Mumbai Court April 1984 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.
Superintending Agricultural Officer Nagpur Division, Nagpur and Anothe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-1984
Reported in: (1986)ILLJ318Bom; 1985MhLJ640
1. This is a writ petition by the employer arising out of the proceedings under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1947 (for short 'the BIR Act'). The respondent employee had filed an application under S. 78 of the BIR Act challenging the dismissal from service by an order dated 8th January, 1968 passed by the petitioners. The petitioners filed written statement denying that the impugned order of dismissal was illegal and liable to be set aside. It, however, appears that during the proceedings before the Labour Court it was found by the petitioners that the departmental enquiry was not legal and proper and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The petitioners, therefore, led evidence before the Labour Court to prove independently the charges against the respondent and so justify the order of dismissal issue against him. The respondent employee also led evidence in rebuttal of the charges against him.2. The learned Labour Court held in favour of the employee on the bas...
Shivaji and anr. Vs. the Chairman, Maharashtra Public Service Commissi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Bom434
Jahagirdar, J.1. The two petitioners in this petitioner under Art. 226 of the Constitution have challenged the memoranda dt. 20th April, 1983 whereby their services are directed to stand terminated on the expiry of the period of 30 days from the date of the issue of the said notices. There is a somewhat long history behind the issuance of these notices and naturally the facts leading to the issuance of these notices must be stated in great details.2. Pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Maharashtra public Service Commission on 4th Jan., 1979 the petitioner applied for the posts of Probationary Tahsildars in Maharashtra Civil Services Class II. The notification also declared the filling up of vacancies in several other services such as probationary Deputy Collectors in Maharashtra State, Maharshtra Finance and Accounts Services, Class I, Probationary Deputy Superintendents of Police, etc. and the posts were to be filled on the basis of an examination and that in each category of p...
Kumari Ranjana Ganpat Rao Bhosale and ors. Vs. Competent Authority and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Bom409
Dharmadhikari, J.1. This Writ Petition is filed by the landholders against the order passed by the Competent Authority and the Deputy Collector, Urban Land Ceiling Kolhapur, and the order dated 6-9-1979 passed by the Collector, Kolhapur, confirming the said order. It appears that all the three petitioners filed separate returns under the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling jAct. Petitioner 2 is the father of petitioner 1. Petitioner 1 Kumari Ranjana has also a brother, petitioner 3 who is major. Petitioner 1 Kumar Ranjana has also a brother, petitioner 3, who is major. Petitioner 1 Kumari Ranjana is the major unmarried daughter of petitioner 2. According to the petitioners, as per the presumptive partition, petitioner 1 Ranjana has a 1/3rd share in the property viz. Vacant land owned by the joint family. If her 1/3rd share is allotted to her, then there is no land which could be declared as surplus. Thus, from the tenure of the petition, it is quite obvious that petitioner 1 Ranjana i...
Mohamed Hanif Mohamed Siddique Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1984
Reported in: (1984)86BOMLR317
Kantharia, J.1. One Abdul Kadar Mohamed Hanif Anajwala (hereinafter referred to as the 'detenu') was detained by an order dated June 17, 1983 passed by the Government of Maharashtra, issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 'COFEPOSA Act') with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods and abetting the smuggling of goods. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the father of the said detenue challenging the said detention order.2. The grounds of detention dated June 17, 1983 and the documents relied upon and considered for the purpose of passing the detention order were supplied to the detenue. The allegations on which the detenue was ordered to be detained were that on March 9, 1983 while travelling to Dubai from Bombay by flight No. GF 037 he was found in possession of foreign currencies equivalent to Indian Rs. 94,963.25 whic...
Benisham Mohanlal Khetan Vs. Mahadeo Tukaram Borkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Bom462; 1986(2)BomCR352
V.A. Mohta, J.1. This reference has been made to resolve a conflict on a point -Can a Civil Court under O. 6, R. 17 of the Civil P. C. allow the plaint to he so amended as to result in ousting its own jurisdiction in the matter. In M/s R. Jaikrishna & Co. v. A. 1-Co-operating Rousing Society Limited : AIR1971Bom382 a Single Bench of this Court took a view that amendment cannot be refused merely on the ground that its effect would be to deprive the Court of jurisdiction to try the suit. Another Single Bench in the case of M/s. Nareshchandra and Co. v. M/s. New Shriram Motors, 1973 MLJ 54 C R. A. No.413/71, decided on 20th November 1972) took a contrary view and held that the proper course would be to return the plaint along with an application for amendment to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court.2. A Judge, Small Cause Court, Nagpur permitted an amendment of the plaint which had the effect of converting a simple suit on the basis of a relationship of landlord and a tenant...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›