Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1984)ILLJ156Bom; 1983MhLJ976
Mohta, J.1. On 17th May, 1982, the first respondent - the Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Nagpur, passed an order withdrawing recognition granted to the petitioner - a registered Trade Union and an affiliated Association of the All India Reserve Bank Employee's Association. In this Rule, the said order is challenged as being unfair and in violation of principles of natural justice. The merit of the challenge has to be judged against the following backdrop of factual events.2. The petitioner was recognized as an Association, firstly, in January 1957 and was representing Class III employees. In the year 1963, two different factions claimed majority of membership. Consequently, recognition granted to the petitioner was withheld. But by settlement dated 7th October, 1970, it was resorted and since then the petitioner has been representing the employees as their bargaining agent. By an award of the National Tribunal dated 4th December, 1981, the workload upon the Class III employees of Note...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1983Bom88; 1983(2)BomCR185; (1982)84BOMLR509
Pendse, J.1. This group of five appeals is preferred by the Board of Trustees of the Post of Bombay and its Officers, and raises an interesting question as to whether the Trustees of the Port Trust constituted under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 have a general lien for their dues over the consignment imported by the importers at the Bombay Port. As identical question arises in all these appeals and as the facts given rise to these appeals are almost similar, we propose to dispose of all there appeals by common judgment.2. The respondent in all these five appeals are importers and have imported various consignment from time to time. The respondent imported woollen rages and after the consignments arrived at Bombay Port, there was dispute between the respondent and the Customs authorities as to whether the imported goods were woollen rage or woollen garments. After a considerable period, the Customs authorities confiscated the imported goods and under the provisions of S. 111(d) of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1983(1)BomCR569
M.S. Jamdar, J.1. Petitioner Harilal Bansu Kewat is detained by virtue of an order dated 21st April, 1982 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (1) read with Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 with a view to Preventing the petitioner from acting any manner prejudicial to them maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community.2. The detention order is passed on the basis of recovery of cement bags from the possession of the petitioner on three different occasions in three different raids carried out by the Crime Branch (Control), C.I.D., Bombay. In the first raid 78 gunny bags each containing 50 kgs cement were recovered from the possession of the petitioner from a wooden hut at Sardar Nagar, Sion Koliwada, Transit Camp, Pipe Line, behind Santoshi Mata Temple, Bombay on 29th April, 1980. On the se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1983)85BOMLR268
Waikar, J.1. These three civil revision applications are being disposed by a common judgment as the question which is one of jurisdiction, is common in all these matters. These are the three revisions by the original defendants (tenants) in occupation of the different tenanted premises of the same building which previously belonged to one Ramji.2. The non-applicant (plaintiff) claimed to have purchased the entire house from said Ramji by registered sale deed dated June 28, 1976 and he filed the three suits against present petitioners for ejectment and arrears of rent.3. The contention raised by these three petitioners, as defendants in the three suits, was that they had entered into a contract to purchase this building with their previous landlord Ramji which was prior to the sale deed dated June 28, 1976. They had, in fact, sent notice to the present non-applicant apprising him of their previous agreement and had warned him not to enter into any transaction with Ramji. They further co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1983Bom54; 1983MhLJ107
ORDER1. This is an application by the Official Assignee for a declaration that the family arrangement dated 30th October 1967 under which the tenancy rights of two shops bearing Nos. 4 and 5 situate at 177, Dogri Street, Bombay belonging to the insolvents were allotted to Bai Ratanbai Morarji Kanji, and which arrangement has been declared as a fraudulent transfer by a judgment of this Court dated 8-10-1971 confirmed in appeal by this Court on 13-1-1981, be set aside, and the Official Assignee may be ordered to taken possession of these shops and to proceed thereafter with the sale thereof either by public auction or by private treaty as the Official Assignee may deem fit and proper. The Official Assignee has also prayed that the 'transfers' and made by Bai Ratanbai in respect of the said shops under an agreement dated 11-4-1974 to Atul Doongarsi & Co., and under an agreement dated 13-10-1078 to Varsha Traders as well as a partnership deed dated 23-12-1968 between Bai Ratanbai Morarji a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1983]54CompCas469(Bom)
INTRODUCTION1. This is a suit for rectification of the register of shares of the National Rayon Corporation Ltd., the 8th defendant. Rectification is sought in respect of 43,750 shares standing in the names of the Unit Trust Of India (UTI), the 1st defendant, Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India (ICICI), the 7th defendant, General Insurance Corporation of India (GIC), the 2nd defendant, and four subsidiaries of GIC, being the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th defendants. On May 31, 1979, the company issued to the said financial institutions 35,000, 11% convertible debentures of the nominal amount of Rs. 1,000 each, privately placed with them. Each of the debenture-holders was entitled to convert 20% of the value of the debentures held by it into equity shares. Each of the debenture-holders exercised the option to convert to the full extent on May 31, 1979, itself and was allotted the 43.750 shares on June 5, 1979. The shares are more particularly described in Ex.S. to the plaint.2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1982(1)BomCR797
S.J. Deshpande, J.1. This appeal against an order arises out of an execution proceedings. In execution of a decree passed by the Small Causes Court in R.A.E. Suit No. 6526 of 1955, the plaintiff-decree-holder sought to execute this decree against the judgment-debtor. When the decree was put for execution, the appellant-applicant was on the premises which are involved in the decree. The decree relates to three shops and we are concerned only with Shop No. 4 in this appeal.2. The appellant filed an application before the Executing Court under Order 21, Rule 100(7) of the Code of Civil Procedure resisting the execution of the decree. That application was heard by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court in Chamber Summons No. 470 of 1978. During the pendency of the Summons the appellant had also applied for ad interim injunction against the plaintiffs. The learned Judge of the City Civil Court has dismissed the Chamber Summons and vacated the injunction by his order July 3, 1981. This Ch...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1982(2)BomCR517
V.S. Deshpande, C.J.1. This is the plaintiffs second appeal. The plaintiff was employed as a Police Prosecutor, with effect from 4th December, 1952. He continued to be in service till he received a notice from the Government compulsorily retiring him. The said notice was dated 15th October, 1970 based on the 'High Power' Special Review Committee's recommendations dated 7th July, 1970. Plaintiff's date of birth is 12th December, 1916. Ordinarily he could not have been retired before 12th December, 1974 on which date he would be at 58. However, his notice dated 15th October, 1970 was withdrawn. Notices for compulsorily retirements were issued by the Government in exercise of its powers under Rule 161 of B.C.S. Rules. The said rules were in the meanwhile amended. The above notice of compulsory retirement was withdrawn. The plaintiff thereafter was served with a memo dated 9th June, 1971. The memo indicated that the Government had decided to compulsorily retire the plaintiff. The said memo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1984]56CompCas428(Bom)
Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. This is a petition under Ss. 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, filed by six petitioners against the first respondent company and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 who claim to be in the management and control of the company. In the petition, the petitioners have set out various acts of gross mismanagement of the company. It has been alleged that the company is not at all functioning and that the company is not holding annual general meetings or any other meetings. The petitioners have produced notices received by them in their capacity as directors of the company in respect of prosecutions launched by the Registrar of Companies. The petitioners have stated that though their names are shown as directors of the company in the record of the Register of Companies, in fact no meetings of the board of directors have been held, that they are totally kept out of the management and that on account of the mismanagement of the company by respondents Nos. 1 and 2, they are bei...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1983(1)BomCR118
Sharad Manohar, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Judge of the Bombay City Civil Court who has dismissed the appellants chamber summons for bringing themselves as heirs of the original plaintiff on record on the ground that the same was barred by limitation and that there was no justifiable ground for condonation of the delay. By the self-same order, the learned Judge also held that the suit stood abated.For the reasons which will be mentioned presently, both the orders passed by the learned Judge have got to be and are being set aside by this order.2. The facts are very few and simple.Original plaintiff, one Sonu Balu Surve, filed a suit against defendant Ramchandra Ragho Sawant, Suit No. 3000 of 1969, for various reliefs. From the reliefs claimed, it will be seen that the property involved was of an extremely valuable character. A declaration was sought from the Court that the suit property, namely, 'Chawl House No. 512' and the land thereunder was of t...
Tag this Judgment!