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.
M/S.Msh Sarees Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Icici Bank Ltd.
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-2014
R.C. Chavan, President: This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Mumbai Suburban District Forum whereby the forum rejected the consumer complaint no.476/2011 filed by the appellant against the respondent bank. The complainant is a Private Limited company which carried on business as a Trader, Supplier and exporter of designer sarees and dress materials. The complainant has shops all over Mumbai and in India. The complainant was having a corporate banking account no.054405002215 with the respondent bank. A cheque with a forged signature bearing no.36039 dated 20/10/2009 drawn in favour of M/s.Gourav Trading Company was honoured by the respondent bank. This cheque was for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-. After the complainant company informed the bank officers that such a cheque was not issued, it was found that a sum of Rs.9,90,000/- had already been withdrawn from the account of the payee. However, disbursement of further sum of Rs.10,00,000/- was prevented. A police compla...
Naval Employees' Union, through Its General Secretary Vs. Union of Ind ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-03-2014
1. This is joint petition filed by the Employees' Union and one of its members/ employees challenging the Office Memorandum dtd. 26.06.2009 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Defence by which the House Rent Allowance/Transport Allowance/Small Family Allowance was excluded for the purpose of computing Overtime Allowance admissible to the employees under the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948. 2. The only grievance put forth on behalf of the employees is exclusion of the HRA/Transport Allowance/Small Family Allowance for the purpose of computing Overtime Allowance, which the employees were getting previously by virtue of the provisions of sub-Section 1 and 2 of Section 59 of the Factories Act, 1948, which specifically provides that where a worker who works for more than nine hours in any day or for more than 48 hours in a week, he shall in respect of overtime work be entitled to wages at the rate of twice his ordinary rate of wages. Sub-section (2) explains the term ordinary r...
Amit Jajeshwar Khadgi, Western Railway, Thane (West) Vs. Union of Indi ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-01-2014
V.D. Vadhavkar 1. The applicant approached this Tribunal challenging the Memorandum dated 18.07.2012 (Annexure A-1) accepting his resignation and letter dated 27.11.2012 (Annexure A-2) informing him about the said decision issued by the Respondents and also seeks his reinstatement on the post of Junior Clerk with effect from 18.06.2012. 2. The facts of the case in brief may be stated as under: That in pursuance of Railway Sports Promotion Board's (RSPB) of the Indian Railways Talent Scouting Quota, the applicant was offered the post of Junior Clerk Group 'C' in higher pay scale as outstanding sportsman. After undergoing the necessary tests, the applicant was appointed to the said post in Western Railway at Mumbai with effect from 22.08.2005 vide appointment order Annexure A-4. While in service, the applicant qualified his graduation and was aspiring to prosecute higher studies in Business Administration. He, therefore, applied to the Respondents for grant of study leave of extra ordina...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›