Mumbai Court September 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.
Tanaji Baburao Tanugade Vs. The Manager Kolhapur District Central Co-o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. The writ jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the judgment and order dated 18.10.2011 passed by the Learned Member of the Industrial Court, Kolhapur, by which order, the Revision Application (ULP) No.31 of 2010 came to be allowed and resultantly, the judgment and order dated 03.02.2010 passed by the Learned Member of the Labour Court, Kolhapur came to be set aside. 2. The facts giving rise to the filing of the above Writ Petition can in brief be stated thus: The Petitioner herein is the original Complainant who has filed Complaint (ULP) No.69 of 1999 invoking items 1(b) and (f) of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 (for short the said Act ). The Respondent No.1 herein is the Kolhapur District Central Co-operative Bank and is a society registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. The Petitioner was working with the Respondent No.1 on daily wages. It was the case of the Petitioner that he was working with the Respondent No.1 from May 1996...
Under Water Services Company Limited and Others Vs. Union of India and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-2016
B.P. Colabawalla, J. 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of parties, rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. By this Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, exception is taken to the final order dated 31st October, 2014 [for short the impugned order ] passed by the Settlement Commission Additional Bench, Customs and Central Excise, Mumbai (Respondent No.3 herein). The impugned order has been passed by the 3rd Respondent in the Settlement Applications filed by the Petitioners arising out of a common Show Cause Notice ( SCN ) dated 9th February, 2012. The Settlement Commission that passed the impugned order comprised of three Members. One Member settled the case of the Petitioners (the minority view) whereas the other two Members rejected the Settlement Applications filed by the Petitioners and sent the matter back for adjudication (the majority view). Taking exception to the majority view, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 3....
Indian Coffee Workers Co-op. Society Ltd. Vs. Albert and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-16-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the parties. The question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether a complaint under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short, the Act of 1971) under Schedule IV Item 9 is maintainable for a declaration that non-compliance of the judgment in an earlier complaint filed under Section 28 of the Act of 1971 would amount to an unfair labour practice. 2. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition can be briefly stated thus: The respondent Nos.1 to 4 were in employment with the petitioner. Their services came to be terminated by an order dated 30/11/1992. This act of termination was challenged by them by filing separate complaints under Section 28 of the Act of 1971. By a common judgment dated 24/09/1996, the Labour Court allowed all the complaints and held that by terminating the services of the said respondents...
Vijay Laxmipati Dasari (since deceased) through his legal heirs and re ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-2016
1. By this second appeal filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellants have impugned the order and judgment dated 17th March, 1993 passed by the Additional District Judge, Solapur dismissing the Civil Appeal No.98 of 1990 filed by the appellants (legal heirs and representatives of the original plaintiff). The appellants had impugned the judgment and decree passed by the Special Civil Suit No.106 of 1983 dated 30th September, 1989 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Solapur dismissing the suit filed by the original plaintiff inter alia praying for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 1st February, 1983 and in the alternative for refund of the amount paid by the appellants to the defendants. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this appeal are as under:- 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties described in this appeal are described as they were described in the proceedings before the trial court. The appellants h...
Larsen and Toubro Limited and Another Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporat ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-2016
Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. Both these Appeals, under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Arbitration Act ) (Appeal and Counter-Appeal), filed by both the contesting parties (Claimant and Respondent No.1), against Judgment and order dated 16 November 2005, passed by the learned Single Judge on a Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act in Arbitration Petition No. 449 of 2003 whereby, the award passed by the learned Arbitrator ( the Arbitrator ) dated 4 July 2003, has been substantially set aside and partly maintained. 2. The Appellant(Original Claimant)Larsen and Toubro Limited ( LandT ) in Appeal No. 26 of 2006, which is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, has preferred the Appeal, as the learned Single Judge has set aside the award qua Claim Nos. 1, 2, 4, 9, 15, 16, 21 (i), 21(iii) and 21(iv) awarded by the Arbitrator. In the other Appeal, the Appellant is Respondent No.1-Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. ( HPCL ),...
Manguesh Rajaram Wagle and Another Vs. Suresh D. Naik and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-16-2016
1. Rule in all the petitions. The learned Counselfor the contesting respondent nos.1 and 2(i) to 2(vii) waives service. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. All these petitions are between the same parties and arise out of the orders passed in R.C.S. No.279/2000/D. They involve common and connected questions of law and fact and as such, are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The brief facts, necessary for the disposal of the petitions may be stated thus: That 'Garage premises' situated on the ground floor of a building known as 'Yasin Manzil' standing on Chalta No.126 of P.T. Sheet No.66, City Survey of Panaji are the subject matter of dispute and are hereinafter referred to as the suit premises. The petitioners herein are the original plaintiff nos.2(a) and 2(b) while the respondent nos.1 and 2(i) to 2(vii) are the original defendants. Rest of the respondents are co-plaintiffs, along the plaintiffs. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in their or...
Digamber Vs. Prakash
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-15-2016
1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 1.8.2005 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nanded below Exh.39 in S.C.C. No. 1687 of 1997, the original accused has preferred present criminal application. 2. Brief facts, giving rise to the present application are as follows:- a) The respondent complainant was serving as sectional Engineer at Masoli project, sub division Janapuri, Tq. Loha, District Nanded and his remotely related sister is the wife of applicant original accused. The applicant accused is serving as Manager with State Bank of Hyderabad. In the month of October-December, 1996, the applicant accused had approached the complainant and requested for hand loan of Rs.1,25,000/- for the purpose of marriage of his daughter Kum. Sujata. Thus, considering the request of the accused and his persuasions thereto, respondent complainant obtained a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from his father in law on 29.12.1996 and paid the same to the applicant-accused as a hand-loan with condition to r...
Sarika Vs. Sachin
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-15-2016
Oral Judgment: (Vasanti A. Naik, J.) 1. By this Family Court Appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment of the Family Court, Nagpur dated 20.12.2011 allowing a petition filed by the respondent for a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In the First Appeal filed by the appellant, the respondent has filed a Cross Objection for seeking the custody of the minor child as the Family Court has held that the custody of the minor child, would remain with the appellant. 2. Few facts giving rise to this Family Court Appeal and the Cross Objection are stated thus: The appellant-wife (hereinafter referred to as the wife for the sake of convenience) and the respondent-husband (hereinafter referred to as the husband ) were married at Nagpur as per the Hindu rites and custom on 20.02.2009. A son by name Anvesh was born from the wedlock on 13.10.2009. The husband and the wife belong to highly educated middle class families and the wife was made aware before the ...
M/s. Bombaywala and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, through its Secre ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-15-2016
R.K. Deshpande, J. Rule. Taken up for final disposal. 1. One late Shri Puranchandra Buty was the owner of Khasra Nos.320 and 315 (Part) of Mouza Sitabuldi, Nagpur. This property was partitioned amongst his legal heirs and their shares are devolved upon the descendants, who are the respondent Nos.6 to 11 ( the owners ) in this petition. This petition pertains to the implementation of Abhyankar Road Widening and Buty Mahal Street Scheme ( the Scheme , for short) prepared by the Nagpur Improvement Trust, Nagpur ( NIT ) for systematic development of 8.7 acres of land of Khasra Nos.320 and 315 (Part), Mouza Sitabuldi, belonging to Buty family, consisting of Sitabuldi Retail Market on the sides of Mahatma Gandhi Road and Abhyankar Road, located in 'V' shape, from the junction of Variety Square, in the heart of the city of Nagpur. 2. The purpose of the said Scheme is to create and improve the existing means of communications and facilities for the traffic by removing congestion and to develop...
Suraj Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-15-2016
R.M. Borde, J. 1. The question that is referred for our consideration is, as to "whether the order passed by the State Government, in exercise of powers conferred under section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, confirming the order passed by the externing authority under section 56 and 57 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 can be construed as an 'order' within the contemplation of explanation to Rule 18 of chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960". 2. In view of explanation to Rule 18 of The Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, the expression 'order', appearing in clauses 1 to 41 means an order passed by any judicial or quasi-judicial authority empowered to adjudicate under the above mentioned statute. Thus, it is essentially required to examine as to whether the order passed in an appeal by the State Government under section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 is an order passed under quasi-judicial authority or whether it shall be construed as an ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »