Court : Mumbai Goa
The appeal is filed under Section 82 of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short, 'ESI Act') against judgment and order of EIC No.3/2004, which was pending before Employees Insurance Court, South Goa, Margao. The application filed by present respondent, business concern under Section 75 of ESI Act to challenge the orders made by present appellant, Corporation on 29/07/1998 and 17/08/2004, which were made to cover the establishment of respondent under ESI Act and to ask the respondent to give the contribution, is allowed by Insurance Court. In the present proceedings both sides are heard. 2. In short, the facts leading to the institution of appeal can be stated as follows: On 29/06/1998, one Inspector of Insurance Office of the appellant, Corporation visited the office premises of present respondent situated at Pereira Chamber, Vasco-da-Gama and he inspected the record of the employees of the respondent. Accountant of respondent produced the record like wage register, attendance re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. By this notice of motion, the plaintiffs seek an order and injunction against the defendant nos. 1 and 3 to 17 from in any manner dealing with or disposing of, alienating or encumbering or creating any third party rights in respect of the suit property or any part thereof described in prayer (a) of the notice of motion and/or parting with possession or inducting any third party in possession in any manner whatsoever and also seeks appointment of court receiver in respect of the said property. 2. The plaintiffs were formerly known as Vinit Estate Private Limited and had filed a suit inter alia praying for a declaration that the Memorandum of Understanding for sale of the suit property described in Ex.A to the plaint dated 23rd March, 2006 executed by and between the plaintiffs and defendant no1. Is valid, subsisting and binding upon defendant nos.1 and 3 to 17 and also seeks specific performance thereof. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this notice of motion are...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1976)78BOMLR720
Vaidya, J.1. An important question regarding the effect of Section 4 of the Bombay Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act, 1958 (which will be hereinafter referred to as 'the Watans Abolition Act') arises in the above three First Appeals directed against the judgment and decree dated July 20, 1965 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Kolhapur, in Special Civil Suit No. 23 of 1963.2. The suit was instituted by Kalgonda Babgonda Patil on June 12, 1963, alleging the following genealogical tree of the family of the plaintiff and the defendants:___________________________________________________________________________________ Aadgonda (deceased)___________________________________________________________________________________Dharmagonda (deceased) Annappa alias Anna (deceased)Kagoda Raygonda Maygonda Babaji alias Tatya (deceased) (deceased) (deceased) Babgonda (deceased) (extinguished) (deceased) Kalgonda (plaintiff) Pirgunda Bhimgonda (deceased) (deceased) Raygonda ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : I(1997)ACC490; 1997ACJ1335
L. Manoharan, J.1. Both these appeals arise from the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, in Special Civil Suit No. 47 of 1976. The plaintiffs in the said suit are the appellants in First Appeal No. 174 of 1983 whereas the third defendant in the aforesaid suit is the appellant in First Appeal No. 207 of 1983. These appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The suit was instituted for realisation of compensation on account of the death of Bhupendrasingh, son of plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2. Plaintiff Nos. 3 to 5 are the sisters of the deceased and plaintiff No. 6 is the brother of the deceased. The said suit was instituted under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 (Act No. 13 of 1855). On 22.3.1975, while Bhupendrasingh was travelling in an autorickshaw, truck No. MHV 1232, which was driven by the defendant No. 2, knocked against the autorickshaw by which Bhupendrasingh was thrown out and the truck ran over him; ultimately Bhupendrasingh succumbed t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. The appeal is filed against judgment and decree of Regular Civil Appeal No. 116/1984 which was pending in District Court, Aurangabad. The appeal of present respondents, original defendants filed against judgment and decree of Special Civil Suit No. 51/1980 is allowed by the District Court and the decree given by the Trial Court of specific performance of contract is set aside. The original plaintiff has filed the present appeal. Both the sides are heard. 2. Two agricultural lands like land bearing Survey No. 18, admeasuring 12 Acre 1 Gunta and Survey No. 14, admeasuring 19 Acres 8 Gunta situated at village Maosala, Tahsil Khultabad, District Aurangabad were owned by Sandu Baig. Land Survey No. 14 is also known as Godhya Ambacha Inam. Sandu is dead and defendants are the successors of Sandu. 3. It is the case of plaintiff appellant - Kashinath that Sandu was in need of money and so, he expressed to plaintiff that he wanted to sell aforesaid two lands. It is the case of plaintiff that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable and heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Writ Petition No.6794/2012 is filed against the judgment and order dated 4th of August, 2012, passed by the School Tribunal at Latur in Appeal No.14 of 2011. Petitioner was respondent no.3 in the Appeal before the School Tribunal. The aforesaid appeal was filed by present respondent no.3 challenging promotion of the present petitioner on the post of Headmaster with a consequential relief to promote him on the post of Headmaster from 1.1.2003 by setting aside the promotion of the present appellant as Headmaster. 3. It was the contention of the present respondent no.3 in the aforesaid appeal that the present appellant was junior to him and could not have been appointed on the post of Headmaster, superseding his claim. As against it, it was the contention of the present petitioner before the School Tribunal that the appeal filed by respondent no.3 was hopelessly barred by l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 20th February, 2016 passed by the Industrial Court, Thane rejecting the application filed under section 30(2) of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 (for short hereinafter referred to as the said ULP Act) inter alia praying for a direction to the respondents not to give effect to transfer order dated 19th December, 2015 of the employees and to allow them to resume their work with equitable relief. The said application for interim order was filed in a complaint filed by the petitioner under section 28 read with items 3, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the said ULP Act. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:- 2. The petitioner is a trade union registered under the provisions of Trade Unions Act, 1926 and represents the large number of employees as its members in the respondent no.1 company. The employees of the respondent no.1 who a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
R.G. Ketkar, J. 1. By administrative order dated 25.08.2015 passed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, this Special Bench was reconstituted for hearing of above Petition and other connected matters from the Division Benches available at Original / Appellate Side. In pursuance thereof, we have heard Mr. Navroz Seervai, learned Senior Counsel for petitioners, Mr. R. S. Apte, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1, Mr. Daraius Khambata, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.6, Mr. Shailesh Shah, learned Senior Counsel for respondents No.7 and 8 and Mr. Toor, learned Counsel for BEST at length. At the request and by consent of the parties, the Petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. This Petition is instituted by Adarsh Co-operative Housing Society Limited (for short 'Adarsh Society') and one of its members under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against respondent No.1 - Union of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests (for short 'MOEF'), respondent No.2 - Mr. Jayram Ram...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
A.B. Chaudhari, J. 1. Heard. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. All these matters are taken up for final disposal with consent of the learned Counsel for the rival parties. 2. In these letters patent appeals and writ petitions, learned Counsel for both parties made their submissions on the questions, which we have framed in this judgment. 3. Advocate Shri Khapre appearing for the appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No.368/2011 made the following submissions : (i) The Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 was enacted to regulate and make better provisions for the administration of public religious and charitable Trusts in the State of Bombay. Various officers who are required to implement the provisions of the said B.P.T. Act, 1950, namely the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Deputy Charity Commissioner, Joint Charity Commissioner and Charity Commissioner are performing judicial functions or in respect of some provisions; the quasi-judicial functions. That is evident from the reading of several pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1976CriLJ485; 1975MhLJ570
Shimpi, J.1. The State of Maharashtra challenges the order of acquittal passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Corporation, Nagpur, in Criminal Case No. 7928 of 1972 against 4 respondents who were charged that they, as partners of a partnership firm M/s. Khushaldas Deomal and Co. at Itwari, Nagpur, conducted business of edible oil and on 13th of September 1973 sold groundnut oil to Shri Kirtane, a Food Inspector, which on analysis did not conform with the standard laid down as per Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 7(i) read with Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.2. The facts of the prosecution case in brief are as under:-P.W. 1 Vijay Kirtane is working as Food Inspector in the districts of Vidarbha region. On 13th of September 1972 he along with witness Nilkanth Boghade, and Food inspector L.S. Asai, visited the shop premises of the firm situated at Maskasath, Nagpur. Accused N...
Tag this Judgment!