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.
Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed Vs. the Assistant Labour ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-27-2013
Oral Judgment : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the parties. 2. Admitted fact emerging from the petition is that the judgment and order dated 23/08/2011 passed by respondent No.1 Assistant Labour Commissioner and Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (Hereinafter referred to as "Gratuity Act"), Latur in P.G.A.No.19/2010 has been challenged. 3. Short point that arises for my consideration is as to whether the provisions of Section 7(7) r/w. the proviso thereunder of the Gratuity Act can be by-passed to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of The Constitution of India. 4. In early days, this scheme was introduced in those establishments only where the employers were so kind and generous to the workers or there was an agreement between the employers and the workers. This scheme was confined to the particular establishments and even within those establishments, to certain categories of staff. There was no ...
Vithalrao Narayanrao Agre Dead Through L.Rs. and Others Vs. Surendraku ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Nov-26-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1994 by the Additional District Judge, Gondia, thereby allowing the Appeal and reversing the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 424 of 1987 by the Civil Judge, Jr.Dn., Gondia, on 5.1.1994. 2. Appellants are the legal heirs of deceased original defendant and respondent is the original plaintiff. For convenience, they are being hereinafter referred to as defendant and plaintiff, as they were before trial Court. The plaintiff being the landlord of Block No.3, situated in the chawl on sheet no. 4, plot no. 8/14, 8/15 and 8/24, at Railtoli, Gondia, hereinafter referred to as suit premises, filed a suit against his tenant, the defendant, for recovery of possession of suit premises and damages, after obtaining necessary permission to issue quit notice from the Rent Controller. 3. The plaintiff submitted that after receiving necessary permission, he had issued s...
Bhagubai Walmik Khandagale and Another Vs. Social Forestry Department ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-26-2013
Oral Judgment:- 1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties in both the petitions. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petitions are taken up for final disposal. 3. Shri Barde, learned Advocate for petitioners in both the petitions, while opening his submissions has stated that he would prefer to curtail the same to a very short point. He states that the date of the impugned Awards is 17.7.2010 passed in Reference cases IDA Nos. 13/2006 and 17/2006 respectively. The petitioners stood superannuated prior to the date of the awards. The References have been allowed partly to the extent of the petitioners having been granted reinstatement with notional continuity of services from the date of their termination but without back wages. 4. Shri Barde, learned Advocate further contends that the relief awarded in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, wherein the petitioners stood retired prior to it's deliverance has virtually rendered the awards ...
Prakash Pundlik Palaskar and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra and A ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Nov-25-2013
Oral Judgment: (A.B. Chaudhari, J.) Heard. 2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the rival parties. 3. The applicants herein have filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the matter of Regular Criminal Case No.296 of 2010 arising out of Crime No.37 of 2010, registered with Dongaon Police Station and the said criminal case is pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mehkar, District : Buldana. 4. When the application was called out today for hearing the learned counsel, who are present with the respective parties i.e. applicant and non-applicant No.2 complainant, submit that the offences alleged against the applicants are under Sections 407 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the learned counsel for the rival parties, both the offences are compoundable and that being so, the compounding is required to be allowed by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of C...
Machindra Chandrabhan Dange Vs. Siddhi Cnc Private Limited
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-25-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. Question raised before me is, "Whether it is expected of the Industrial Court to remand matters to the Labour Court, as a matter of routine course?" 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that he had filed Revision (ULP) No.49 of 2010 before the learned Member, Industrial Court, Ahmednagar challenging the correctness of the judgment and order dated 4.12.2010 and part-I order, on the legality of the domestic enquiry dated 4.2.2009., passed by the Labour Court, Ahmednagar. Vide the final judgment, the complaint of the petitioner was partly allowed on 4.12.2010, by the Labour Court. 5. The respondent was aggrieved only with the final judgment dated 4.12.2010 to the extent of the complaint of the petitioner having been partly allowed. The respondent supported Part I order dated 4.2.2009 but challenged the judgment dat...
