Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1994)IIILLJ870Bom
S.M. Daud, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution takes exception to an order of dismissal passed against the Petitioner by Respondent 1 and the affirmation thereof by Respondent 2 in a reference under Section 10(1) r/w 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act). 2. The first Respondent, hereinafter to be referred to as 'the employer', had on its rolls several employees, one of them being the petitioner. The petitioner was working with the employer as an electrician for over 7 years and in the year 1969 he came to be promoted as 'Electrician', Grade T-6'. Petitioner was a subordinate of Felix Simon D'Souza, who was a Section Supervisor of the Maintenance Section. From February to June 1975, the petitioner was served with four show-cause notices asking him to explain this or that alleged lapse.Petitioner submitted explanations to each of the show cause communications. On 17th September, 1975, a charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner, and, this began with...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1970)72BOMLR679
Vimadalal, J.1. This matter has come up for public examination of (1) Hari das Mundhra, (2) Daulat Singhi, (8) Nandlal More, (4) Shivbux Mohatta and (5) Herbert Hill, directors of Shri Madhav Mills Ltd., which is hi liquidation (hereinafter referred to as 'the company'), under Section 478 of the Companies Act, 1956. The last-named director is abroad, but it was decided to proceed with the public examination of the other four directors who were present. Before the public examination of the said directors could be proceeded with, Mr. J.C. Bhatt who appeared on behalf of the said Mundhra (respondent No. 1 to the Misfeasance Summons) raised certain preliminary objections which were argued at great length, and the present Order relates to those preliminary objections. The facts necessary for the purpose of the present Order are that, on August 5, 1959, the company was ordered to be wound up. It may, at this stage, be mentioned that, according to the Official Liquidator, Haridas Mundhra was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1974)IILLJ184Bom; 2001(1)MhLj643
Dudhia, J.1. This is a Special Civil Application under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, filed by the petitioners against the order of the 1st respondent, the Industrial Tribunal, dated 21st April, 1972. The petitioner-company is incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and has its registered office and factory at Andheri, Bombay. The 1st respondent is an Industrial Tribunal constituted by the Government of Maharashtra under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Three disputes between the petitioner-company and the workmen employed under it relating to various demands of the workmen were pending before the 1st respondent being Reference (IT) Nos. 29 and 117 of 1963 and 282 of 1971. Respondent No. 2 is a workman employed by the petitioner company and was concerned in the said three references in dispute.2. During the pendency of those proceedings it appears that the petitioner-company issued a charge-sheet dated 22nd October, 1971 to the second respondent alleging that he h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2007(4)ALLMR281; 2007(3)BomCR527; 2007(3)MhLJ753
V.C. Daga, J.1. This Reference has been made on account of conflict of views expressed by the Division Benches of this Court regarding the powers of the School Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'/'MEPS ACT' for short).Conflict of Views:2. In Writ Petition filed by the Children's Education Uplift Society against Shri Narayan H. Sukhaja bearing W.P.No.463 of 1983, decided on 12.8.1987 (unreported), the Division Bench has taken the view, that it is open for the School Management to lead evidence before the School Tribunal to prove misconduct of the employee, in the following words:5. However, the Tribunal has erred in setting aside the order of termination of the services and granting reinstatement only on that ground. Once the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the constitution of the committee was improper, the correct course was either to order a fresh ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR2002Bom342; 2002(3)ALLMR749; 2002(4)BomCR13
A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. Rule. Counsel appearing for the respective Respondents waive service. By consent of all the Counsel, this petition was heard for final disposal forthwith.2. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai dated August 6, 2001, on Application No. J-4-100/ 2000 purported to be under Section 36 of the Bombay Public Trust Act 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity), authorizing and acceding sanction to the Respondent Trust for alienation and/ or to lease out the trust property (excluding fire temple and open land surrounding the fire temple) and development as contemplated in the agreement entered by the Trustees with Respondent No. 6 dated November 14, 2000 for consideration of Rs. 3.75 crores and further Rs. 30 lacs to be paid by Respondent No. 6 to the trust for carrying on necessary repairs to the existing fire temple and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
R.K. Deshpande, J. 1. All these matters are placed before this Full Bench by a common order of reference dated 1-10-2013 passed by the Division Bench of this Court (Smt. Vasanti A. Naik and Shri A.S. Chandurkar, JJ.) to consider and decide the following questions: "1) Whether the relief of protection of service after invalidation of the caste claim can be granted by the High Court on the basis of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kavita Solunke Vs. State of Maharashtra and others 2012(8) SCC 430? 2) If the answer to question No.1 is in the affirmative, can such relief of protection of service be granted by the High Court in a case where the same relief has been earlier refused by the High Court?" 2. The reason for framing question No.1 is that there is conflict of views taken by the different Division Benches of this Court upon consideration of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kavita Solunke v. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in (2012) 8 SCC 430. One l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2001(3)ALLMR478; 2001(4)BomCR563; [2002(94)FLR241]; (2002)IVLLJ960Bom
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Industrial Court, Maharashtra at Mumbai on January 19, 1998 dismissing the appeal filed by them against an order of 7th Labour Court in Application BIR No. 235 of 1986. In the said application, the respondent employee had challenged the order of dismissal passed by the petitioners as illegal and improper and he had prayed for reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service.2. It appears that some of the employees had gone on strike in response to the call given by their union on October 16, 1984. This union was not a representative and approved union in the local area for the petitioners' undertaking. It appears that the respondent employee belonged to the said union. It further appears that on that date, he had threatened another bus driver that if he did not join the strike and if he worked during the strike, he will have to face dire consequences. It appears that the bus driver ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2004(3)ALLMR260; 2004(4)MhLj614
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard.Perused the records.2. In both these petitions common questions of law and facts arise and, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.In both these petitions, the petitioners challenge the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer in the land acquisition proceedings, being contrary to the mandate of Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as 'the said Act'), inasmuch as that, the award was not passed within a period of two years, from the date of last declaration of the notification under Section 6 of the said Act.3. Few facts relevant for the decision are that, the respondent sought to acquire land for the purpose of Resettlement of Project Affected persons of Upper Pravara (Nilbande) Project, Taluka Akole, District Ahmednagar, by issuing notification under Section 4 of the said Act on 31st of October, 1992, and the same included the land to the extent of 81 Rule from Gat No. 173 o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1982Bom341; 2(1982)DMC204
Dharmadhikari, J.1. The appellant-plaintiff Dr. Abdur Rahim under married Smt. Padma, respondent-defendant in the United Kingdom on 5th May 1966. At the time of marriage plaintiff Abdur Rahim was a Mohainmedan where as respondent Padma was a Hindu. Both of them were Indian citizens. Their domicile was India. Both of then held Indian passports. On 6th of May 1965 the plaintiff and the defendant went to the office of Registrar of Marriages at Weymouth. Before that a necessary notice of intention to marry was already given. There after on 6th May 1966 the parties went through the marriage ceremony before the Registrar and the said marriage was duly registered. The marriage certificate relating to this marriage duly authenticated and certified copy is also on record. From this certificate it appears that the marriage Act, 1949. After this marriage birth of Shabnam took place on 18th of May 1957. Of Shama on 19-11-68. Thereafter on 4th Apr., 1969 the plaintiff and the defendant with their c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1990(3)BomCR656; 1990MhLJ183
M.L. Pendse, J.1. The question for determination in this petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is whether a tenant in occupation of agricultural land is entitled to notice before the Collector issues exemption certificate in favour of a Public Trust as contemplated under section 88-B(1)(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The petition is referred to Division Bench by the learned Single Judge at the stage of admission as it was felt that the decision of the Single Judge in the case of Shrimant Jagdesras Anandrao Pawar v. Kisan Namdeo Pawar and others, reported in 1979 Maharashtra Law Journal 687 holding that notice is not required to be served on the tenant requires reconsideration.2. The respondent is a Public Trust and claims to be registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The Trust owns agricultural lands bearing Gat No. 1061 at Village Beneli and Gat No. 1894 at village Kothali in Karv...
Tag this Judgment!