Mumbai Court August 2016 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.
Ambadas and Others Vs. Exide Industries Limited and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-09-2016
Oral Judgment : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 02.07.2015 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short the CLRA Act, 1970 ). 3. The Petitioners submit that Petitioner No.1 was engaged as a contract labourer by Respondent No.1-Factory through the contractor. He had worked for about 27 months and thereafter, has been disengaged. He is not in employment for quite sometime. 4. Petitioner No.2 is said to have resigned from the services of Respondent No.1. It is stated that he had subsequently challenged his removal on the ground of illegal termination. The said challenge has been rejected. 5. Petitioner No.3 is the Maharashtra Navnirman Kamgar Sanghatana which claims to have membership amongst the persons engaged by Respondent No.1 Factory. It claims to be representing the workers and hence, has the right to espouse thei...
Shrikrushna Onkarrao Raipure Vs. Divisional Commissioner, Amravati and ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-09-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court, being aggrieved by the order dated 23.02.2013 vide which the period spent by the petitioner outside the prison after expiry of his parole period came to be treated as absence and penalty in the ratio of 1:3 days was imposed upon him. 3. The petitioner applied for parole on the ground that his mother was seriously ill and the said application was allowed on 04.04.2011 and the petitioner was released on parole on 12.04.2011 for 30 days. The petitioner, thereafter applied for extension for a further period of 30 days. The same was also granted. The petitioner again applied for extension of parole for further period of 30 days. Vide order dated 14.07.2011 the said application was rejected. However, the prior to the rejection of the application, the petitioner had surrendered on 02.07.2011 i.e. belatedly by 20 days....
Harsha Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the communication dated 1st July, 2016 issued by respondent no. 1 conveying that the petitioner is ineligible for appointing as Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate, First Class (for short CJJD and JMFC ). Since a very short point is involved and we have the benefit of detailed arguments, we grant Rule. Respondents waive service. We dispose of this petition finally by this judgment. 2. It is common ground that the petitioner is a citizen of India and she applied for being appointed as CJJD and JMFC. 3. She has narrated in the petition as to how throughout she has been meritorious in her career. She joined the five year degree course of law in the M. P. Law College, Aurangabad. After taking admission to the first year of the five year law course, she enrolled herself with the National Cadet Corps (NCC). She had actively participated in its activities. She was part...
Gangaram Nathu Satpute Vs. Ahmednagar Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-09-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. In both these petitions, the Management of the Bank and the Employee have challenged the judgment and order dated 30.06.2008 delivered by the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar. For the sake of brevity, the Bank is referred to as "the Management" and the Employee is referred to as the "Worker". 2. The Worker had joined duties with the Management as a Peon. He had resigned in 1984, but was reinstated in 1986. On 30.07.1992, he was issued with the charge sheet for remaining unauthorizedly absent for 48 days. After conducting an enquiry, he was dismissed from service on 27.05.1996. 3. The Worker challenged his dismissal through Complaint (ULP) No.143/1996. By the part-1 judgment dated 16.02.2005, the enquiry was held to be vitiated. The Management was permitted to prove the charges by conducting a de-novo enquiry before the Labour Court. The charge of absenteeism for 48 days was proved and the Labour Court vide the judgment dated 07.03.2007 partly allowed the complaint and whi...
M/s. Amisha Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jidnyasa Co-operative Housing Socie ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-2016
1. By this appeal filed under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (for short the 'Arbitration Act') the appellant has impugned the judgment dated 7th April, 2015 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Thane in Civil Misc. Application No.359 of 2014 dismissing the said application filed by the appellant herein under section 9 of the Arbitration Act inter alia praying for interim measures i.e. (a) for stay of the operation and/or implementation of the resolution dated 14th September, 2014 passed by the respondent no.1 society in the meeting held on 14th September, 2014, for prohibition/restraining the society from acting upon, executing or implementing the said resolution for grant of any construction right to any third party and/or respondent no.2 in respect of Desai property and/or Khidkali property, (b) for injunction restraining the society and its members from dispossessing the appellant without following due process of law from the said property, (c) ...
