Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(5)ALT260
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.1. This batch of Writ Petitions is filed by the Union of India, represented by the Divisional Railway Manager (Commercial), South Central Railway, Vijayawada and other functionaries of South Central Railway, wherein orders dated 26-10-1995 in A.S. No. 61 of 1986 on the file of the Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru and the various consequential orders passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 & Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Eluru, (for short 'the Authority') in favour of the respondents for payment of withheld wages are assailed.Background facts:2. In order to adjudicate the various issues raised in these cases, it is necessary to refer to the facts in detail.3. The Railway Porters working in Eluru Railway Station approached the Authority with two different applications - one for the withheld wages for the period from January, 1983 to August, 1984 and the other for the similar claim for the period from September, 1984 to August, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. By administrative order dated 14.3.2013, the Honourable Chief Justice was pleased to club this Writ Petition along with Writ Petition No.1363 of 2012 (O.S.). By subsequent order dated 4.7.2014, both these petitions were placed before me. 2. Heard Mr. A.A.Kumbhakoni, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Deepak Lulia, learned counsel for respondents no.1 to 4 and Mr. Milind Jadhav, learned counsel for the interveners at length. Rule. Mr. Lulia waives service on behalf of the respondents. At the request and by consent of the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the Petition is taken up finally. 3. By this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the original defendant has challenged the Judgment and order dated 14.1.2013 passed by the learned Judge presiding over Court Room No.19, of the Court of Small Causes at Bombay, below Exhibit No.13 in T.E. and R. No.82/106 of 2011. By that order, the learned trial Judge allowed the Application filed by the re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
J.H. Bhatia, J.1. The petition is filed for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the transfer of the accused persons from judicial custody in a case of one police station to police custody of another police station by exercising the powers to issue production warrant under Section 267 Cr.P.C. has been challenged.2. To state in brief, the petitioner's husband Vernon Stanislaus Gonsalves and his friend Shridhar Krishnan Shrinivasan, both residents of Mumbai, were arrested on 19.8.2007 by respondent No. 3 - Anti-Terrorism Squad, Kalachowki, Mumbai in Crime No. 10/2007 under Section 120-B, and 121A of the Indian Penal Code and the provisions of the Arms Act, Explosive Substances Act, Indian Explosives Act and Unlawful Activities Prevention (Amendment) Act, 2004. On 20.8.2007, they were produced before the Holiday Magistrate and were remanded to police custody till 22.8.2007. On 22.8.2007, the 2nd Metropolitan Magistrate, Mazgaon, Mumbai, extended ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(6)ALLMR144; 2008(6)BomCR623; (2008)110BOMLR2759
P.R. Borkar, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the original defendants being aggrieved by the decree of partition and separate possession passed by the III Additional District Judge, Nanded while deciding Regular Civil Appeal No. 174 of 1981 on 17th June, 1987. By the said decree the learned Additional District Judge reversed the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 53 of 1974 decided on 30th March, 1981, whereby the original suit for partition was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge.2. Some of the facts giving rise to this appeal are admitted at this stage and it is preferable to set them out at the outset. . One Piraji Koli had two sons Hanumant and Maruti. Maruti is present appellant No. 2 who was also original defendant No. 2. He died on 31.07.1987 after decision of first appeal. Hanumant expired on 23.09.1968. Appellant No. 1 Lachmabai was his widow. She died pending this appeal on 11th June, 1999. Lachmabai had a son Laxman who has been missing since about 3-4 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2007(1)ALLMR856; 2007(1)BomCR164; 2006(6)MhLj820
P.V. Hardas, J.1. Since the facts in both the petitions are identical, both these petitions are decided by this common judgment. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, these petitions are, therefore, heard finally at the stage of admission.2. Writ Petition No. 4872 of 2006 has been filed by the petitioners praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ directing respondents No. 1 and 3 to 6 to convene an adjourned meeting held on 29-6-2006 to any other appropriate date for transacting the business of adjourned meeting and for completing further stages of election to the office of Mayor. Alternatively it is prayed that the State Election Commission be directed to make appropriate arrangements to convene the adjourned meeting dated 29-6-2006 for the purpose of holding the elections to the office of Mayor of respondent No. 5 Corporation. It is also prayed that by a writ of prohibition or by an appropriate writ, respond...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2010(112)BomLR154
Ranjana Desai, J.1. Rule. Respondents waive service. With the consent of the parties and at the request of the counsel, taken up for hearing.2. The applicant, who is an advocate, is the author of a book entitled 'Islam - A concept of Political World Invasion By Muslims' ('the book'). The book was published in 2003 by National Publications, 76, Bajaj Bhavan, Nariman Point, Mumbai of which the applicant claims to be the proprietor. The book was translated into Hindi by Dr. Anil Misr.3. In exercise of powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 95 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the Code') the Government of Maharashtra issued a notification dated 9/3/2007 ('the Notification') and declared that every copy of the book as well as of the translation thereof shall be banned and forfeited to Government. The Notification is as follows:NOTIFICATIONGeneral Administration DepartmentMantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032Dated the 9th March, 2007Code ofCriminalProcedure, 1973.No. PUB2007-C.N.15/07...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(2)ALLMR677; 2008(2)BomCR559; (2008)IIILLJ85Bom; 2008(3)MhLj823
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. Writ Petition No. 1003 of 1996 has been filed by the Company challenging the order of the Industrial Court dated 19.12.1995. Writ Petition No. 6385 of 1996 has been filed by the workmen impugning the same order insofar as it does not grant certain reliefs to them. The Industrial Court has declared that the company has committed an unfair labour practice under Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. The company was directed to confirm all the workmen in service as permanent workmen w.e.f. the date they were actually provided work as permanent workmen. The Company was also directed to pay the difference in wages to the workmen which they were entitled to as permanent workmen together with all other allowances and benefits, whether monetary or otherwise, enjoyed by the permanent workmen. The company was directed to provide work to these workmen and to treat them as permanent in service.2. Although Writ Petition No. 6385 of 1996 has been filed 18 workmen w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1970Bom232; (1970)72BOMLR369; ILR1970Bom841; 1969MhLJ933
Kotval, C.J.1. The short question that arises for decision in this reference is whether the interpretation of the amended Sub-section (7) of Section 38 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1958 (XCIX of 1958) (hereinafter referred to as the new Tenancy Act), in the decision of this Court in Salubai v. Chandu, : AIR1966Bom194 is correct, and if not, what is the correct interpretation.2. The circumstances under which the reference came to be made are as follows: One Mohanlal was a landholder of survey No. 74/3, area 9.17 acres, In village Uttar Wadhona in Yeotmal District. Mohanlal had a wife Radhabai and a son Lakhanlal who was born on 29-4-1937. Mohanlal died on 15-4-1938 and on that date Lakhanlal was a minor. Lakhanlal attained majority on 29-4-1958, the age of majority in his case being twenty-one years because a guardian had been appointed. After he attained majority, the property belonging to the joint family came to be partitioned between Radhabai and Lakhanlal. This...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(2)ALLMR512; 2008(3)BomCR290; (2008)110BOMLR744; 2008(4)MhLj424
Ranjana Desai, J.1. The petitioner is a body corporate incorporated under the provisions of the Banking Companies Act, 1949, having its head office at 10, BTM, Sarani, Kolkata, and branch offices all over India, including one at Churchgate.2. Respondent 1 is a partnership firm constituted under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act and, the rest of the respondents are its partners.3. The respondents have availed various loan facilities from the petitioner's various branches as per the details given in paragraph 3 of the petition. For securing the said loans, the respondents had mortgaged their two flats situate at Malbar Hill, Mumbai (for convenience, 'the secured assets').4. It is the case of the petitioner that the loan account of the petitioner became irregular despite the efforts of the petitioner to regularise it and, hence, the petitioner declared the account of the respondents as Non Performing Asset (for convenience, 'NPA') on 31/3/2005.5. According to the petitioner, on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1998(3)ALLMR528; 1998(4)BomCR462
ORDERA.V. Savant, J.1. Heard both the learned Counsel; Shri Ketkar for the petitioner and Shri Sonavane, Asstt. Government Pleader for the respondents.2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner prays for quashing (i) the Judgment and Order dated 11th October 1989 passed by the Caste Certificates Scrutiny Committee, Maharashtra State, Pune, and (ii) the appellate order dated 20th March 1991 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nasik Division, Nasik, dismissing the petitioner's appeal. The petitioner claimed to be a Thakar' belonging to the Scheduled Tribe of Thakars as specified by the President of India after consultation with the Governor of the State in accordance with the provisions of Article 342 of the Constitution. Under the impugned Judgments and Orders he has been held to be belonging to the Thakar caste, which under the impugned Government Resolution dated 8th July 1982 has been declared to be one of the 'Other Backward Classes', mentioned at E...
Tag this Judgment!