Mumbai Court December 2015 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. Bhairav Industries and Another Vs. M/s. Shree Ghanshyam Parts P. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-2015
REASONED ORDER : 1. The applicant is claiming to be a bona-fide purchaser of plot No.W-89 (the said plot) without notice of any proceedings pending or initiated against the Company (in liquidation) and is praying the official liquidator be restrained from taking possession of the said plot. 2. On 29.05.2012, the representatives of the official liquidator went to take possession of the said plot, the applicant stated that he purchased the said plot and he and his son are carrying on business in the said plot. According to the applicant, he and his son were carrying on business in the same MIDC area and in view of his expanding nature of business, he negotiated with the director of the Company (in liquidation) to purchase the said plot. The plot was mortgaged with bank of Baroda and upon Bank of Baroda giving an NOC, dated 22.03.2011, an agreement for Deed of Assignment dated 30.04.2011, the applicant has acquired the said plot. Though the applicant claims to have obtained rights under t...
Vaidyakiya Karmachari Sanghatana and Others Vs. Pravara Medical Trust
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-21-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Rule. 3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petitions are taken up for final disposal. 4. In all these Writ Petitions, the petitioners have challenged the judgment and orders dated 29.6.2015, delivered by the Industrial Tribunal in Approval Applications Nos.1 to 36 of 2015. The respondent in all these petitions is the same management. The petitioners are the Union and individual workmen, who are identically placed. I have, therefore, taken up all these petitions together for hearing and disposal. 5. The petitioners submit that prior to their termination on 23.1.2015 about 43 workmen were terminated in the year 2009-10. The Union raised an industrial dispute with regard to the termination of these 43 workers. No other dispute was raised by the Union, save and except the termination of these 43 persons. As such, it was only these 43 employees who were concerned with their individual terminations. 6. Since the conciliation proceedings failed,...
Nanded District Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Through its Deputy ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-21-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Rule. 3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal. 4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment of the Labour Court dated 26.5.2014, by which, Complaint (ULP) No. 72 of 2011, preferred by the respondent was allowed partly. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the judgment of the Industrial Court, dated 3.2.2015, by which Revision (ULP) No.50 of 2014, filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 5. Considering THE submissions of the learned Advocates for the respective parties and the record available, the following two issues arise for my consideration:- (i) Whether the resignation letter dated 19.12.2005 tendered by the respondent praying for being relieved on 6.1.2006, can be said to be obtained by the petitioner under force, duress or coercion? (ii) Whether the petitioner can be faulted for having accepted the resignation tendered by the respondent within a period of one month from the date of resignati...
Pratapsingh Raoji Rane Vs. Jitendra Zoiba Rane and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-18-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Surveyor present in person and submits a report as per the directions of this Court by order dated 9/10/2015. The said report is taken on record and marked 'X' for identification. Copies of the report furnished to the respective Counsel appearing for both the parties. Mr. C.A. Ferreira, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant in terms of the said order has agreed to bear the costs of the commission. The bill has already been handed over to the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant who has undertaken to pay to the Surveyor/Commissioner within one week from today. 2. As the report has already been submitted the Surveyor is accordingly discharged. 3. Heard Mr. C.A. Ferreira, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. G. Agni, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. The above appeal came to be admitted by on order dated 6/08/2008 on the following substantial question of law: 1. Whether non-compliance of Order 7, Rule 3, C.P.C. Is f...
Kondabai Ganu Barkale (since deceased through her Legal Heirs Smt. Hou ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-2015
1. This petition takes exception to the judgments and orders dated 30 October 1986, 30 June 1987 and 4 December 1990 made by the Additional Tahsildhar, Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) and Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT) under the provisions of the Maharashtra Tenancy Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (Tenancy Act). The said Authorities under the Tenancy Act have held that the petitioners right to purchase the suit property has been rendered ineffective in terms of Section 32F and Section 32O of the Tenancy Act, but the matter was remanded to the Tahsildar for conduct of enquiry in terms of Section 32P (2)(b) or (c) of the Tenancy Act. 2. The predecessors-in-title of the petitioners, as well as the petitioners themselves, shall be referred to as the 'tenants'. Similarly the predecessors-in-title of the respondents as well as the respondents themselves, shall be referred to as the 'landlords' for sake of convenience. 3. There is no dispute that the suit property, which is an agricultural prop...
Chowgule Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sakharam Gad and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-18-2015
1. Heard Mr. Atul Damle, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Bennet D'Costa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 14 in Writ Petition No. 738/2015 and for respondent no.1 in Writ Petition No. 739/2015. 2. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. Heard by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. Mr. R. Menezes, learned Counsel waives notice on behalf of the respondent nos 1 to 14 in Writ Petition No.738/2015 and for the respondent no.1 in Writ Petition no. 739/2015. FACTS IN WRIT PETITION NO. 738 OF 2015 4. The present petition is filed by the petitioner/Employer under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and seeks to challenge the award dated 8.7.2015 passed by the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court in Reference No. IT/10/2011 wherein benefits of settlement was directed to be made applicable to the workers. 5. Parties are referred to as per their original status. The brief facts may be stated as follows:- In t...
Ballarpur Industries Limited Vs. Maharashtra Lok Kamgar Sanghatana and ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-18-2015
B.R. Gavai, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.3944 of 2006 thereby allowing the petition of respondent no.1 and setting aside the order passed by the learned Industrial Court and allowing the complaint of respondent no.1, the appellants have approached this Court. 2. The facts in brief giving rise to the present appeal are as under:- Respondent no.1 which is undisputedly an unrecognized Union filed a complaint being Complaint ULP No.1286 of 1987 under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "MRTU and PULP Act) under Item Nos. 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the said Act. However, the said complaint came to be withdrawn. 3. A subsequent complaint being Complaint ULP No. 964 of 2000 came to be filed only under Item Nos. 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act. In the said complaint it was contention of th...
Hukumchand and Others Vs. The Collector, Nagpur and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-18-2015
Oral Judgment: (Vasanti A Naik, J.) 1. RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioners have sought the cancellation of the special meeting dated 02.06.2015 for considering the No Confidence Motion against the petitioner nos.1 and 2 as the respondent nos.4 to 7, who participated in the special meeting, were disqualified from being the members of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Kamptee. 3. While the Agriculture Produce Market Committee of Kamptee was constituted, the respondent nos.4 to 6 were elected by the members of the managing committees of the Agriculture Credit Societies and Multipurpose Credit Cooperative Societies as per Section 13(1)(a)(i) of the Act of 1963. So also, the respondent no.7 was elected by the members of Village Panchayats functioning in the market area as per Section 13(1)(a)(ii). Admittedly, when a notice for cal...
Chandrabhan @ Aba Jagan Salunke Vs. The State of Maharashtra Through t ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-18-2015
V.K. Jadhav, J. 1. In this appeal, the challenge is to the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, dated 8.6.2012 in Sessions case No. 183 of 2011, thereby convicting the appellant/accused Chandrabhan @ Aba Jagan Salunke, for the offence punishable under Section 363 of I.P.C. and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, i/d to suffer further R.I. for six months, for the offence punishable under Section 376 of I.P.C. and sentencing to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, i/d to suffer R.I. for one year, for the offence punishable under section 302 of I.P.C. and sentencing to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, i/d to suffer R.I. for one year and for the offence punishable under Section 201 of I.P.C. and sentencing to suffer R.I. for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- i/d to suffer R.I. for one year. The learned Additional Sessions Judge Ja...
Satish @ Santosh Gaonkar Vs. Durgesh B. Gaokar and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-18-2015
1. By this appeal, the appellant/ claimant is challenging the judgment and award dated 30/11/2009, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Margao in Claims Petition No.243/2007. 2. By the impugned judgment, the Claims Petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed. 3. The brief facts are that the appellant was, at the relevant time, working as a Peon in Department of Post at Chinchinim Branch and was getting salary of Rs.3422/- per month. The appellant was 29 years of age. The accident in question had occurred on 04/07/2007. It is contended that the appellant had gone to the Chinchinim Post Office and was returning home on a Bajaj Kawasaki Caliber vehicle bearing registration No.GA02-P-4580 as a pillion rider. The said motor bike was driven by the first respondent, who is the brother of the appellant. The appellant had started at around 11.30 hours and when they reached three road junction near Uskini Band, Cuncolim, Salcete, Goa on National Highway 17, leading from Margao to...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »