Mumbai Court October 1982 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.
Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. Vs. Industrial Court and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1982
Reported in: (1984)ILLJ46Bom
1. The petitioners are a Public Limited Company. They manufacture cement concrete and steel pipes. They have factories all over India. One such factory is situated at Wadala, Bombay. It is distinct for the purposes of employment and service conditions. The petitioner employees at this factory some 547 operatives or daily-rated workmen and 80 monthly-rated staff. This petition is concerned with the latter.2. On 30th October, 1978 the petitioner issued a notice of lock-out in accordance with the provisions of S. 24(2) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices act, 1971 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The notice expressed the petitioner's intention to effect a lock-out in all departments of its Wadala factory with effect from 3rd November, 1978 for the reasons stated in the statement annexed to it. This statement of reasons explained that from 28th July, 1978 welders, assistant welders, machine welders and gas cutters of the Wadala factory ha...
Searle (India) Ltd. Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1982
Reported in: (1983)33CTR(Bom)143; [1984]145ITR673(Bom); [1983]12TAXMAN300(Bom)
Lentin, J.1. Amongst its other activities the petitioner-company, which is incorporated under the companies Act, 1956, carries out scientific tests in its research laboratory in India. G. D. Searle & Co., which is incorporated in the United States of America, imports psyllium husks from India required to its quality specifications. An agreement was entered into on 1st January, 1975, between the petitioner and G. D. Searle & Co. of the U.S.A. whereby the petitioner was required to carry out certain tests in its laboratory in India and forward to G. D. Searl & Co in the United States the result of those tests with a certificate that each lot of psyllium husk conformed to the specifications of G. D. Searle & Co. On 22nd March, 1977, the petitioner applied to the CBDT for approval of the agreement dates 1st January, 1975, under s. 80-O of the I.T. Act, 1961. That application was rejected by an order dated 19th January, 1978, on the ground that the technical service was not rendered outside...
Brijlal and anr. Vs. hotel Neelam-lodging and Boarding and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Bom432; 1983MhLJ300
ORDER1. Plaintiffs' application for amendment of plaint is rejected by the learned Civil Judge. Senior Division, Aurangabad and that is why the plaintiffs have challenged that order in this Court in Revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code and it arises out of the following facts.2. In order to properly decide this question, it is necessary to state a few facts. Plaintiffs are the revision petitioners before this Court. Defendant No. 2 is respondent No. 2 in this Court and defendants Nos. 3 and 4 are respondents Nos. 3 and 4 in this Court. In this revision. I will refer these parties as plaintiff s and defendants. Defendant No. 3 is the wife of and defendant No. 4 is mother of defendant No. 2 On 10-4-1970. a registered partnership deed was executed and a partnership business under the name and style of 'Hotel Neelam-Lodging and Boarding' (respondent No. 1) was started by the plaintiffs and by defendant Nos. 3 and 4. These were the only four partners in the partnership. De...
Sitaram Kondi Talap and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1982
Reported in: 1982(1)BomCR938
R.A. Jahagirdar, J.1. In Sessions Case No. 37 of 1979 tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Kolhapur, five persons were prosecuted for offences punishable under sections 307, 326 and 324 read with sections 148 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Of the five accused, accused Nos. 1 and 2 are brothers while, accused Nos. 3 and 5 are the wives of accused Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. Accused No. 4 is another lady related to the other accused. The facts leading to the prosecution have been set out in great details in the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge and it is unnecessary to refer to them again. The backdrop of the incident which gave rise to the prosecution is the neighbourhood of the two pieces of and owned by the party of the complainant on the one hand, and by the party of the accused, on the other. In between, but on the land of the accused, is a bund which, it has now been held, is of the ownership of the accused. The prosecution evidence itself shows that t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›