Eventually, the learned Court decreed the suit of the respondent No.1/Bank on 19/03/1997 in the absence of the petition...
Nirmal Lifestyle Ltd. and Another Vs. Tulip Hospitality Services Ltd. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-2013
1. The parties entered into agreements for development of the property of the Tulip Hospitality Services Ltd. (Tulip) by Nirmal Lifestyle Ltd. (Nirmal). The payments under the agreements were to be made upon specified covenants contained in the agreements. Certain payments have been made. Certain covenants have been complied. Certain other covenants have not been complied. There were disputes between the parties. Arbitration was invoked. The parties appeared before the Arbitrator. An award has been passed which has been challenged by Nirmal with regard to two agreements executed by the parties which were referred to arbitration. The award is challenged by Tulip with regard to the grant of interest only. Nirmal has also applied for interim relief for protection and preservation of the disputed property pending the arbitral proceedings to be initiated in respect of the reference agreement and until the publishing of the award. 2. Parties have entered into agreements on 29.03.2003, 31.03....
M/S. Lalitha Chem Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-2013
M.S. Sanklecha, J. RULE; returnable forthwith. At the request of learned Counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal. 2 By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges:- (a) Notice dated 28 March 2013 issued by respondent No.1 (Assessing Officer) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by which the assessment for the Assessment Years 2006-07 is sought to be reopened; and (b) Order dated 1 August 2013 passed by the Assessing Officer disposing the objections raised by the petitioner to the grounds for re-opening of the assessment for Assessment Year 2006-07. 3 The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing of chemicals etc. It has two manufacturing unitsone at Tarapur and another at Silvasa. During the Assessment Year 2006-07, the petitioner unit at Silvasa was entitled to the benefit of deduction under Section 80I-B of the Act. 4 On 23 November 2006, the petitioner filed its return of income...
National Aviators Guild Being a Trade Union Vs. the Registrar of Trade ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-2013
M.S. Sonak, J. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable with the consent of all the parties forthwith. 2. The Petitioner, a Trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (said Act) comprising about 117 Pilots of Jet Airways (India) Limited-Respondent No.5 challenges the order dated 15th April 2013 passed by the Industrial Tribunal (Appellate Authority under Section 11 of the said Act), except to the extent, it sets aside order dated 11th November 2009 passed by the Registrar of Trade Unions cancelling the Petitioner's registration. The order dated 15th March 2009 proceeds to remand the matter to the Registrar once again to determine whether registration had been validly granted and during pendency of such determination suspends the registration and restrains the Petitioner from raising any industrial disputes with Respondent No.5. 3. Before we advert to the facts and circumstances in which the aforesaid challenge arises, we must observe that this case is a classic illustration of how...
M/S. Gold Resorts and Hotel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ramkrishna Janardhan Bhat Al ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Nov-27-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard. Mr. Dessai, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. Registry to register the STM No. 3000/2013 as Writ Petition, forthwith. 3. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent waives service of notice. By consent, heard forthwith. 4. By this writ petition, the petitioner has mainly sought the following reliefs: a) Grant of writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 03/10/2013 passed by the Learned Additional President of the Administrative Tribunal, Goa at Panaji and dismiss the application for stay bearing Misc. application No. 226/2013 in LRA No. 49/2013; b) Stay the operation and effect of the impugned order dated 03/10/2013 and direct the Learned Additional President to return the records and proceedings of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »