Mumbai Court September 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.
Transport and Dock Workers Union Vs. Mumbai Port Trust
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-2014
1. The Transport and Dock Workers Union (Union) questions the award dated 8 November 2005 (impugned award) made by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT). By the impugned award, the CGIT has: (i) denied the General Purpose Mazdoors (GPMs) differential wages, when they discharge the duties of Stevedore workmen (SW) 'as a compact gang' ; (ii) upheld the action of Mumbai Port Trust (MPT) of deduction of 20 days wages for the period between 1 August 1998 to 20 August 1998, during which period the GPMs refused to discharge duties of SW, as their demand for differential wages was not being favorably considered by the MPT. 2. The GPMs were initially employees of Bombay Dock Labour Board (BDLB). However, with effect from 1 April 1994, GPMs were absorbed and became employees of the MPT. About 640 GPMs, upon absorption were promoted by MPT to the category of SW, as there was a shortage in the said category. Despite such promotions, shortage continued and on several occasions, the GPMs...
Rishi Narendra Vijan Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-2014
P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for State. Perused the papers. 2. This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The applicant herein is apprehending his arrest in Crime No.427 of 2014 registered at Santacruz Police Station for offence punishable under Section 498A, 406, 506, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The facts of the case are as follows : The applicant herein is married to the complainant on 19th April, 2013. The complainant is working as Branch Manager in ICICI Bank at Linking Road Branch. The couple had been to Thailand after their marriage. It is alleged that the applicant herein had not shown any interest in the complainant and that the marriage was not consummated. After marriage the complainant had been to her maternal house on 14th May, 2013. She returned to her matrimonial home on 15th June, 2013 and had stayed there upto 28th August, 2013. It is alleged by the complainant th...
Anjanabai Hanumantrao Sonawane and Others Vs. Hindustan Construction C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-2014
P.C. 1. Whether this Court should hear and dispose of this suit or the suit has to be tried by the Court of Small Causes, Mumbai is the issue. It is the case of the defendant that this Court does not have jurisdiction in view of Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act 1882 (for brevity referred as 'the said Act') and therefore, the plaint has to be returned to the plaintiffs under Order VII Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and to be presented to the appropriate forum, viz., the Court of Small Causes at Bombay. 2. The plaintiffs have filed an affidavit in reply opposing the chamber summons whereby the stand is that the present suit is not between the lessees/landlord/tenants and therefore, this Court has jurisdiction. 3. The case of the defendant, in short however, is that, the plaint as it reads clearly shows that the dispute raised by the plaintiffs is for possession of the suit property and that the plaintiffs' wish to be declared as lessees of the suit property. ...
Deepak Dalvirsingh Sisodia Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-2014
P.C. 1. The applicant is the accused no.9 in MCOC Special Case No.19 of 2011 pending before the Special Court constituted under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the MCOC Act'). He is in custody since 17th July 2011. The applicant had previously also applied for bail, but his application was rejected by me. (Bail Application No.982/12 decided on 12th August 2013). Now, the prayer for bail has been renewed primarily on two grounds i.e. that though a period of one year has elapsed since rejection of the previous application, the trial has not yet commenced, and that since the trial did not commence within a reasonable time, a co-accused in this case i.e. Paulson Joseph Palitra, has been released on bail. 2. The facts of the case were fully and carefully considered while rejecting the previous application for bail filed by the applicant. For the sake of convenience, the facts of the case as recorded in the said order may be reproduced here, ...
M/s. Kitply Industries Limited Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anothe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-2014
1. This petition, is directed against the order issuing process, dated 29th April, 2013, passed by the learned Magistrate as against the petitioners under Section 138 r/w 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The said order issuing process was confirmed in Revision by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge, vide Judgment and Order dated 3rd April, 2014. 2. A few facts as are necessary to decide the present petition are as under: The respondent no.2 (original complainant) has filed a criminal complaint, being C.C.No.312/SS/2013 in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ulhasnagar, Kalyan, alleging offences punishable under Section 138 r/w Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. According to the respondent no.2 complainant, on the basis of the representations and assurances made by the petitioner no.1 company, through its Directors/Officers, the respondent no.2 discounted bills of the petitioner no.1 company and advanced consideration to the petitioner no.1 com...
Shaikh Hidayat Vs. Maria Elvina Das Neves Fereira Trindade and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-04-2014
1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree passed by the learned 3rd Additional Civil Judge Senior Division at Margao in Special Civil Suit No.181/96/III on 30th April, 2008 by which the civil suit filed by the original plaintiff praying for specific performance, is dismissed with costs. 2. The case of the plaintiff is that:- The plaintiff filed the suit praying for decree for specific performance of the agreement in respect of the property admeasuring about 11920 Sq. Mtrs. surveyed under chalta No.20 of PT Sheet No.133 known as Palmar E Varzea Natibata situated at Borda of Margao. The plaintiff prayed for the decree for specific performance of the agreement in respect of the above mentioned property along with the areas reserved for two mundkars. The plaintiff prayed for the decree for specific performance in respect of the suit property against all the defendants. By way of an amendment, the plaintiff made alternative prayer and submitted that if the Court comes to the conc...
Harinarayan Bajaj Vs. Madhukar Sheth
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-2014
Oral Judgment: (S.J. Vazifdar, J.) 1. This is an appeal against the order and judgment of the learned single Judge, dismissing the appellant's petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside an award passed by the arbitral tribunal dated 07.11.2003. The award directed the appellant to pay the respondent a sum of Rs.1,58,39,459-87 but refused to grant interest or costs. 2. The appellant entered into various transactions in respect of shares listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE). The respondent was one of the appellant's brokers. The parties had entered into a MemberClient Agreement dated 31.08.2000. Clauses 1, 6 and 7 thereof read as under :- 1. The provisions of this agreement shall always be subjected to government notifications, any rules, regulation and guidelines issued by SEBI and stock exchange rules, regulations and bye laws that may be in force from time to time. 6. All trades, transactions and contracts are subject to the Rules and Regu...
Niranjan Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-04-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 30/7/2005 delivered by 2nd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad thereby convicting the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the appeal are as under.: P.W.1, hereinafter referred to as the prosecutrix, lodged a report with Police Station, Khandala, district Yavatmal at about 1.45 p.m. of 08/9/2003 alleging that the appellant together with another person Vakil caught hold of the prosecutrix at about 3.00 p.m. of 07/9/2003 at village Sawargaon when she was returning after answering nature's call and dragging her to a nearby cattle-shed, the appellant committed rape upon the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix alleged that Vakil pressed her mouth and the appellant had caught hold of her both the hands while forcibly taking her to cattle-shed. She further alleged that after ...
Geeta Narayan Parvati Vs. Vijaya B. Joshi and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-2014
1. The quest of having a roof over one's head can be said to have given rise to the above proceedings as well as companion Writ Petition No.4775 of 2001. 2. The writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked against the judgment and order dated 17/11/2000 passed by the learned President of the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court by which order the Appeal filed by the Respondent No.1 herein came to be allowed and resultantly the judgment and order dated 4/9/1999 passed by the learned Judge, Co-operative Court No.1, Mumbai allowing the Dispute came to be set aside. 3. The factual matrix invoked in the above Petition can be stated thus: The Petitioner herein at the relevant time was a lecturer in the Elphinstone College, Mumbai and was a member of the Respondent No.2 Society. Respondent No.2 is a Society registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act (for short the said Act) some time in April 1979 and is a tenant ...
Navjeevan Shikshan Sanstha, through its Secretary Shri Dhanraj Rewatka ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-04-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This petition takes exception to the order passed by the School Tribunal Nagpur dated 11-4-2005 passed on the application for condonation of delay in filing appeal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of service) Regulation Act, 1977 (for short the said Act). Similarly, order dated 18-7-2005 deciding the preliminary issues and judgment dated 8-8-2005 passed in the aforesaid appeal allowing the same are also under challenge. 2. The respondent No.1 claims to have been appointed on probation on the post of Assistant Teacher on 6-7-1999. The initial appointment was made by Sadbhawana Bahuuddeshiya Shikshan Sanstha which was running the petitioner No.2 school. The said school thereafter was transferred to petitioner no.1 society and according to respondent No.1, he continued to serve in said institution. On 23-6-2004, respondent No.1 was not permitted to resume his duties and as his services were orally terminated on 21-9-2004 he pref...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »