Mumbai Court August 1978 Judgments
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. N.L. Abhyankar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-1978
Reported in: (1979)IILLJ258Bom
1. This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside certain orders passed by the Labour Court and the Industrial Court on 17th December, 1970 and 3rd May, 1971, respectively. 2. The 1st petitioner is the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay. The 2nd petitioner is the General Manager of the B.E.S.T. Undertaking set up by the 1st petitioner under the provisions of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. The affairs of the B.E.S.T. Undertaking are managed by a Committee the 1st petitioner, called the B.E.S.T. Committee, in accordance with the provisions contained in the said Act. The 1st respondent is the President of the Industrial Court, the 2nd respondent is a Member of the Labour Court. The 3rd respondent is a Trade Union of the workers of the B.E.S.T. Undertaking and the 4th respondent is the General Secretary of the 3rd respondent-union. 3. On 6th December, 1968, the then General Secretary of the 3rd respondent-union sent a letter to the B.E.S....
Tag this Judgment!Leelabai Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Bom206; (1979)81BOMLR431; 1979MhLJ69
ORDER1. This revision arises out of an order with regard to the liability to pay the court-fee upon an application for compensation filed, under S. 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act. R. 291 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules, 1959, provides for the procedure of making application to the Claims Tribunal. R. 292 prescribes the fees that are to accompany such an application and are to be paid in the form of court-fee stamps. R. 292, prior to its present amendment introduced by the notification of Oct. 28, 1977, had provided for payment of fixed court-fee of Rs. 10/--. The amended rule which applies to the present claim laid by the applicant in sum of Rs. 70.000/- raises the question of computation of the court-fee. The application was accompanied, it is not In dispute, 'with the court-fee of rupees 220-50. After computing, upon an interpretation of entry (iii) in the amend-ed Sub-rule (1). the Court has directed the applicant to pay Rs. 350/- as the correct court-fee. The Court has treated ea...
Tag this Judgment!Pandurang Narayan NaThe Vs. Ramchandra Maroti Jawarkar and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-1978
Reported in: AIR1980Bom84; (1979)81BOMLR445
ORDER1. These two writ petitions have been filed for quashing the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') on 1st March 1973 directing the petitioner to place respondent No. 1 in possession of the land in dispute. Both these petitions are, therefore, being disposed of by this common judgment.2. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties to these petitions it would be convenient to state the facts leading to the present petitions, in brief. The land bearing S. No. 522/2 admeasuring 1 acre 12 gunthas and situated within the municipal limits of Akot belongs to respondent No. 1, He had leased it out to the petitioner on 9th February 1954 under a Kabulayat for an annual rental of Rs. 150/-. This lease was for a duration of one year. However, the petitioner continued on the land as tenant. On 8th February 1969 respondent No. 1 served a notice on the petitioner terminating his tenancy and calling upon him to hand ove...
Tag this Judgment!Sakamari Steel and Alloys Ltd. Vs. State Industrial and Investment Cor ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Bom66; (1979)81BOMLR434; 1979MhLJ733
ORDER1. This is a petition for the opinion, advice and directions of this Court sought under the provisions of S. 69-A of the T. P. Act, 1882.2. The petitioners carry on business as manufacturers of steel and alloys and own a mini steel plant at Nagpur. By an indenture of mortgage dated 10th May 1973 the first respondents lent and advanced a sum of Rs. 29,65,000/- to the petitioners against the mortgage of the said plant. Clause 12 (1) of the mortgage document reads as follows:--'(1) The corporation shall have power to appoint in writing a Receiver of the mortgaged premises to receive the profits, income and benefits thereof under the provisions of Section 69-A of the said Transfer of Property Act and in that event shall be at liberty and entitled to appoint the person then occupyingthe post of its Managing Director or failing him the person then occupying the post of its Secretary at the Head Office of the Corporation as such Receiver by writing signed by the Corporation or on its beh...
Tag this Judgment!Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Bombay M ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1978
Reported in: (1978)80BOMLR724; (1979)ILLJ323Bom; 1979MhLJ99
1. The above first appeal was filed by the Regional Director of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation again whom an application was filed by the respondent Bombay Metal and Alloys ., the employer-company, under S. 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, wherein it was declared by the Judge of the Employees' Insurance Court, Bombay, by his judgment and order dated September 22, 1972, that the employees' contribution and the employer's special contribution were not payable on the quarterly attendance-cum-production bonus paid to the workmen, as such quarterly payment is excluded from the definition of 'wages' as given in S. 2(22) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. 2. The decision of the learned Judge of the Employees' Insurance Court is challenged in the above first appeal by the Regional Director. Mr. Jaykar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Regional Director, submitted that the learned Judge committed a substantial error of law in not analysing and...
Tag this Judgment!C.L. Kavish Vs. Saransingh Pruthi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Bom152
Aggarwal, J.1. This appeal has been filed under Section 39(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The appeal ordinarily lies to a single Judge, It appears that when the appeal came for hearing before the learned single Judge of this Court on 16-6-1978, the appeal was referred to a Division Bench.2, The few undisputed facts are that the appellant at all times material was the tenant of the respondent-landlord in respect ofa flat admeasuring 500 sq. ft. on the ground floor of a building known as Pruthi Building situate at Prabhat Colony, Santacruz (East), Bombay. 'The respondent was desirous of constructing a new building by demolishing the old building and accordingly he brought an ejectment suit against the appellant on that ground as well as on other grounds such as non-payment of arrears of rent etc. While the suit was pending in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay, the respondent, by a letter dated 26-5-1964 and confirmed by the appellant, agreed to refer all the disputes between the part...
Tag this Judgment!Sukhdeo Krishna Kadam Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-1978
Reported in: 1979CriLJ264
ORDERSawant, J.1. The admitted facts in this case are that on 25-12-1975 at about 10.00 a.m., the complainant Food Inspector with panch witness Bugade was present in Jayprakash Restaurant at Barsi The accused who is a retail vendor of milk brought milk with the intention to sell the same to the proprietor of the restaurant. Suspecting that the milk was adulterated, the Food Inspector demanded a sample of the milk from the accused. The accused kept the pot of milk in the hotel and told the Inspector that he would supply the sample as soon as the other articles which he had kept on his bicycle parked nearby, were also brought to the restaurant. Saying so, the accused left the restaurant and did not turn up thereafter. The Food Inspector waited for a long time for the accused to return. Thereafter, he realised that the accused had made good his escape and therefore decided to attach the milk pot. The Inspector then made the necessary panchanama and attached the pot containing the milk. Ho...
Tag this Judgment!Khajabi Chandkhan Pathan Vs. Gulabkhan Jamalkhan Pathan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1978
Reported in: (1980)82BOMLR207; 1979MhLJ227
Vaidya, J.1. The above First Appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 raises an important question of law as to whether, having held the respondent No. 1 employer liable for the compensation under that Act, in respect of the accident to a motor vehicle viz. auto-riksha, as a result of which Chandkhan the workman died on June 14, 1975, the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Act, Poona was right in dismissing the claim against the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., respondent No. 2.2. The learned Commissioner appears to have taken the view that notwithstanding the decision of the division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Northern India Motors Ins. Co. v. Magan Shanjit Solanki [1974] A.C.J. 55 wherein with respect, the learned Judges of the Gujarat High Court had very carefully and fully considered all the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and Sections 95 and 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 alon...
Tag this Judgment!Ramrajsing Sadanandsing Chandele Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1978
Reported in: (1979)81BOMLR602
Vaidya, J.1. The above First Appeal was filed by the plaintiff, who instituted on July 3, 1967 Special Civil Suit No, 215 of 1967 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Poona, for a declaration that the order of his suspension and the order of his dismissal were illegal, null and void and that he was entitled to get his pay and the allowances.2. The plaintiff was suspended and an inquiry was held by the commandant of the State Reserve Police Force Group in which he was working as a head constable (Grade I).3. The learned Civil Judge, after considering the oral and documentary evidence in the case, found that full and fair opportunity was given to the plaintiff in the course of the departmental inquiry to meet the charge levelled against him that with respect to the training of members of the State Reserve Police Force, who were trained in September 1961 for the District Drill Inspector's Course and who were in charge of the plaintiff for training, as the mark-sheets were get...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra Vs. Hariram Hambarram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1978
Reported in: 1979CriLJ397
Mehta, J.1. This is an Appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra against the Judgment and Order of the learned Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, D/- 23-1-1976. The accused was charged under Section 7 (i) read with Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The learned Sessions Judge was pleased to acquit the accused of the offence.2. The brief facts leading to the present appeal are the following :Accused No. 1 and his son Manoharlal Hariram, who was original Accused No, 2 in the trial Court, were the owners of a Cold Drink and Ice-cream Shop known as 'Ashok Lassi Centre' at Ahmednagar, On 15-5-1973 at or about 4-50 p.m. the complainant Rajaram Vaman Joshi (P.W. 1), who was a Food Inspector, visited the shop of the two accused accompanied by Panchas and purchased 900 gms. of mixed ice-cream from accused No. 1, who was then present in the shop. Joshi paid Rs. 3-30 ps. as the price of the article. He then followed the procedure laid down under the Prevention of Food Adul...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »