Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2006(2)BomCR424; (2006)108BOMLR227
D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Mr. S.K. Kakodkar, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. M.S. Sonak and Mr. P.S. Rao, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.G. Aney, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. V.P. Thali and Ms. G. Pednekar, the learned Counsel for respondent No. 1, Mr. S.G. Dessai, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Dessai, the leaned Counsel for respondent No. 2 and Mr. A.F. Diniz, the learned Counsel fox respondent No. 3. 2. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 28.02.2005 passed by the Honourable Speaker, Goa Legislative Assembly, declaring the petitioner disqualified as a Member of the House in accordance with Clause 2 of para 2 of the Xth Schedule of the Constitution of India as well under Article 161(2) of the Constitution of India. 3. Mr. Kakodkar, the learned Senior Counsel placed before us the following facts and circumstances which have resulted in the Speaker passing the impugned order : On 1st June, 2002, the petitioner was ele...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1998CriLJ4295
N. Arumugham,. J1. These Criminal Writ Petitions involve common questions of law and facts. Contentions raised and submissions made in these petitions are identical. Hence, these petitions are heard together and disposed of by delivering this common judgment.2. The petitioners, in the present two writ petitions, are the wives of one Vikas Waghmare and Lahoo Angare who, along with one another, by name Yeshudas Gangawane, claimed to be the vegetable vendors, use to carry on their business at New Mumbai, Vikas Waghmare was residing with the petitioner at Sector No. 18, Room No. 802, Koparkhyrane, New Mumbai, Lahoo Angare is claimed to have been residing with his wife the petitioner, in writ petition No. 228 of 1998 at Kharat Chawl, Room No. 2, Ashok Tekdi, Hanuman Nagar, Bhandup (W), Mumbai 400078. There was no writ petition filed by and on behalf of the third person, by name, Yeshudas Gangawane.3. It is also stated that at about 9 a.m. on 19-3-1997, one Lahoo Angare and Yeshudas Gangawan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(3)BomCR838
Kanade V.M., J.1. By this petition, the petitioner is seeking appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing/setting aside order dated 1st October, 2004 passed by the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 651 of 1998, whereby the Industrial Court pleased to direct the petitioner herein to pay the legal dues to the complainants/respondents after declaring that the petitioner herein had committed unfair labour practice under Items 5 and 9 of Schedule 4 of MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 with further direction to provide employment to the complainants and to pay 50% back wages from the date of filing complaint till passing of the order.2. Brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:The petitioner company is registered under the Companies Act and prior to January 1981 was having a Factory at Bhandup and had undertaken manufacturing activity in respect of rubber products and at that time had employed six hundred workmen. On 27/10/1980, the petitioner C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1993(2)BomCR329
S.M. Daud, J.1. This is a suit for enforcing rights allegedly conferred under conveyance dated 20th March 1951 - hereinafter referred to as 'Ex.B'.2. Ratanchand Hirachand Doshi was the owner of a fairly large and valuable property comprising land and structures thereon which property was acquired by him on 15-4-1947 for a consideration of Rs. 6,55,580.80 ps. (see Ex. A-95). Certain parcels of vacant land from out of this property were transferred under three different transactions dated 28-11-1947, 18-5-1949 and 27-4-1950. That left Ratanchand with land measuring 6350.40 sq. yds. with various structures thereon. The structures included Ratan Villa also known as 'Ratan Villas' or the 'main bungalow', servants' quarters, out-house/guest-house, Secretary's house and garages. The area on which these structures stood covered 1292 sq. yds. A thousand sq. yds. to the west facing the Arabian Sea was required to be kept vacant as per the Government convenient. The vacant area in bits and pieces...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2010(1)BomCR311
A.B. Chaudhari, J.1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.2. The petitioners South East Central Railway, Nagpur, has taken exception to the judgment and award dated 20th March, 2008, passed by Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T - cum - Labour Court, Nagpur in Case No. CGIT NGP 36/42.Facts3. Appropriate Government had made two references containing two lists of 63 and 143 workmen with the CGIT Cum Labour Court (for brevity hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'). Upon consolidation thereof, the tribunal took up the same for adjudication. The gist of the reference by and large was whether these persons claiming to be parcel porters were workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and whether they could be regularized as Railway employees. The Union which represented the workmen, namely the General Secretary, Parcel Porter Sanghatana, S.E. Railway, Nagpur Division, Motibag, Nagpur-12, filed its statement of claim through one Manish Saxena, in two sets with ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : I(2001)DMC646
..... by the plaintiff-wife against the defendant-husband for a mandatory injunction for removing him along with his belonging from flat no. 9, datta vijay co-operative housing society ltd., mahatma phule road, mulund (east) bombay-400 081 ('the suit flat' for short).3. before we deal with the merits of the case, it will be necessary to state that during .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2001(3)ALLMR633; (2001)4BOMLR5; 2001(4)MhLj97
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Group of these 99 writ petitions arise out of the common order passed by the Industrial Court, Nashik, dated July 31, 2000, disposing of in all 202 complaints filed by the workmen. All these writ petitions involve common questions and therefore, same are heard and disposed of together by this common judgment.2. The Industrial Court has allowed in all 99 complaints which were filed by the respondents in the respective writ petitions, whereas it was pleased to dismiss the remaining complaints. The workmen, whose complaints have been dismissed, have not challenged the common order, which is the subject matter in the present writ petitions. But the employer, petitioner herein, has preferred the present writ petitions challenging the order allowing the complaints filed by the respondents in the respective writ petitions.3. The facts in all the writ petitions arc almost identical except that the respondents in the respective writ petitions have been appointed on differe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
..... possession of existing tenement/structure occupied by the respondent to the petitioner. 2. the petitioner is a developer. by an agreement dated 1st february, 1996 entered into between smt. kusumben gandhi and ors. and four others as owners, petitioner herein and the respondent. recital (c) of the said agreement provides that the tenant/occupant is the only tenant/occupant of a .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
..... possession of existing tenement/structure occupied by the respondent to the petitioner. 2. the petitioner is a developer. by an agreement dated 1st february, 1996 entered into between smt. kusumben gandhi and ors. and four others as owners, petitioner herein and the respondent. recital (c) of the said agreement provides that the tenant/occupant is the only tenant/occupant of a .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. The present Appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Arbitration Act ), against impugned Judgment and order dated 2 February 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act and thereby, maintained the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal of National Stock Exchange dated 13 December 2002, arising out of Rules, Bye-laws and Regulations of the National Stock Exchange (for short, "NSC Rules ). 2. The matter was listed at the instance of Appellant for withdrawal of the Appeal itself, on 25 February 2016. Respondent No.1, however, resisted/opposed even the withdrawal and therefore, sought time to file affidavit to show how the withdrawal would cause hardship and injustice to them. Respondent No.1 thereby, had taken out Notice of Motion No. 1028 of 2016. However, during the course of argument, on instructions, Respondent No.1 did not press the Motion, but opposed the withdrawal of Appeal ...
Tag this Judgment!