Mumbai Court February 1983 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.
Goa, Daman and Diu Housing Board Vs. Ramakant V.P. Darvotkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Bom120
Rege, J.1. These four appeals by Goa. Daman and Diu Housing Board. Are against the Judgment and order of the learned Civil Judge. Senior Division. Panatii.dt. 26-6-81. Confirming four different awards by one arbitrator appointed in pursuance of an agreement between the parties. Appeal No. 35 of 1961 relates to the award. Awarding to the respondent against the appellant Rupees 2.75. 09. 13. Appeal No. 36 of 1981 relates to an award. Awarding to the respondent Rs. 3.36.230.36 and Appeal No. 38 of 1981 relates to an award awarding to the respondent Rs. 46.321.32 although the claim was over Rs. 50.000. Since all these appeals raise common questions, they are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. The appellant in the appeals, is the Goa. Dasman and Diu Housing Board white the respondent is a contractor who was under an agreement with the Housing Board entrusted with the construction of 200 tenements on behalf of the said Housing Board. The parties entered into an agreement provided for ...
Punamchand Meghaji Shikhare Vs. Superintendent of Police and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1983
Reported in: 1983(1)BomCR362
D.N. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner herein Punamchand Meghaji Shikhare has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari with a direction to quash the order of removal of the petitioner from service passed by respondent No. 1, the Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad, dated 31-1-1975 as also the order passed by the under Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department, dated 18-12-1981.2. The petitioner was employed as an Unarmed Head Constable and was stationed at the Police Station, Paradh. On 31-1-1972 one Shivsing Rajput lodged a complaint with the Police Inspector, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Aurangabad, to the effect that Police Head Constable Shinde had demanded from him through Police Constable Dongre of Paradh Police Station illegal gratification of Rs. 15/- for himself and an amount of Rs. 50/- for Dongre as a reward for dropping the proceedings in a police cased involving the complainant Shivsing Rajput, who was found...
Kheta Sons and Co. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1983
Reported in: (1983)85BOMLR239; 1983MhLJ621
Puranik, J.1. Rule was issued in this case against an order passed by civil Judge, senior division, Nagpur on August 14, 1981 whereby the trial Court granted further time to the defendants - the State Government and other government servants to file their written statement, inspite of opposition on the part of the plaintiff's counsel. The question in dispute, therefore, revolves around interpretation of Order 27 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. To appreciate the contentions of counsel for both the parties, the background of the case needs to be stated summarily as follows.3. The applicant/plaintiff filed a suit against the State of Maharashtra and four other government officers working under the State of Maharashtra for recovery of arrears of rent along with interest in respect of a godown which was let out to the State of Maharashtra and was subsequently handed over back to the plaintiff. The arrears of rent are in respect of the period November 1, 1977 to October 31 1978. The...
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Century Spinning and Manuf ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1983
Reported in: (1983)85BOMLR423
Aggarwal, J.1. These are different sets of appeals filed by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay under Section 218D of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, against the different decisions of the learned Additional Chief Judges of the Small Causes Court, Bombay, decided by them under Section 217 of the said Act in respect of the rateable value of the different properties of the respondents - the Century Spinning and ., having their registered office at Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Bombay.2. For the sake of clarity and convenience, the appellants herein, who were respondents in the lower appellate Court, will be described as the 'Corporation' and the respondents herein, who were the applicants in the lower appellate Court will be described hereafter as the 'assessee Company'.3. The first set of appeals consists of F.A. No. 82 of 1979 and F.A. No. 83 of 1979. The second set of appeals consists of F.A. No. 133 of 1978 with F.A. No. 135 of 1978. The third set of appeals consi...
Shakti Insulated Wires Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1983
Reported in: 1989(20)LC231(Bombay)
Bharucha, J.1. This notice of motion seeks an unusual relief. Having regard to the more unusual stand taken by the respondents, I propose to grant it.2. On 3rd October 1981 my brother Pendse delivered a judgment in the writ petition. He made the rule absolute and declared that the petitioners' products were liable to excise duty under tariff item 26A(2) or 27(b), as the case may be, and not under item 68 or item 22(1). He observed that, since the petitioners had paid duty from time to time under protest, they would be entitled to file an application for refund. He ordered that, in case the petitioners filed such application, 'the department should dispose it of within a period of six months from the date of filing.'3. The petitioners filed the application for refund on 14th May 1982. By an order passed on 18th November 1982 the Assistant Collector of Central Excise sanctioned an amount of Rs. 86,81,281.89 P. as refund. He directed that the said amount should be released to the petition...
Dinanath Ajabrao Ingole and anr. Vs. Shetkari Shikshan Prasarak Mandal ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Bom404
ORDER1. The revisional applicants are original defendants, while the non-applicants 1 to 3 are the original plaintiffs. The non-applicants instituted a Regular Civil Suit No. 359 of 1981 for declaration and injunction before the court of 4th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Wardha. In the said suit, interalia, they claimed declaration that original plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 are the President and Secretary of the original plaintiff No. 1 society, which is a registered public trust. They further sought a declaration to the effect that the original defendants present applicants, are no longer the President and Vice President of the said registered public trust, and lastly they claimed permanent injunction retraining the defendants from functioning as President and Vice-President respectively.2. The background of the facts resulting in the filing of the said suit are also necessary for appreciation of the grounds contended in this revision.3. The plaintiff No. 1 is a society registered und...
Girisons Distributors and ors. Vs. Parekh Brothers and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1983
Reported in: 1983(2)BomCR309
Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. The petitioner are original defendants 1 to 4 in Special Civil Suit No. 56 of 1979 filed by the plaintiffs who are respondents 1 to 3 herein, in the Court or Civil Judge, (Senior Division) at Nasik. The petitioners have filed the present petition challenging the order of the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) under which he has come to the conclusion that this Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit.2. The plaintiffs were appointed by defendants Nos. 1 to 4 as their exclusive stockists for retail sale of certain goods supplied by defendants Nos. 1 to 4 to the plaintiffs. The defendants Nos. 1 to 4 carry on business at Pune and they supplied the goods to the plaintiffs from Pune. Under the agreement the plaintiffs stocked these goods and sold them in their shop at Nasik. The suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for a declaration that the termination of their agreement by the defendants 1 to 4 is illegal and not binding on the plaintiffs, for a declarati...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Shrimant Govindrao Narayanrao Ghorpade
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1983
Reported in: 1983(2)BomCR487
Sharad Manohar, J.1. This appeal is filed by the Government against the award given by the Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Kolhapur under the Land Acquisition Act, enhancing the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer to the respondent/claimant in respect of the land compulsorily acquired for the extension of the industrial estate at Ichalkaranji. The lands in question were originally Jagirs. After the abolition of the Jagir under the Bombay Merged Territories miscellaneous Alienations Abolition Act, 1955, they were regranted to the respondent on certain conditions. There is no dispute before us that lands Survey Nos. 556 & 589 were regranted to him in his personal capacity whereas lands Survey Nos. 588/A and 588/B were regranted to him in his capacity of the sole Trustee of the Deosthan. After the regrant, the relevant notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued. At the time of the said notification there were two tenants on the lands. But in connection ...
Chairman, Krushi Utpanna Bazar Samiti Vs. Bhaiyya S/O. Pundlikrao Koth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1983
Reported in: (1983)85BOMLR393
Mohta, J.1. Does right of representation by a co-worker in a departmental enquiry emanate from the principles of natural justice in the facts and circumstances of these cases is a narrow yet an important common point which falls for consideration in these two matters.2. The facts and circumstances are these: The respondent - Bhaiyya Kothe (W.P. No. 2294 of 1982) and respondent - Ashok Vighre (W.P. No. 2296 of 1982) were in the employment of the petitioner Krushi Utpanna Bazar Samiti and had put in nearly four years of service when some serious charges of gross misconduct, insubordination, misbehaviour, unlawful trade union activities etc. were levelled against them. The charge-sheets which are followed by the statements of allegations in details alleged that the respondents:(i) remained absent merely after applying for leave at the eleventh hour and without getting prior sanction and behaved in a disorderly and indisciplined manner and shouted slogans.(ii) did not take cognizance of th...
B.J. Marda Vs. Trustees of the Port of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1983
Reported in: 1989(43)ELT262(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. The order that I now pass is a corollary to the order passed on 21st January, 1983 in Writ Petition No. 531 of 1982.2. In April 1981 the petitioner imported 150 cartons of glazing grease proof paper. On 26th October 1981 the goods were confiscated by the Collector of Customs, Bombay, for the reason that they were not imported in accordance with the Import Control Regulations. On 5th January 1982 customs duty was assessed in respect of the goods in the sum of Rs. 2,71,621/- and the same was paid by the petitioner. On 10th February, 1982 the goods were sold by the port trust authorities for non-payment of damages. The sale was pursuant to permission given in that behalf by the customs authorities. On 20th February 1982 the goods were seized by the customs authorities.3. On 1st March 1982 the 7th respondent herein, who was the transfer of the goods, filed a Writ Petition in this court, being Writ Petition No. 531 of 1982, challenging the seizure. On 16th March 1982 thi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »