Mumbai Court August 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.
Bhadrawati Shikshan Sanstha Bhadrawati and Another Vs. Hashib Pasha an ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-02-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri Jibhkate, the learned Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Shende, the learned Advocate for the respondent no.1 and Ms. Rane, the learned AGP for the respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. The petition takes exception to the order passed by the School Tribunal allowing the appeal filed by the respondent no.1, setting aside the termination order and directing his reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages. 4. The respondent no.1 filed the appeal before the School Tribunal contending that the petitioner no.2-Head Master had issued an advertisement for the post of peon in the daily "Loksatta" dated 3rd December, 1999, pursuant to which the selection process was undertaken. It is submitted that the school administered by the petitioner no.1-Management by order dated 13th December, 1999 on probation for the period of two years i. e. 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. The respondent no.1 was prevented from signing the Muster Roll from...
Maharashtra Cylinders (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Ramesh and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-02-2014
1. Heard Mr.V.P.Marpakwar, learned Counsel for the petitioner. None appears on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioner has challenged the Order, dt.7.8.2007 passed by the Industrial Court, Nagpur in Complaint (ULP) No.412 of 2004 whereby the complaint filed by the respondents was partly allowed and layoff declared by the petitioner was held illegal and full back wages were granted for the period of lay off. The Court held that the petitioner herein committed the unfair labour practice while resorting to lay-off and not paying Wages (vide item 9 Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The payment of workers was held as wrongfully withheld by the employer. 3. It is argued that the petitioner is an industry engaged in manufacturing of Gas Cylinders at Kalmeshwar, District Nagpur and the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 are applicable and not Chapter V-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947....
Arun Vs. Roxann Sharma
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-02-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Sudin Usgaonkar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S.D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel and at their request to hear finally. 3. Mr. Noel Dias Sapeco, learned counsel for the respondent waives service. 4. The above Writ Petition inter-alia seeks to quash and set aside an order passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Margao, dated 31.01.2014 in Matrimonial Petition No.59/2013 whereby an application for interim custody filed by the respondent came to be allowed and the respondent who is the mother was given interim custody of the male child with visitation rights to the petitioner herein. 5. Before I proceed to examine the rival contentions, the brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of deciding the above Writ Petition are that the petitioner and the respondent were married in U.S.A. and out of their wedlock a child was born o...
Ramujagir Samarth Mishra Vs. Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T.C. Corpora ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-02-2014
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 2. By this petition, the Petitioner questions the Judgment dt. 16.1.2014 delivered by the Industrial Court, Akola in Revision (ULP) No.35 of 2011 on the ground that it is illegal and liable to be set aside. 3. The Petitioner was working as a Driver with the respondent. On 3.2.1991, on the Washim-Aurangabad route, a vehicle dashed against the bus of the petitioner from back side and a death was resulted. The petitioner was prosecuted, but acquitted. He was dismissed on 11.7.1992 after holding the departmental inquiry. He challenged the action of the respondent as invalid by filing a complaint as to unfair labour practice. The complaint was partly allowed by the Labour Court by order dated 15.2.2002 and the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service was granted. No back wages were granted. The relief granted was challenged by the respondent, while the petitioner had challenged refusal of the back wages. Both the Revision app...
Dr. Satish Dhanaji Pawar Director of Public Health and Another Vs. Dr. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-2014
Naresh H. Patil, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 2. Both these petitions challenge common judgment and order passed in original application no. 360/2012, original application no. 94/2013 and original application no. 95/2013 by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 27th January, 2014. Hence, both petitions are disposed of by common judgment. 3. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1936/2014 was one of the respondents in original applications filed before the Tribunal. The applicants before Tribunal questioned the shortlisting criteria adopted by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'MPSC' in short) for filling up post of Director, Health Services, Government of Maharashtra. An advertisement was issued bearing No. 184/2012 on 20th January, 2012 for selecting suitable persons to fill up posts of Director, Health Services, Maharashtra State. The Urban Development, Public Health and Housing Department had framed Recru...
