Mumbai Court January 2014 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.
Union of India (Thr. Secretary Govt.of India Department of Atomic Ener ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-2014
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Kanade, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 4. 2. By this petition, which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners are seeking an appropriate writ, order and directions for quashing and setting aside the Judgment and order dated 27.2.2004 and 22.11.2004 passed in O.A.No.367 of 2003 and Misc.Petition No.607 of 2004 in O.A.No.367 of 2003 by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Brief facts which are necessary for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under: 3. Sometime in September, 1999 respondent no.2 Bhabha Atomic Research Centre sent a requisition to the local Employment Exchange seeking the list of eligible persons for filling up the posts of drivers and also issued a circular to its various offices throughout India for filling up the posts from departmental candidates. Various criterias were prescribed for the said posts. Acco...
Rosarinho D'Costa and Others Vs. A.B. Menezes, Advocate and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-23-2014
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. N. Sardessai, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. A. F. Diniz, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The above appeal came to be admitted by order dated 31.03.2008 on the following substantial questions of law. (a) Whether the clauses of the Agreement dated 8.12.1984 executed by the builder with the respondents, which were clearly in excess of the powers/authority given by the appellants to the builder by Agreement dated 31.03.1984 and the Power of Attorney dated 29.03.1984 be said to be binding on the appellants especially when the respondents were aware that the builder's Agreement with the appellants and the Power of Attorney given by the appellants to the builder did not empower the builder to execute such clauses ? (b) Whether it was mandatory for the Appellate Court to have framed issues/points for determination and decide the same while disposing the Regular Civil Appeal No.160/2001 ? (c) Whether the findings of the Courts be...
Prakash Vrundavan Thakkar Vs. the Nagpur Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. and ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-23-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Admit. ShriSoni, the learned counsel waives service of notice for respondent no.1. Though the other respondents are served, no one appears for them. Since the dispute is between the appellant and the respondent no.1, it is not necessary for this Court to issue fresh notices to the respondent nos. 2 and 3 and the matter can be heard finally. Hence, by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the matter is herd finally. 2. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 8th November, 2012, passed by the learned Principal District Judge at Nagpur, in Misc. Civil Application No. 121/2007, filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as œthe said Act) by the appellant for setting aside the arbitral award to the extent it operates against the petitioner. 3. The question involved before the learned Principal District Judge in the application under Section 34 of the said Act was regarding...
M/S. Omarkhayyam Bar and Restaurant Vs. Deputy Regional Director, Sub ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-23-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal is directed against the order passed on 31st July, 2004 in Application (ESI) No.2 of 1994 by the Employees' State Insurance Court, Nagpur. The appellant carries on business of Restaurant and Bar at Nagpur. The Insurance Inspector of the respondent had conducted a survey and drawn a preliminary inspection report of the establishment of the appellant on 21.4.1993. Thereafter, on 25.9.1993 he visited the establishment of the appellant and submitted his report stating that the establishment was covered under the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereafter referred to as œState Insurance Act?). By the report, the Inspector recommended for coverage of state insurance contribution by the appellant with effect from 20th October, 1989. The appellant was served with the demand note dated 12.11.1993 calling upon it to pay Rs.34,537/- as the amount of insurance coverage within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. The appellant made a repre...
Mrs. Sunita, Nagpur Vs. Union of India, Through General Manager, Centr ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-2014
Chameli Majumdar, Member (J) 1. The applicant, in this Original Application has impugned the communication dated 12.04.2010 whereby the administration issued Show Cause Notice to the applicant to furnish some explanation within seven days of receipt of the letter as to why the family pension granted to the applicant should not be stopped. The applicant has also challenged the communication dated 28.12.2010 addressed to the applicant by the Divisional Railway Manager, Nagpur, whereby the respondents rejected the representation of the applicant and refused to pay the ex-gratia lumpsum compensation, family pension, widow pass etc. The respondents further informed the applicant that the respondents decided to withdraw the proposal for ex-gratia lumpsum compensation sent to Headquarters Office vide letter dated 22.02.2010. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case as made out by the applicant is that while performing his duty the railway employee, being the husband of the applicant, met with an a...
GayadIn Sukhadev Yadav and Another Vs. Union of India Through the Gene ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-2014
(BOMBAY BENCH, MUMBAI. CAMP : NAGPUR) Chameli Majumdar, Member (J). 1. The applicant no. 1, while working as Group 'C' employee, as Passenger Driver in the grade of Rs. 5500-9000, was declared medically unfit for categories A-1, A-2, A-3, B-1, B-2 and B-3 but was declared fit for C-1 and was medically decategorized by the Chief Medical Superintendent on 24.08.1998. According to applicant no. 1, the alternate equivalent suitable post in lower medical category was not available, therefore, the applicant was offered a post eight grades below in Group 'D'. Hence, the applicant no. 1 declined to accept the same. The applicant, thereafter, wrote a letter to the Divisional Railway Manager dated 20.11.1998 requesting, inter alia, that if Divisional Authority is not in a position to offer the applicant with an alternative job of his previous status in the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000, then he may be allowed to retire from service with assurance to appoint his ward on compassionate ground in terms...
Bhagyawan Sampat Bagade, Nagpur Vs. the Union of India, Through the Se ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-2014
(Oral). Dr. Mrutyunjay Sarangi, Member (J). The applicant had appeared in the Junior Accounts Officer, Part-II examination in September, 1997 and he was not selected. There was no examination for Junior Accounts Officer between 1997 to 2011. On 05.07.2011 this Tribunal passed order in O.A.No.2208/2010 and directed the Respondents to consider th case of holding J.A.O. Part-II Examination. Accordingly, Respondent No.2 had issued notification for holding the examination on 29.12.2012 and 30.12.2012. We are informed that the examination has been conducted. 2. The present Original Application has been filed with a prayer to review declaration of the JAO Part-II Examination result of 1997 and to grant grace marks to the applicants and to declare them as passed. The applicant has mainly sought the following reliefs: i). To review his case after the declaration of the J.A.O. Part-II examination result of 1997 and to grant him grace marks as provided in letter dated 04.05.1981 (Annexure A-3)(a)...
Nirmala Ramchandra Ranglal Vs. Union of India Through the General Mana ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-2014
(BOMBAY BENCH, MUMBAI, CAMP: NAGPUR) Chameli Majumdar, Member (J): 1. The husband of the applicant, namely late Shri Ramchandra Ranglal, was appointed on compassionate ground as Pointsman on 11.10.1986. Prior to this, he was working as Casual Gangman in Nagpur Division. While in service, the husband of the applicant was issued major penalty charge memorandum for unauthorized absence from 06.02.1997 to 30.07.1997. The penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed upon him. 2. The applicant received amount of Group Insurance, Provident Fund and unpaid wages of the deceased husband, totaling to Rs. 15,871/-on 29.02.2000. The applicant approached the respondents for payment of arrears of pension as well as family pension vide her letter dated 22.03.2004. The respondents released payment of settlement dues on 27.08.2004 but family pension was not released to the applicant. The applicant, again after 2004, in the year 2007 made a representation to the authorities to release family pension vid...
Gautam Govindrao Manwatkar Vs. the Union of India, Through the Secreta ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-2014
(BOMBAY BENCH, MUMBAI. CAMP: NAGPUR) Dr. Mrutyunjay Sarangi, Member (J): 1. The applicant had appeared in the Junior Accounts Officer, Part-II examination in September, 1997 and he was not selected. There was no examination for Junior Accounts Officer between 1997 to 2011. On 05.07.2011 this Tribunal passed order in O.A.No.2208/2010 and directed the Respondents to consider th case of holding J.A.O. Part-II Examination. Accordingly, Respondent No.2 had issued notification for holding the examination on 29.12.2012 and 30.12.2012. We are informed that the examination has been conducted. 2. The present Original Application has been filed with a prayer to review declaration of the JAO Part-II Examination result of 1997 and to grant grace marks to the applicants and to declare them as passed. The applicant has mainly sought the following reliefs: "i) To review his case after the declaration of the J.A.O. Part-II examination result of 1997 and to grant him grace marks as provided in letter da...
Gautam Govindrao Manwatkar, Nagpur Vs. the Union of India, Through the ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-2014
(BOMBAY BENCH, MOMBAI, CAMP: NAGPUR) Dr. Mrutyunjay Sarangi, Member (J). 1. The applicant had appeared in the Junior Accounts Officer, Part-II examination in September, 1997 and he was not selected. There was no examination for Junior Accounts Officer between 1997 to 2011. On 05.07.2011 this Tribunal passed order in O.A.No.2208/2010 and directed the Respondents to consider the case of holding J.A.O. Part-II Examination. Accordingly, Respondent No.2 had issued notification for holding the examination on 29.12.2012 and 30.12.2012. We are informed that the examination has been conducted. 2. The present Original Application has been filed with a prayer to review declaration of the JAO Part-II Examination result of 1997 and to grant grace marks to the applicants and to declare them as passed. The applicant has mainly sought the following reliefs: i) To review his case after the declaration of the J.A.O. Part-II examination result of 1997 and to grant him grace marks as provided in letter da...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »