Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Chandurkar, J.) 1. This appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 takes exception to the judgment dated 30-11-2007 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No.2, Mumbai in Petition No.A704/- 2005. By aforesaid judgment, the petition for divorce that was filed by the petitioner on the ground of cruelty and desertion has been dismissed. 2. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 16-6-1997. The petitioner used to reside at Shelgaon, Pune and his parents used to stay at Dharavi. After their marriage, the appellant and the respondent resided for some time with the appellant's parents and thereafter left for residing at Shelgaon. The respondent, however, was not very keen on residing at Shelgaon. At frequent intervals, when the appellant used to come to Mumbai, the respondent used to accompany him for some days at his parents residence and when the appellant used to return back to Shelgaon, she used to go and stay with her parents. After the birt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
1. Heard Mr. Kholkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and Mr. Amonkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. By this application, filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act, for short) the applicant has prayed for appointment of an arbitrator and to make an order of reference of disputes listed in Exhibit B. 3. Facts as stated by the applicant are as under: The applicant is a proprietary concern and a building contractor. By tender acceptance letter dated 25/05/2012, the respondent no. 2 awarded to the applicant the work of Construction of two Nos. additional floors over the existing office building for Registrar of Companies at EDC Complex, Patto, Panaji, internal electrical installations and fans, etc. A formal agreement No. 7/SE/GCD/2012-13 was executed between the applicant and the respondent no. 2. Clause 25 of the said agreement is the arbitration clause. On account of a fundamental breach of contrac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicants. Also heard the learned APP for the State in both these bail applications. On earlier date, partly the arguments of the learned Counsel for the applicants were heard and the matter was adjourned to this date for arguments on behalf of the State. 2. Present applications for bail are preferred during pendency of the appeals challenging the conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii) and 20(C) read with Section 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 3. According to the case of the prosecution, on prior intimation, raid was conducted at Pune and both the appellants were found having in possession respectively 2 Kgs and 3 Kgs of Charas which they were holding in bags. In presence of panchas their search was conducted after informing them about their right under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. Thereafter requisite samples were taken and after conclusion of the trap, both the applic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
1. This common judgment shall dispose of both the above appeals, since common question of law and facts arise in both. 2. Heard Mr. Pangam, learned Counsel for the appellants and Ms. Linhares, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. 3. These are plaintiffs' appeals against the judgment and decree dated 19.04.2005 and 18.06.2005, passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional District Judge-1, Panaji (trial Court, for short), respectively in Regular Civil Suit No. 146/97/B (old): Civil Suit No. 72/2004 (new) and Regular Civil Suit No. 126/1997/B (old): Civil Suit No. 69/2004 (new). Parties shall hereinafter to be referred as per their status in the said suits. 4. The plaintiffs had filed the said suits for declaration that they are entitled to:- i. Higher scale ofRs. 290-500 as against lower scale of pay of Rs. 260-460 from the date of their appointments; ii. Higher revised pay scales ofRs. 330-530 in terms of Ministry of Education and Culture (Department of Education) Circ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. The matter is called out from the final hearing board. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The Petitioner has challenged order dated 10 March 2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (For short, CAT) whereby, it is observed that: 11 In the present case there were no adverse remarks as such but the DPC gave a grading of Good based on the remarks in the ACR, of relevant years. We, therefore do not see any ground for judicial intervention in the decision taken on the basis of recommendations of a DPC headed by a Member of the UPSC after evaluation of the ACRs of the applicant. Further, a DPC is not supposed to finalise its view solely on the basis of final grading communicated in the ACRs by Reporting, Reviewing and Accepting Authority. The members of the DPC go through the entire record of each year and thereafter make their assessment. 3. The decision so recorded above was taken, based upon the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. The Plaintiff has filed the above Suit against the Defendants inter alia seeking specific performance of an Agreement for Sale dated 16th October, 1985 (ExhibitC to the Plaint), for sale of property situate at Mulund in the registration subdistrict and suburban district at Bandra bearing Survey No. 315, Hissa No. 1 (p) admeasuring 8958.59 sq. mtrs. and Survey No. 316, Hissa No. 1A (p) corresponding to CTS No. 844 admeasuring 83.6 sq.mtrs. or thereabouts, in all admeasuring 9042.17 sq. mtrs. along with the structures standing thereon (the suit property). 2. By an adinterim order dated 15th December, 1987, the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay, was appointed as Receiver of the suit property. By an order dated 25th October, 1990, the adinterim order dated 15th December, 1987, was confirmed. It was further directed that the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay, should not dispossess Defendant Nos. 1, 3 and 4 and the heirs of Defendant No.2 from the second floor premises, but should conti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
1. This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 27-09-2013 passed below Exhibit-10 thereby holding that the statement of claim filed by the petitioner Union in relation to the transfer of 140 employees was beyond the scope of the industrial dispute that had been referred for adjudication. By order dated 23-12-2013, notice for final disposal was issued and accordingly the learned Counsel for the parties have been heard at length. 2. The petitioner is a Union of employees registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and is also recognized under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 [for short, the Act of 1971]. The respondent no.1 is a Public Limited Company wherein the employees represented by the petitioner Union are employed. On 28-02-2007 there was a settlement between the Union and the Management which settlement was to remain in force till 31-12-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Oral Judgment: B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Heard Advocate Shri P.N. Shende for the petitioner, Shri A.S.Fulzele, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Advocate Shri B.H. Shambarkar for respondent nos. 3 and 4. 2. Considering the nature of controversy, matter is heard finally by issuing Rule and making it returnable forthwith. 3. Advocate Shri P.N. Shende submits that the petitioner claims increment for the period prior to his reinstatement in terms of the judgment of the School Tribunal dated 20-02-2001. According to him, the petitioner has been reinstated with continuity as also backwages and when the matter went before the Honble Apex Court, the petitioner only waived backwages. Hence the benefits of continuity should have been given and while reinstating the petitioner back in service, his wages should have been fixed after releasing increments notionally till that date. He submits that when the omission of Management to fix the wages accordingly was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. The Plaintiff has filed the above Suit against the Defendants, inter alia seeking specific performance of an Agreement for Sale dated 16th October, 1985 (Exhibit-C to the Plaint) for sale of property situate at Mulund in the registration sub-district and suburban district at Bandra bearing Survey No.315, Hissa No.1 (p) admeasuring 8958.59 sq. mtrs. and Survey No.316, Hissa No.1A(p) corresponding to CTS No.844 admeasuring 83.6 sq.mtrs. or thereabouts, in all admeasuring 9042.17 sq. mtrs. along with the structures standing thereon ("the suit property"). 2. By an ad-interim order dated 15th December, 1987, the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay, was appointed as Receiver of the suit property. By an order dated 25th October, 1990, the ad-interim order dated 15th December, 1987, was confirmed. It was further directed that the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay, should not dispossess Defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 and the heirs of Defendant No.2 from the second floor premises but to continue th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
1. Heard Mr. Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Almeida, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 1 to 4. 2. This Second Appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 24/10/2008 passed by the learned District Judge-4, South Goa, Margao (First Appellate Court, for short) in Regular Civil Appeal No. 135/2000. The said Regular Civil Appeal was filed against the judgment and decree dated 29/04/2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Margao (trial Court, for short) in Regular Civil Suit No. 247/1973/F. The said suit was decreed by the trial Court but dismissed by the First appellate Court. 3. The appellants no. 1 and 2 and respondents no. 5 to 15 are the legal representatives of the original plaintiffs no. 1 and 2 whereas the appellants no. 3 and 4 were the plaintiffs no. 3 and 4 in the said suit. The respondents no. 2 to 4 are the legal representatives of the deceased defendant no. 1 and the respondent no. 1 was ...
Tag this Judgment!