Ashalata Shridhar Tawate Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. This Petition, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenges a judgment and order dated 11 December 2012 passed by the Industrial Court at Mumbai dismissing a complaint of unfair labour practice. 2. Brief facts of the case may be stated as follows : In September 1975, the Petitioner joined Overseas Communications Services ( OCS ), Department of Telecommunication, Government of India, which was taken over by Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited ( VSNL ), a Government of India Undertaking, with effect from 1 January 1990. The Petitioner, working as Upper Division Clerk, was absorbed into the new concern and promoted as Assistant Officer (Traffic Accounts). On 13 February 2002, Respondent No.3, Tata Communications Ltd., took over the management of VSNL by acquiring 51% shares. In or about November 2006, a Voluntary Retirement Scheme ( VRS ) was introduced by Respondent No.3. On 19 November 2006, the Petitioner accepted the VRS. (It is case of the Peti...
Ajmera Habitat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jidnyasa Co-operative Housing Society Lim ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. By this petition filed under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Arbitration Act"), the petitioner seeks appointment of an independent person as a sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon all the disputes and differences between the parties arising out of the Development Agreement dated 26th September, 2014. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this arbitration petition are as under : 2. On 26th September, 2014, the petitioner and the respondent entered into a Development Agreement in respect of the property situated at village Khidkali on the terms and conditions recorded therein. Clause 16 of the said Development Agreement provided for arbitration agreement. 3. The dispute arose between the parties. The petitioner issued a notice on 1st November, 2014 to the respondent and invoked the arbitration agreement recorded in the Development Agreement and suggested three names of the retired Judges of this Court and called...
Mahendra F. Rupwate Vs. State of Maharashtra Through the Chief Secreta ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-2016
Oral: (G.S. Kulkarni, J.): 1. Admit. Taken up for final hearing pursuant to the earlier orders and by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner who is working as Section Officer, Class-II, in the office of the Registrar General of the Bombay High Court has filed this petition in a representative capacity on behalf of the Section Officers working on the Appellate Side, Original Side at Mumbai and bench offices at Nagpur, Aurangabad and Goa. 3. The petitioner has prayed for a writ under article 226 of the Constitution of India to respondent No 1 to 3 to make applicable revised pay scales as provided in the Government Resolution dated 11 February 2013 issued by the Finance Department of the Government of Maharashtra, to the Section Officers on the High Court Administration, from the date it has been made applicable to the Section Officers working at Mantralaya (Government of Maharashtra), on the basis of parity of pay scales accepted by the Government between the Section Officers working ...
The Board of Trustees of Port of Mumbai Vs. Tukaram R. Katkar and Anot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-2016
1. This Petition challenges an award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.II (CGIT) at Mumbai, allowing the first Respondent's reference. The subject matter of controversy in the reference concerns the first Respondent's age. According to the recorded date of birth available with the Petitioner, which was 17.02.1942, he was superannuated with effect from 01.04.2000. (The retirement age being 58 years, the first Respondent would have completed the age of 58 years on 17.02.2000). According to the first Respondent, he was born on 17 February 1952. A few years before his superannuation, the first Respondent, accordingly, sought a correction of his date of birth in the records of the Petitioner. After his superannuation, the first Respondent sought a reference from the Central Government raising a dispute about the Petitioner's refusal to correct his date of birth. The impugned order accepts first Respondent's case that his date of birth was 17.02.1952 and directs the Pet...
Priti and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-09-2016
V.M. Deshpande, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. The facts giving rise to the present application are as under: (a) Applicant no.1-Priti and applicant no.2-Mukund are sister and brother. Non applicant no.2 is father of Ravindra Bhange. Marriage between applicant no.1-Priti and Ravindra was solemnized on 03.06.2013. (b) After four months of marriage, Priti lodged report with Police Station, Ladkhed against her husband Ravindra. Non applicant no.2-Shankarrao, her father in law, Shobha her mother in law and Ajay, her brother in law on the allegation that in the marriage parents of Priti gave Rs.3,00,000/- in cash and also various household articles. After marriage, for first 20 days, she was treated nicely. Thereafter, she went to her parental house at Digras for some days and on her return to her matrimonial house, there was a demand of Rs.5,00,000/- to her by the accused persons. Ultimately, the il...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »