Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2007(6)ALLMR226; 2007(4)BomCR698; [2008(116)FLR191]; 2007(4)MhLj268
Kanade V.M., J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the respondent.2. Both these petitioners are challenging the order passed by the Tribunal holding that the reference which is made by the Government is maintainable. Brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding these petitions are as under:3. The petitioner in Writ Petition (Lodging) No. 474/2007 transferred its company to the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 534/ 2007 Bon factory, Mumbai, by a deed of transfer and in the terms of settlement which was arrived between the parties, it was agreed that the workmen who were working with Hindustan Lever Ltd. in the said factory would be given an option to join services of Bon Limited. Pursuant to the said option which is given, all the workmen except 47 workmen had given their option and were transferred to the company Bon Limited with effect from 17.7.2005.4. Thereafter, the petitioner company Bon Limited made an application to the Compe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1979(39)FLR329]; (1980)ILLJ336Bom; 1979MhLJ874
Lentin, J.1. By this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges the impugned award dated 12th October, 1978 passed by the 1st respondent, namely, the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, in so far as it does not order the re-employment of the petitioner in the service of the 2nd respondent-Bank, and seeks a direction that the petitioner be reinstated in the service of the Bank with effect from 19th December, 1974 with continuity of service with back wages and all other consequential reliefs. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed by the Bank on 1st February, 1972 as a temporary godown keeper at its Savli Branch by an appointment order dated 1st February, 1972. The petitioner's service was terminated with effect from 25th April, 1972. The Bank thereafter again employed the petitioner from 14th December, 1972 and terminated his service with effect from 31st July, 1973. Thereafter, with effect from 25th October, 1973, the Bank onc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2004(3)BomCR699; [2004(101)FLR880]; (2004)IIILLJ971Bom; 2004(4)MhLj151
Nishita Mhatre, J. 1. This petition challenges the Award Part-II dated 18th August 1995 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay in Reference (IT) No. 44 of 1993 rejecting the Reference on the ground that the petitioner Union was not able to establish the master and servant relationship between the workmen represented by the petitioner and respondent No. 1 herein. The entire dispute has arisen on account of the services of the workmen represented by the petitioner Union being terminated. For the sake of brevity, the petitioner Union is referred to as 'Union' and respondent No. 1 Company as 'Company'.2. The entire reference was in respect of about 30 workmen involved in the dispute. The Union represent the employees who are called Retainers by the Company. These employees sought permanent absorption and other reliefs from the Company. The Company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling and servicing of electronic items mainly Televisions. Between the years 1972 and 1978...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1958Bom125; (1957)59BOMLR875; 1958CriLJ481; ILR1958Bom96
Vyas, J. 1. The appellant in this appeal is Ram Rijhumal Kriplani, original accused No. 1, who has been convicted and sentenced by the learned Special Judge, Greater Bombay, of often CM under Section 120-B of the. Indian Penal Code and Section 165-A read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. The sentence imposed upon the appellant under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code is a sentence of three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300, or a default sentence of one month's further rigorous imprisonment. No separate sentence has been passed upon him under Section 165-A read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The facts as contended by the prosecution may now shortly be stated. There were three persons charged in this case and, as I have just said, the present appellant was accused No. 1. The charge against the three accused was that during the period between 19th November 1954 and 30th April 1955, they did agree to do an illegal act, to wit, to offer gratifica...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1985(51)FLR244]; (1987)IILLJ169Bom; 1986MhLJ308
Shah, J.1. The short question that arises in this appeal is whether a writ of mandamus can be issued against the respondent - company in enforcement of its obligation under the provisions of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The facts which are indeed not in dispute and in so far as they are material are these. The appellant, M/s. Roche Anglo-French Employees' Union is a trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. The union represents the employees of respondent No. 2-company, M/s. Roche Anglo-French Drug Co. (Eastern) Ltd. which is a public limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. Respondent No. 2 company is engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical and fine chemical products. It has a factory at Bangalore and its registered office and distribution office including stores is situate at Parel, Bombay. Its marketing and materials management division is at Worli, Bombay. The company had employed about 66 workmen in its Parel establishmen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1964Bom116; (1963)65BOMLR688; 1964MhLJ176
Tambe, J. 1. By this application, the petitioner, Income-tax Officer, Companies Circle II (3) Bombay, applied for a certificate to file an appeal against the decision of this Court in a Writ Petition under Article 326 of the Constitution (Misc. Appln. No. 99 of 1962, D/- 4-8-1962, (Bom) ). In that application, the Phalton Sugar Works Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act, now the respondents before us in this application, were assessee to Income-tax for the assessment years 1949-50 and 1950-51. On 5th March 1958, the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Bombay, served on the Phalton Sugar Works Limited, two notices under Section 34 (1) (a) of the Act for the purposes of re-assessing their income for the assessment years 1949-50 and 1950-51, on the ground that he had reason to believe that the income for those years had escaped assessment or had been under-assessee. It was these two notices which were challenged by the Phalton Sugar Works In the Writ petition before this Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2000(4)BomCR565
ORDERF.I. Rebello, J. 1. Plaintiff No. 1 is a company incorporated under the laws of Liberia and were the owners of the vessel m.v. 'CARDIGLIERA', flying the Panama Flag which hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the vessel'. On 13th November, 1996 the vessel sailed out from the port at Durban, South Africa for Cape Town in South Africa. The vessel sank off the coast of Durban, South Africa on 13th November, 1996 with all hands on board, which included officers and crew members. The plaintiff No. 2 as Agent had entered into an Agreement with the deceased either at Mumbai or Delhi. Defendants are being sued as claimants to the estate of the deceased and/or their legal heirs. The suit by, the plaintiffs is in a nature of limitation suit seeking to limit the liability of the owner of the vessel and also for injunction to restrain the defendants herein from pursuing the suit filed in London under Case No. 1998/Folio No. 1339 in the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Commercial ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1963Bom157; (1963)65BOMLR29; ILR1962Bom743; 1963MhLJ841
Patel, J.1. This appeal raises the much vexed question as to the validity of an award given in a case by arbitrators where the jurisdiction of the arbitrators is challenged. The short facts are as follows; The appellant is a firm carrying on business at the Cotton Exchange Building, Kalbadevi Road, Bombay. The firm is a member of the East India Cotton Association Ltd. Kalani and Co., a firm of which the respondent was a partner employed the appellants in about 1954 to act as their agents to effect transactions in cotton in accordance with the rules, regulations and bye-laws of the East India Cotton Association Ltd. Neither the respondent-firm nor any of its partners were members of the Association. A large number of transactions were carried through at their request by the appellants. For transactions prior to 13th May 1955 there was no dispute between the parties, but the dispute related to transactions effected after that date. As the Respondent refused to honour his obligations whic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(6)MhLj101
Santosh Bora, J.1. Heard Counsel for respective parties.2. Rule. By consent of learned Counsel for parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith.3. By this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, petitioner prays for quashing and setting aside order of dismissal dt. 1-6-2007, passed by the Superintendent, Gurudwara Sachkhand Board, Nanded, whereby, petitioner has been dismissed from service of Takhat Sachkhand Sri Hazur Apchalnagar Sahib, Nanded.Facts giving rise to this petition may be stated as under:4. Admittedly, petitioner - Sardar Bhimsingh Uttamsingh Pujari joined services of Takhat Sachkhand Sri Hazur Apchalnagar Sahib, Nanded, in the year 1977, as a Clerk. On 12-8-2004, he was placed under suspension by respondent No. 2. The order of suspension was passed in the wake of contemplated disciplinary proceedings for alleged misconduct.It is not in dispute that, Junior Assistant Superintendent (Mr. Ranjeetsingh Daleepsingh Chiragiya) was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. En...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1998Bom287; 1998(3)ALLMR282; 1998(3)BomCR562; [1999]96CompCas140(Bom); 1998(2)MhLj668
ORDERAshok Agarwal, J. 1. The questions which arise for our consideration, in the present Appeal, are: (i) Whether the appellant - original defendant No. 3 Kenya Airways can be heldto be a Foreign State within the meaning of section 86 of the Code ofCivil Procedure, 1908? (ii) If yes, whether the first respondent original plaintiff was required to obtaina consent of the Central Government before filing the present suit asrequired by the aforesaid section? (iii) Whether the third defendant has waived its right under section 86 of the Code? (iv) Whether the communication dated 2nd June, 1995 addressed by theMinistry of External Affairs, Government of India, to the plaintiff entitled theplaintiff to file the present suit on the hypothesis that no consent undersection 86 is required to be obtained prior to filing of the present suit? 2. Appellant, Kenya Airways, is defendant No. 3 in the suit. Respondent is original plaintiff No. 1, who along with original plaintiff No. 2, since decease...
Tag this Judgment!