Sarvjeet Chhotelal Tiwari alias S.C. Tiwari Vs. Union of India, throug ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-2014
Ravindra V. Ghuge J. 01. By an order dated 14/07/2006, this petition was admitted. 02. By this petition, the Petitioner seeks to challenge his compulsory removal from service effected by the Respondent employer dated 27/12/2001 and the judgment of CAT dated 30/09/2004 whereby his original application was dismissed. 03. We have heard the learned advocates for the respective sides. The submissions of Shri.M.S.Karnik, learned advocate for the petitioner can be summarized as under: a) The petitioner was appointed as a 'Booking Clerk' with the respondent-Railway Department. b) He was posted as a 'Booking Clerk' at the Lokmanya Tilak Terminus, Mumbai. c) On 26/11/1999, the petitioner was issued with a chargesheet. d) Two charges were levelled against him. The first charge was that he had over charged the Decoy passenger by Rs.2/- and the second charge was that Rs.122/- were found short in the railway cash. e) The petitioner in his written say denied the charges and has explained his case thr...
Dattatraya Narayan Shitole Vs. Sadashiv and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-01-2014
1. Heard Mr. B.A. Shinde h/for Mr. V.P. Latange, Advocate for the Applicants, Mrs. Rashmi Kulkarni, Advocate h/for Mr. S.D. Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mrs. Pratibha Bharad, A.P.P. for the State of Maharashtra. With the assistance of learned counsel for the respective parties, I have gone through the impugned judgment and also the record. 2. The present Cri.Revn.Appln. is filed by first informant - Dattatraya Narayan Shitole, on whose report dated 2nd May, 1996, CR No.117/1996 was registered against Respondent Nos.1 to 3 with Police Station, Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar for the offences punishable U/Section.s. 436, 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After the trial in Sessions Case No.264 Of 1996, the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar vide his Judgment and Order dated 27th February, 2001 was pleased to acquit Resp.Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable U/Section.s. 436, 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The State has not preferred Criminal App...
Executive Engineer, Public Works Division Vs. Mahadeo Govindrao Naraya ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-01-2014
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. The petitioner has questioned legality of the Judgment and Award, dated 9.6.2005 passed by the Labour Court, Wardha in Reference (IDA) No. 42 of 1996 whereby the respondent was directed to be reinstated to his former post with continuity of service. The Reference was answered in the affirmative declaring that the petitioner had illegally terminated the services of the respondent with effect from 1.4.1986. The respondent had raised dispute before the Labour Court, Wardha about the unfair labour practice by the petitioner of illegally terminating the services of the respondent, claiming reinstatement and back wages. On failure of the reconciliation proceedings, the dispute was referred to adjudication by the Labour Court, Nagpur. 3. The respondent was employed with effect from 1.8.1981, was on the muster roll and was getting the fixed salary of Rs. 560/- per month, paid monthly at working site at Iron Bridge situated over the ra...
Khushbu Sandeep Jain and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-2014
S.C. Gupte, J. 1. These Petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seek to challenge orders of detention passed against two detenus under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act, 1974. The Petitioners had earlier filed writ petitions before this Court, being Criminal Writ Petition No. 3499 of 2013 and Writ Petition No. 3436 of 2013, challenging the validity of the orders of detention. These Petitions were rejected by this Court after hearing the Petitioners and the detaining authority. The present Petitions are on the footing that they raise fresh and new grounds of attack against the orders of detention and that successive petitions on such fresh and new grounds are not barred on the principles of res judicata or constructive res judicata and ought to be decided on their own merits. The controversy in these Petitions, thus, concerns the permissibility of successive habeas corpus petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the parameters to be considered by th...
The Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City II Vs. M/s Mafatlal Dyes a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-2014
B.P. Colabawalla J. 1. By this Income Tax Reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) has referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this Court:- (A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing the assessee's claim of Rs.5,07,247/- disallowed u/s 40A(8) of the I.T. Act ? (B) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of the CIT(A) directing the Assessing Officer to recompute the disallowance under Rule 6D of the I.T. Act on the basis of aggregate trip of each employee and not on the basis of each trip undertaken by the employee ? 2. The Assessment Year in question is 1985-86. As far as Question (A) is concerned, it was the case of the Assessee that the interest paid on deposits ought to be allowed as a deduction under section 80V of the I.T. Act 1961 as th...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »