Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2002(6)BomCR252
P.S. Patankar, J.1. The respondent No. 1 promoted the respondent No. 3 to the higher grade as library attendant since June, 1990. According to the petitioner, he should have been given said higher grade of library attendant and not the respondent No. 3. Hence, he is praying by this petition under Article 226 that he be given higher grade of library attendant from June, 1990 and giving of higher grade or promotion to respondent No. 3 be quashed.2. The entire claim of the petitioner is based upon the allegation that the petitioner alongwith four others i.e. Vasant Gosavi, B.R. Gaikwad, Yadav H.S. and Jadhav B.N.-respondent No. 3 were all working as peons with respondent No. 1. Except the petitioner, all four others came to be given said higher grade or promotion of library attendant. He is not disputing giving the said promotion or higher grade to Mr. Vasant Gosavi, Mr. B.R. Gaikwad and Mr. Yadav H.S. as they were senior to him. But according to the petitioner, Mr. B.N. Jadhav was junior...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2002(6)BomCR177
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. Respondent waives service.Heard forthwith.Respondent No. 1 original plaintiff had filed a suit against petitioner and respondent No. 2 before the Small Causes Court at Mumbai which was numbered as R.A.E. Suit No. 4802 of 1978. The suit was for eviction of the petitioner from the suit premises on the ground that the petitioner a monthly tenant was in arrears of rent and inspite of statutory notice had failed to pay the amount. Some other grounds was also set out inclining that the defendant No. 1 in the suit, respondent No. 2 herein, had unlawfully inducted petitioner in the suit premises. The petitioner herein filed his written statement on 13-9-1982 contending that he was protected under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act. It was further pointed out that the area where the structure was situated was declared as slum under Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971. No permission of the authority has been taken and considerin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2002(3)ALLMR362; 2002(5)BomCR117; [2002(95)FLR553]
R.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 18th January, 1994 passed by the Industrial Court, Nashik in Complaint U.L.P. No. 874 of 1989 filed by him against the respondents under section 28 read with Items 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, 1971, challenging the order of punishment imposed on him by way of withholding of increments for two years on permanent basis. According to the petitioner the charges levelled against him were false and fabricated. He also alleged that the enquiry was not fair and proper and the aforesaid punishment, therefore, as illegal and improper and amounted to unfair labour practice.2. The respondents appeared before the Industrial Court and contested the complaint by filing their written statement. It was contended by them that the petitioner was committing acts of misconduct and he was not doing his work properly and that there were several complaints from the villagers and the officers had to fa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2002(3)ALLMR746; 2002(5)BomCR612; [2002(95)FLR731]
R.J. Kochar, J.1. The Superintending Engineer and the Executive Engineer, Public Works Division, Kolhapur, both are aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Industrial Court in revision application on 17th June, 1994 under section 44 of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, 1971. The present petitioners were the revision applicants before the Industrial Court challenging the judgment and order of the Labour Court granting reinstatement without backwages and continuity of service to the concerned respondent employee who had filed a complaint of unfair labour practice under section 28 of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act read with Item 1 of Schedule IV in which the Labour Court had passed the order as aforesaid.2. It appears from the facts narrated in the record that the concerned employee, the respondent No. 1, was appointed on and from 10th December, 1981 as a typist-cum-clerk. It is an admitted position that he continued in employment with several breaks till 23rd April, 1984 when he wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2002(3)ALLMR322; 2002(5)BomCR139
R.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 26-4-2000 passed by the Industrial Court in Complaint U.L.P. No. 504 of 1990 dismissing the complaint filed by him under section 28 read with Items 5, 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV and Items 1(a), (b) and 4(a) of Schedule II of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices, Act, 1971 (for short M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act.). The main thrust of the petitioner in the complaint appears to be on Item 6 of Schedule IV of the Act though other items are mentioned in the complaint. The petitioner had filed the complaint originally along with his union against the respondent No. 1 praying precisely, for the benefits and privileges of permanency from the respondent No. 1. It further appears that though the complaint initially was filed on behalf of a number of employees by the union finally, it was the petitioner alone who contested the complaint on behalf of himself. Even the present petition is fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2002(5)BomCR83
C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is filed against an order passed by the learned Single Judge on 10th of April, 2002 in Writ Petition No. 2178 of 2002. The said order reads thus: 'The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or error apparent on the face of the record. Hence petition is rejected. On behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, learned Counsel makes a statement that the transit accommodation is ready and this transit accommodation is available to the petitioner; till such time the permanent accommodation comes up. Statement is accepted. Petition is disposed of accordingly.'2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.3. When the matter was placed for admission hearing, a preliminary objection was taken by the learned Counsel for respondents Nos. 2 and 3 that Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable inasmuch as the petition filed by the petitioners (present appellants) was under Article 227 of the Constitution. When the petitioners themselves had ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(1)BomCR535
D.G. Karnik, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. Rule, made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.2. The respondent No. 5 is a Co-operative Housing Society and respondent No. 6 was the Chief Promoter of the respondent No. 5 society as well as the Builder. He was also the Chairman of the said society for some time, immediately after registration.3. Initially share Nos. 651 were allotted to Ramlal Damu Patil by the respondent No. 5 society. The said share was transferred in the name of the petitioner and her father-in-law on 16th July, 1992. One flat is allotted to the petitioner. It appears that the respondent No. 5 has borrowed some money from respondent No. 3 Finance Corporation. A notice under section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act') was issued to the petitioner on 27th December, 1995 alleging that an amount of Rs. 61,903.50 was due. The petitioner replied the said notice on January 4, 1996. It appears that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(1)BomCR89
J.P. Devadhar, J.1.This public interest litigation is filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking a writ directing Nagpur Municipal Corporation and Nagpur Improvement Trust to remove the structures standing on the lands owned by respondent No. 4 Trust on the ground that the same are contrary to the building regulations and contrary to the development plan sanctioned by the State Government under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966.2. Before setting out the facts relevant for the present petition, it will be useful to refer to the background pertaining to the development of the present day 'city of Nagpur' situated at the very heart of India and which is the second capital of the State of Maharashtra. 3. In the year 1936, the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act was enacted with a view to make provisions for the improvement and expansion of the then town of Nagpur in the manner specified under the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(3)BomCR550; 2004(2)MhLj874
C.K. Thakker, C. J.1. All these petitions have been placed for hearing before a Full Bench on a reference being made by a Division Bench consisting of one of us (B.H. Marllapale, J.) and N.H. Patil, J. In all the three petitions, a common question of law has been raised viz., the extent of power, authority and jurisdiction of the Collector under Sub-section (1) of Section 308 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to suspend an order or resolution passed by a Municipal Council.2. To appreciate the controversy raised in the present group of petitions, few relevant facts in the First matter i.e. Writ Petition No. 1928 of 1996, Sanjay Govind Sapkal and Ors. v. The Collector of Dhule and Ors., may be stated.3. The said petition was filed by fourteen petitioners claimed to have been appointed by Municipal Council, Dhule, respondent No. 2 herein. The President of respondent No. 2-Council made several a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2002(5)BomCR479
R.J. Kochar, J.1. I have heard the learned Advocates of both the sides at length on this first day of my summer vacation by the consent of the learned Advocates in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case.2. It appears that the respondent No. 3 bank had challenged before the Supreme Court of India the interim order dated 14-5-2001 passed by this Court (A.S. Aguiar, J.) staying the impugned order of repelling passed by the respondent No. 1 be held on 16-5-2001, till further orders and directing the Board of directors of the bank not to take any policy decision. The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the said interim order passed by this Court and dismissed the special leave petition by its order dated 16-7-2001. The Supreme Court, however, requested the High Court to dispose of the petition as expeditiously as possible preferably within two months. It appears that on account of extremely heavy board before the regular benches these petitions could not be disposed of as per...
Tag this Judgment!