Mumbai Court July 1980 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Parle Products Private Limited Vs. C.S. Saraswati and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1980
Reported in: [1981(43)FLR122]; (1981)IILLJ419Bom; 1981MhLJ646
Chandurker, J.1. The petitioner-company in this petition is challenging an order made by the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, declining to grant approval under S. 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to the order of discharge made by the petitioner-company discharging respondent No. 1(hereinafter referred to as 'the employee') from employment after the charge framed against her were proved at a domestic enquiry.2. Charges of disobedience of the orders of superior officers and her behaviour being subversive of discipline and good behaviour were held to have been proved by the enquiry officer who forwarded his report to the Commercial Manager of the petitioner-company. The Commercial Manager made an order on 8th of March, 1976 that the employee should be discharged from the service of the company forthwith. In reaching this conclusion, the Commercial Manager found that the employee had been earlier warned for disobeying the lawful and reasonab...
Manharlal Narang Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1980
Reported in: (1980)82BOMLR572
P.B. Sawant, J.1. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks to quash the order dated January 31, 1975, passed against him under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and also for setting aside the order dated October 9, 1975, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bombay in a proceeding under Section 7(1)(b) of the said Act. The facts leading to the present petition are as follows :Two criminal cases being R.C. No. 17/66 and R.C. No. 21/66 were pending against the petitioner before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at New Delhi for the offences of smuggling out of India the prohibited antiques. With the permission of the learned Magistrate, the petitioner left India for medical treatment, on July 14, 1974. While the petitioner was still out of India, on January 31, 1975, the impugned order of detention was passed under Section 3(1) of th...
Kaddeeranbi and ors. Vs. Fatimabi and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Bom406
1. The question involved in this First Appeal is really speaking a very short one. The appellants before me are the original plaintiffs, who had filed a suit for partition and recovery of their share in the properties left by one Fate Sherkhan, husband of plaintiff No. 1 and father of the remaining plaintiffs. Practically the entire suit of the plaintiffs has been decreed. Only the plaintiffs' claim for share in house No. 1-15-101 situate at Deodi Bazar Chawk. Aurangabad, has been negatived. For the sake of convenience the said house bearing No. 1-15-101 will be referred to hereinafter as the 'suit house'. The present appeal by the plaintiffs relates to the claim pertaining to the suit house.2. It will be useful setting out the relationship of the parties at this stage. Fate Sherkhan had 3 wives : (1) Fatimabi, who was defendant No. 1 in the lower Court, (2) Kadeeranbi, who was plaintiff No. 1 in the lower Court, and (3) Bholibi, who was dead before the suit. Daughter of Bholibi is Ras...
Kishan Thakurdas Gokalani and Another Vs. Gopichand Jodhram Devnani an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1980
Reported in: 1981CriLJ1325
ORDER1. This Criminal Application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying that the proceedings in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kirkee, in Criminal Case No. 2244/1979 of that Court be quashed.2. The two petitioners herein claim to be citizens of India and carried on their business at Ulhasnagar. Respondent No. 1 resided at Pimpri, District Pune. During his lifetime, the father of respondent No. 1 had executed two Hundis, each for Rs. 20,000/- in favour of petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. The father of respondent No. 1 died in Or about the year 1978. The 1st petitioner thereupon filed a Summary Suit in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Ulhasnagar, against respondent No. 1 and others, the heirs and legal representatives of Hardasmal Devnani, claiming a decree on the basis of the Hundis. After the filing of the suit, the 1st petitioner applied to the Cou...
JainuddIn Abdul Rehman Shaikh Vs. Sitaram Damodhar Varvadhar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1980
Reported in: 1981MhLJ498
M.P. Kanade, J.1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the original defendant No. 1, tenant challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Sholapur, dated August 25, 1975.2. Few relevant and material facts giving rise to this Special Civil Application are as under:Respondent No. 1 Sitaram Damodhar Varadkar filed Regular Civil Suit No. 1061 of 1969 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sholapur. It is alleged by the plaintiff in his suit that the plaintiff and defendant No. 2, deceased Sadashiv Krishna Varvadkar, the uncle and nephew respective are the owners of the suit premises, which is a cinema there are known as 'Laxmi Talkies' at Sholapur bearing City Survey Nos. 8601 and 8603 bearing Municipal House No. 64 and defendant No. 1 is the tenant in the suit premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 360/-. It appears that defendant No. 1 separately paid the rent half each to the plaintiff and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›