Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [2001(89)FLR638]; (2001)ILLJ1252Bom
B.N. Srikrishna, J. 1. By an order made on November 18, 2000, the Hon'ble Chief Justice has referred to this Division Bench for resolution of a conflict of opinion between two learned single Judges.2. The circumstances under which the conflict has arisen are as under:'While deciding Writ Petition No. 4527 of 2000 one of the learned single Judges (KOCHAR, J.) took the view that for the purpose of application of Section 25-K of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), the test to be applied is whether on an average per working day for the preceding twelve months 100 'workmen' as defined in Section 2(s) of the said Act were employed in the industrial establishment. In this view of the matter, the learned single Judge expressed an opinion that employees of contractors, mathadi workmen and workmen of other associate industrial establishments with which there was no functional integrality were not liable to be included for the purpose of computing the av...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1996(0)MPLJ314
ORDERT.S. Doabia, J.1.The respondent landlord after having retired from the government service accepted an appointment in a Government aided school. .During this period he built a house and let it out to the present petitioner. He sought eviction under Chapter III-A of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). He was successful in this litigation. The tenant has preferred a petition under Section 23-E of the Act. The main ground urged by him is that respondent landlord is not a landlord for the purposes of Chapter III-A of the Act. It is specifically pleaded that definition of landlord as occurring in Section 23-J does not embrace the case of respondent. Before noticing the facts this statutory provision be noticed. This reads as under :-'23-J. Definition of landlord for the purposes of Chapter III-A. -(i) a retired servant of any Government including a retired member of Defence Services; or(ii) a retired servant of a company owned or cont...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 106(2003)DLT708; 2003(3)RAJ560
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. We had concluded the hearing in the matter on 17th February, 2003. It was indicated to the Counsel for the parties that should they wish, written synopsis along with further list of authorities, if any relied upon, other than the authorities cited during oral arguments, should be filed on or before 21st February, 2003. On 21st February, 2003, mention was made on behalf of the respondent that due to personal reasons, Counsel for the respondent was unable to file the written synopsis. Time was sought and was granted up to 26th February, 2003 to do the needful. Counsel for the appellant has submitted a further list of authorities relied upon. Neither any written synopsis have been filed by the respondent nor any further list of authorities has been filed. We are consequently proceeding ahead with our judgment.2. Aggrieved by the order dated 30th July, 2001 allowing LA. No. 6727/96 filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 read with Section 8 of the Arbitr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Leave granted.2. These appeals arise out of a common judgment of the High Court of Madras at Madurai dated 11.9.2007 declining to convert the Trust OP No.96of 2002 as a civil suit and be tried accordingly.3. Trust OP No.96 of 2002 was filed by the appellants who were beneficiaries of six trusts before the Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi under Sections 61, 62, 65, 66 and 92 of the Trust Act read with Order VI Rules 1 to 3, 5 to 7 and 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the following reliefs:a. "To call upon the respondents 1 to 12 to restore the corpus and accretions gained by the six trusts detailed in the schedule from the date of their incorporation till the date of realization.b. To trace the fissipations effected on the schedule Trusts by the I defendant and his associate companies.c. To appoint a receiver for all the properties of the I defendant and through lifting the corporate veil on the company held by the I defendant including Mountain Spinni...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:20. 12.2013. + OMP No.1282/2013 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA ..... Petitioner Versus M/S. GANESH TRADING & CO. & ORS. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner: Mr S. Kumar Pattjoshi, Sr. Adv. with Mr Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J I.A.20822/2013 (Condonation of delay of 1 day in filing the petition) & I.A.20824/2013 (Condonation of delay of 161 days in re-filing the petition) 1. These are two applications which have been filed by the petitioner, i.e., the Food Corporation of India (in short FCI) to seek condonation of delay in filing the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the Act) and thereafter, for re-filing the said petition. According to the FCI, there is a delay of one (1) day in filing the petition and a delay of 161 days in re-filing the same.2. The averments ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:20. 12.2013. + OMP No.1189/2013 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA ..... Petitioner Versus M/S. SUKHBIR SINGH & CO. & ORS. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner: Mr S. Kumar Pattjoshi, Sr. Adv. with Mr Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J I.A.19459/2013 (Condonation of delay of 1 day in filing the petition) & I.A.19457/2013 (Condonation of delay of 113 days in re-filing the petition) 1. These are two applications which have been filed by the petitioner, i.e., the Food Corporation of India (in short FCI) to seek condonation of delay in filing the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the Act) and thereafter, for re-filing the said petition. According to the FCI, there is a delay of one (1) day in filing the petition and a delay of 113 days in re-filing the same.2. The averments mad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1996(2)BomCR339
S.M. Jhunjhunuwala, J.1. This petition has been filed for pronouncement of Judgment and passing of decree in terms of the Award dated 25th January, 1994 which has been filed in this Court and numbered as 'Award No. 87 of 1994'. The petitioner has also prayed for decree against the respondent for interest on the amount awarded at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of the said Award till payment or realisation.2. On or about 10th May, 1979, the respondent has invited offers for supply to the respondent of certain ACSR conductors of the specification set out in the schedule to the tender and on the Terms and Conditions mentioned therein. The petitioner had submitted its quotation dated 29th September, 1979 for supply of the said ACSR conductors and Purchase Order dated 4th July, 1980 was placed by the respondent with the petitioner for the supply of 7100 kms of squirrel ACSR conductors and 7100 kms of Weasel ACSR conductors. The petitioner and the respondent had inter-alia agreed to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2008(1)Raj791
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Core questions emerge for consideration in these appeals are:(i) Whether the decision to abolish post of Law and Enquiry Officer was taken in good faith by the Administrator?(ii) Whether the powers of judicial review were rightly exercised by the learned Single Judge?2. Contextual facts depict that the respondent Gulab Chand Mittal who possessed the degree of LLB was serving on the post of Statistical Officer w.e.f. June 25, 1983 in the Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board (for short 'the Board'). A post of Law and Enquiry Officer (for short 'LEO') was created in the pay scale of Rs. 2650-4500 vide order dated September 3, 1994 in pursuance of the Resolution No. 48 of the Board. Because no work was available, the post of Statistical Officer was abolished and post of LEO was created. The respondent was found suitable for the post of LEO and selected vide order dated September 6, 1994. It appears that prior to creation of the post of LEO, the functions rela...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU WRIT PETITION Nos.6470 of 2006 23-06-2014 Kondamudi Chandrasekhara Rao..... PETITIONER State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Vijayawada, rep. By its Assistant General Manager nd others .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioner:Sri Challa Ajay Kumar Counsel for respondents : Sri P.Vishnuvardhan Reddy Dr. Y.Padmavathi : ?.Cases referred:1. 1987(4) SCC6912. AIR1966SC16723. 1993(1) SCC714. 2002(3) LLJ2095. AIR1991SC1016. AIR1986SC9547. (1993) 1 SCC718. (1995) 2 SCC3269. 1998(7) SCC6610. 1997(7) SCC59211. 1993(3) SCC25912. AIR1995SC92213. AIR1991SC10114. 1979 (2) ALT41115. 1981 SCC125316. 2004(1) LLJ19017. 1991(2) SCC59918. 1992(2) SCC2919. 1995 Supp. (4) SCC11120. 2004(1) LLJ (Feb) 227 21. 1992(4) SCC11822. 2001(1) LLJ59623. 2003(3) LLJ90424. 1979(2) LLJ8025. 1986(2) LLJ62426. 2002(3) LLJ22927. AIR1966SC167228. 1979(2) ALT41129. 2004(1) LLJ19030. 2009 12 SCC4931. 2009 3 SCC3532. 2006 (1) SCC66733. 2007 (1) SCC40834. AIR2007631.35. 2008 AIR SCW399636. 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2002(3)AWC1910A
G.P. Mathur, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the defendant-respondents against the judgment and order dated 24.1.2002 of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Allgarh, in O. S. No. 233 of 2000 by which the application 7C for grant of temporary injunction moved by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure was allowed. By the impugned order, temporary injunction was granted whereby it was directed that if the plaintiff transferred stock from its factory situate within the mandi area of Aligarh to its godown outside the mandi area by way of stock transfer, neither any gate pass would be required nor any mandi fee would be charged and the plaintiff would furnish Bank guarantee for the amount of mandi fee which it is liable to pay on each stock transfer in favour of the defendant.2. The plaintiff, M/s. Heinz India Limited, filed the suit against the Krishl Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Aligarh and two others, praying that defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and th...
Tag this Judgment!