Court : Mumbai
1. As substantially common questions of law and fact arise in these batch of Petitions, they are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. All these Writ Petitions take exception to the Awards made by the 1st and 10th Labour Courts, Mumbai. The Labour Courts have denied the relief of reinstatement to the dismissed workmen. However, compensation / back wages in the range of Rs.2 Lacs to Rs.6 Lacs came to be awarded to most of the workmen involved in the dispute. 3. The Writ Petition No.1892 of 2008 has been preferred by the Union objecting to denial of reinstatement or in the alternate urging that the compensation / back wages awarded is not commensurate. The rest of the Writ Petitions have been preferred by the employer, contending that no relief whatsoever ought to have been granted in favour of the union / workmen. 4. For the sake of convenience, the particulars of the References, workmen involved therein, relief granted etc. are set out in the chart beneath :- 1st LABO...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
By this petition filed under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, petitioner seeks an order and direction against respondents to deposit monies to the extent of the claims of the petitioner under Share Subscription Agreement and Share Holders Agreement including the investment of approximately US$ 60 million and cost and/or in the alternative to provide adequate and satisfactory security in regard to the claims of the petitioner. Petitioner also claims disclosure of all the assets, moneys, bank deposits and accounts held by the respondents singly or jointly and/or severally including but not limited to the accounts with Corporation Bank by an affidavit. Petitioner seeks injunction restraining the respondents from dealing with their assets including bank accounts with Corporation Bank. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under :- 2 (a) Petitioner is a company incorporated under the laws of Mauritius and has its registered offic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. The Petitioners (œPlaintiffs?) have filed the present Suit, inter alia, for infringement of its registered trademarks being œUltraTech Cement? and/or marks, the essential feature whereof is 'UltraTech', as more particularly set out in the Plaint, and for passing off. 2. For the sake of convenience, the Petitioners shall hereinafter be referred to as œthe Plaintiffs? and the Respondents as œthe Defendants?. 3. According to the Plaintiffs, this Court has jurisdiction to grant reliefs for infringement of trademarks in view of the fact that the Plaintiffs carry on business within the jurisdiction of this Court and Plaintiff No.1 has its Registered Office and Plaintiff No.2 has its Corporate Office within the jurisdiction of this Court. Admittedly, the Defendants do not carry on business nor do they have any place of business within the jurisdiction of this Court. In view thereof, the Plaintiffs are, by the present Petition, seeking leave under Clause XIV of the L...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
M.S. Sonak, J. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable with the consent of all the parties forthwith. 2. The Petitioner, a Trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (said Act) comprising about 117 Pilots of Jet Airways (India) Limited-Respondent No.5 challenges the order dated 15th April 2013 passed by the Industrial Tribunal (Appellate Authority under Section 11 of the said Act), except to the extent, it sets aside order dated 11th November 2009 passed by the Registrar of Trade Unions cancelling the Petitioner's registration. The order dated 15th March 2009 proceeds to remand the matter to the Registrar once again to determine whether registration had been validly granted and during pendency of such determination suspends the registration and restrains the Petitioner from raising any industrial disputes with Respondent No.5. 3. Before we advert to the facts and circumstances in which the aforesaid challenge arises, we must observe that this case is a classic illustration of how...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. The parties entered into agreements for development of the property of the Tulip Hospitality Services Ltd. (Tulip) by Nirmal Lifestyle Ltd. (Nirmal). The payments under the agreements were to be made upon specified covenants contained in the agreements. Certain payments have been made. Certain covenants have been complied. Certain other covenants have not been complied. There were disputes between the parties. Arbitration was invoked. The parties appeared before the Arbitrator. An award has been passed which has been challenged by Nirmal with regard to two agreements executed by the parties which were referred to arbitration. The award is challenged by Tulip with regard to the grant of interest only. Nirmal has also applied for interim relief for protection and preservation of the disputed property pending the arbitral proceedings to be initiated in respect of the reference agreement and until the publishing of the award. 2. Parties have entered into agreements on 29.03.2003, 31.03....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Kanade, J.) 1. The Appellant Maharashtra State Electricity Board which is now known as Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL) has filed this appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge (Coram: Mrs. R.S. Dalvi, J.) dated 18/3/2009. By the said judgment and order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Petition which was filed by the Appellant herein and confirmed the Award dated 18/06/2004 which was given by the Arbitral Tribunal. 2. There is a chequered history of litigation between the parties. For the sake of convenience the Appellant shall be hereinafter referred to as MSEB, though now it is known as MSEDCL and the Respondent M/s Datar Switchgear Ltd shall be hereinafter referred to as DSL. The matter travelled to the Apex Court on more than couple of occasions. Criminal complaints were filed by D...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Common Judgment: 1. Writ Petition No.722 of 2013 filed by the original defendant No.1 takes exception to the order dated 28-11-2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, allowing Exhibit 68 the application for amendment under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code filed by the plaintiffs in Special Civil Suit No.590 of 2011, after conclusion of the cross-examination of one witness, viz. Mahendra Maniklal Shah, examined by the plaintiffs. 2. It was a suit for declaration that there is a concluded conditional contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant No.1 for transfer of right, title and interest in the suit property in favour of the defendant No.2 and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.1 from dealing with the suit property in any manner prejudicial to the interest of the plaintiffs. By way of amendment, which has been allowed by the Trial Court, a relief of specific performance of contract and for possession of the suit property, ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: (Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, an employee with respondent No.1 State of Maharashtra, has assailed the norms laid down for the purposes of availing the benefit of 3% reservation provided for physically handicapped persons. Submission is, barring a person suffering from visual impairment is not in consonance with the provisions of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the "1995 Act") and also it violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 2. The basic facts are not in dispute. The petitioner has passed his M.B.B.S. course as a physically handicapped person from Government Medical College and Hospital at Aurangabad in 2003. He had taken admission in 1998-99. The petitioner then completed compulsory internship and joined employment as a Medical Officer in 2006. In 2009 he passed M.P.S.C. examination...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: 1. The Appellant Union of India, represented by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, through the Regional Director, Western Region, has filed the present Appeal under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 (the Act) seeking to set aside the Order dated 28th March, 2013, passed by Respondent No. 1 the Company Law Board, Mumbai Bench (the CLB), disposing of Company Petition No. 62 of 2009 under Sections 397, 398 and 402 of the Act, chiefly on the ground that notice under Section 400 of the Act was not served by the CLB on the Appellant. 2. The above Appeal was admitted on 11th June, 2013, and is now taken up for final hearing. 3. The following Questions of Law are framed for consideration in the present Appeal: (a) Whether the Order passed by the CLB, Mumbai Bench, dated 28th March, 2013 is nonest, ex facie not valid and the entire proceedings in Company Petition No. 62 of 2009, stand vitiated since the notice of the Application/Petition made by the Original Petitioner (Res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
R.V. Ghuge, J. 1. The appellant, being aggrieved by order dated 22.11.2012, passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.2946/2012, has preferred this intra Court appeal for challenging the said order of the learned Single Judge. 2. Being a Letters Patent Appeal, we were not required to look into the matter threadbare, and reappreciate the entire evidence recorded before the Labour Court and the details as they emerge from the judgment of the Labour Court, Latur, as well as the Industrial Court, Latur. However, being conscious of the fact that this appeal gave an opportunity to the appellant to make an attempt to point out perversities and illegalities, if any, from the two judgments of the lower Courts and draw our attention to any perversity in the order of the learned Single Judge, we decided to look into the concurrent findings of the lower Courts. It is with this object that we have turned our attention to the first judgment that was delivered by the Labour Court, Latur, and...
Tag this Judgment!