Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Top of Form 1. The Writ Petition has been filed by the workers employed with the Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar i.e. the respondent herein. Complaint (ULP) No. 141 of 1987 was filed under Items 5, 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act") by the petitioners seeking permanency in service. The Industrial Court by its order dated 4th April, 1990 declared that the respondent had committed an unfair labour practice under Item 6 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act. The respondent was directed to accord the petitioners the status and benefits of permanency with effect from 1st July, 1987. The Industrial Court also directed the respondent to fix the salary and allowance of the petitioners in the time scale as per the posts held by them and to further pay them all monetary benefits, including bonus on or before 30th June, 1990, failing whic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
1. Heard both sides. Perused the record. Criminal 2. By the present petition, reliefs which the petitioners are seeking are quoted below: (i)" direct the respondent Municipal Council to initiate an enquiry for the reasons of leakage of water due to which the citizens of Hinganghat were affected, and; (ii) direct the Municipal Council to initiate prosecution against the erring officers of Municipal Council for their negligence/failure to supply pure drinking water to the citizens of Hinganghat, and; (iii)direct the State as well as by Municipal Council, Hinganghat and the erring officer of the respondent Municipal Council to pay appropriate compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- to the petitioners for the loss of their son, and; (iv) direct the respondent State or the Municipal Council to give employment to one of the son of the petitioners so as to save the family from starving." [Quoted from pages no.18 & 19 of petition paper book] BACKGROUND 3. The petitioners' claim is based...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. A Division Bench of this court has referred following questions for consideration by a Larger Bench. (I) Whether an employee employed in a private primary school recognised by a body or officer referred to in sub-section (2) of section 39 of the Bombay Primary Education Act, 1947 can approach the Tribunal under section 9 of the MEPS Act, 1977, if he/she is aggrieved by any action of the management as stipulated in the said provision? (II) In other words, whether the MEPS Act, 1977 applies to employees of a private primary school recognised by a body or officer referred to in sub- section (2) of section 39 of the Bombay Primary Education Act, 1947? 2. The Hon'ble the Chief Justice, therefore, constituted this Bench for consideration of the above quoted two questions. 3. The relevant facts are that the Appellant was in the service of Jhulelal Trust School as Asst.teacher. She was working in the primary school. By order dated 26-11-2007 her services were terminated by the managem...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. This reference made by an order dated 23 December, 2010 of a Division Bench of this Court raises the following questions :- 1) Whether the power to search, seize and seal "any other material object" conferred by Section 30 of the Pre- conception and pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 includes the power to search, seize and seal an ultrasound machine or any other machine or equipment, if the Appropriate Authority or Authorized Officer has reason to believe that it may furnish evidence of the commission of an offence punishable under the Act? 2) Whether the decision of a Division Bench of this Court at Aurangabad Bench in Dadasaheb (Dr.) s/o Popatrao Tarte v. State of Maharashtra and others, 2010 (2) Mah. L.J. 110 taking the view that Section 30 does not confer such power in respect of an ultrasound machine lays down the correct law? 2. The brief facts leading to filing of this writ petition are not in dispute. The petitioner is a Gynecologist ru...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1] This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:- "(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare the arbitration Award dated 8 July 2009 read with 15 March 2010 enforceable as decree of this Hon'ble Court."2] It is submitted by the petitioners that they are a company incorporated in England and carrying on business at the address set out in the cause title. They are inter alia ship owners, ship operators and charterers. Respondent before this Court is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at the address mentioned hereinabove. It carries on business as exporters of Bauxite and other minerals. 3] The petitioner seeks enforcement of a foreign Arbitration Award dated 8th July 2009 and a further award dated 15th March 2010 under which the petitioners have been awarded sums more particularly set out in para 2 of the petition. A copy of the Award in relation to the main dispute and also a copy of the Award in relation to costs is annexed to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1 This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the grant of Patent No.231479 dated 04.03.2009 vide Patent Application No.96/MUM/2005 evidenced by AnnexureU to the petition and the order dated 03.06.2009 (AnnexureZ to the petition).2 The Petitioner is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and has its registered office at the address mentioned in the cause title. It is a pharmaceutical company manufacturing, distributing, marketing and exporting pharmaceutical products particularly active pharmaceutical ingredients and finished dosage forms.3 The Respondent No.1 is also a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and has its registered office in the State of Gujarat at the address mentioned in the cause title. It filed the above Patent Application which has been allowed by the authorities, who are Respondent Nos.2 to 4 to this Writ Petition.4 It is stated that on 01.02.2005 the Respondent No.1 filed a patent applicat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
A.V. Potdar, J.1. None for respondent No. 1, though duly served.2. By this application the applicant has assailed the order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in criminal appeal No. 39/2010. Vide judgment and order dated 03.03.2010, the learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the criminal appeal for default.3. Rule.4. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, heard finally at the stage of admission itself.5. Such of the facts, as are necessary for the just decision of this criminal application may briefly be stated thus-A) Present respondent No. 1 had filed complaint bearing Summary Case No. 814/2003 Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the applicant before the JMFC, Parner. By the judgment and order dated 27.01.2010, learned JMFC, Parner allowed the summary case and pleased to convict the applicant for an offence punishable Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The applicant was sentenced to suffer RI for one month and to p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Admit. Respondents waive service. By consent, Appeal is taken up for hearing forthwith. It is agreed between the parties that the final hearing of the Appeal shall be treated as disposal of Notice of Motion No. 271 of 2010 pending before the learned Single Judge.2. This Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 4th February 2010 passed in the aforementioned Notice of Motion which was moved by the Appellant original Applicant. The parties to this Notice of Motion are Respondent No. 1original Plaintiff and original Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 being Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein. Any reference to them as per their original position be understood accordingly.3. The learned Single Judge passed an adinterim order and posted the Notice of Motion for hearing and final disposal. However, the learned Judge directed the Applicant to furnish security to the extent of US $ 7.52 million as a precondition for vacating the order of arrest of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
A.H. Joshi, J.1. Admit.The Respondents, in appeal who are not appearing, need not be served afresh. Contesting respondents, are appearing. The Appeals are called out by consent of Advocates for the parties who are contesting / appearing. Heard at length for final disposal.2. Status of the contesting parties in Letters Patent Appeal No. 197 of 2009 in Writ Petition No. 5993 of 2005 is as follows:[i] Present respondent Nos. 25 and 26 were the writ petitioners. They are hereinafter referred to as Writ Petitioners.[ii] Present appellant was respondent No. 7. He is hereinafter referred to as Appellant.[iii] Appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No. 239 of 2009 was respondent No. 24 in Writ Petition No. 5993 of 2005.3. Parties are referred to in this Judgment according to their status in the writ petition No. 5993 of 2005 for convenience.Respondent No. 2 0 in the Writ Petition, namely Vaibhav Liquors Pvt. Ltd. is a Private Limited Company, who came into the picture in the working of respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member 1. Complainant- Manik alias Gangajirao Zugara More has filed this complaint against Rajasthani and Gujrathi Charitable Foundations Poona Hospital and Research Centre-O.P.No.1 and also against Port Trust Hospital, Wadala, Mumbai-O.P.No.2 alleging medical negligence on their part in respect of treatment given by both hospitals to his son-Mahendra More. 2. According to the complainant, Mahendra slipped off his motorcycle on Sinhagad Road at about 10.30 p.m. on 23/02/1997. One passerby took him to Madhukar Hospital on Sinhagad Road and since his son has having head injury, he was brought to Poona Hospital/O.P.No.1 and admitted in the said hospital. He was admitted in Intensive Care Unit (I.C.U.) of O.P.No.1 and necessary treatment was given. According to the complainant, his relative used to wait day and night outside I.C.U. to monitor the health of Mahendra. Necessary medicines, injections and equipments were brought. His son was ...
Tag this Judgment!