Noora and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-25-2013
1. All the appeals are filed against the judgment and order of Sessions Case No. 96/2011, which was pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar. From the case, accused Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 7 are convicted and sentenced for offences punishable under sections 396, 457 and 380 of Indian Penal Code. The maximum substantive sentence of ten years is given, which is for the offence punishable under section 396 of I.P.C. and for offence under each section the fine of Rs. 5,000/- is imposed on each of the accused. Navnath (accused No. 2) has filed Criminal Appeal No. 375/2013, Gorakh (accused No. 3) has filed Criminal Appeal No. 592/2012 and Noora (accused No. 5) has filed Criminal Appeal No. 580/2012. Accused No. 7 has not filed any appeal. Both the sides are heard. 2. In short, the facts leading to the institution of the appeal can be stated as follows:- The incident took place on the night between 27.11.2010 and 28.11.2010 in the locality known as Langore Galli, Karjat, Distric...
M/S. Chadalavada Infratech Ltd. and Another Vs. Tata Capital Financial ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-2013
1. By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, petitioners seek to impugn the arbitration award dated 4th January, 2013 made by the learned arbitrator directing the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.13,89,93,546/- with interest thereon at the rate of 24% per annum till payment and/or realisation. It is not in dispute that the petitioners did not appear before the learned arbitrator though notice was received by the petitioners. No written statement was filed by the petitioners before the learned arbitrator. Learned arbitrator has rendered an ex-parte award. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that the petitioners do not dispute the liability of the petitioners to pay to the respondents as claimed but seeks to make payment in installments commencing from January 2014. It is submitted that since the petitioners never disputed the liability there is no arbitrable dispute between the parties. Learned counsel submits that for the purp...
Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd. Vs. MaraThe Textiles Mills and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-2013
Oral Judgment: The Appellant/original Defendant has filed the present Appeal from Order challenging Order dated 11.12.2012 passed by the learned Joint Civil judge, Senior Division, Sangli, whereby Applications at Exhibits 20 and 31, under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (Act of 1940) were rejected and thereby directed the parties to proceed expeditiously in the Suit. The Plaintiff filed the Suit on 22.03.1993 for the breach of contract by mis-performance/delay in supplying the machineries so agreed. The prayers are joint and several against both the Respondents (Defendants). An mandatory injunction was also sought against them to continue to supply the spares of the machinery supplied by them and to provide service maintenance. 2 Both the contesting Respondents/Defendants filed these Applications within reasonable time i.e. 17.06.1994 and thereby requested to stay the civil proceedings till the disposal of arbitration proceedings in view of Section 34 of the Act of 1940. By the...
Mrs. Connie Florence Correia Vs. Raj Maria Apartment Co. Op. Hsg. Soci ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-2013
R.C. Chavan, President: This appeal is directed against the order of Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Bandra allowing partly consumer complaint no.700/07. Appeal is filed by original opponent no.2, owner of the land -Mrs.Connie Florence Correia. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record in order to consider whether the appeal could be decided on merits itself in this Commission, but that does not appear feasible. The appellant claims that she was not residing at the address on which the notice was sent, namely, flat nos.103 and 104 in Raj Maria Apartments CHS, Opp. Corporation Bank, I.C. Colony, Borivali (West), Mumbai 400 103 and that she was in fact residing with her daughter at the relevant time since her daughter was pregnant. Forum proceeded against the appellant ex-parte on the basis of an envelope containing the notice being returned unclaimed by the Postal authorities. Learned counsel for the appellant has dr...
JyotIn Chopra and Another Vs. Aleixo Domingos Fernandes and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Nov-25-2013
Heard Mr. Kantak, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, Mr. D'Costa, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 1 to 9, Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 12 and Mr. Vernekar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 10 and 11. 2. Admit. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. This appeal is directed against the order dated 16/03/2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division at Mapusa, whereby the application for temporary injunction (Exhibit D-4) filed by the appellants in Special Civil Suit No. 48/2012, has been dismissed. 4. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the manner in which their names appear in the cause title of the Special Civil Suit No. 48/2012/C. The appellants are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants. 5. Plaintiffs have filed the said Special Civil Suit No. 48/2012/C for declaration, specific p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »