Mumbai Court July 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.
Municipal Council Vs. Shaikh Rahim Shaikh Rustam and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-1984
Reported in: (1994)IIILLJ17Bom; 1984MhLJ998
Vaze J.1. Do the previsions of section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, regarding settlement of claims provide theexclusive remedy in supersession of that provided by Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, regarding recovery ofmoney due from an employer? This forms the core of the disputes raised in Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 9 and 10 of 1982 as well as Writ Petition No. 2353 of 1981 and this judgment will govern and dispose of these proceedings.2. In Writ Petition No. 2353 of 1981, 16 applicants, 10 of them clerks and rest peons, had filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before the Second Labour Court, Akola, claiming overtime wages for having worked on Sundays and holidays. At the trial before the Second Lab.our Court, Nagpur, the applicants did not lead any oral evidence because it was a common ground that the record relating to the number of rest days which worked out to 450 is with the Municipal Council. As the rates at w...
Smt. Madhurika C. Merchant Vs. K.S. Dilipsinghji and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1984
Reported in: (1984)86BOMLR421
Shah, J.1. This is a petition for the Writ of Habeas Corpus under Art. 226 of the Constitution filed by Mrs. Madhurika Chandrakant Merchant challenging the detention of her husband Chandrakant Purshottamdas Merchant under S. 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, as amended (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), by an order dated February 1, 1984, passed by respondent 1 on his being satisfied that the detention was necessary in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange. Along with the order of detention the detenu was also served with the grounds on which the detention order is based.2. The petitioner has urged several grounds before us to challenge the detention. The grounds urged are (1) gross and unexplained delay in passing the detention order; (2) non-consideration of representation of the detenu by the detaining authority; (3) non-consideration of detenu's letter of r...
Goa Bottling Company (Private) Ltd. and Others Vs. Union of India and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1984
Reported in: 1987(28)ELT215(Bom)
Deshpande, J.1. These four Writ Petitions involve a common question relating to the interpretation of a franchise agreement in regard to sale of essences. They can be disposed of by a common judgment. We heard the Writ Petition together. The brief facts are that the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 94/B of 1978 are Goa Bottling Company (Private) Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and having its registered office at Erasmo Carvalho Street, Margao. They carry on business as manufactures of soft drinks and they have factory situated at Arlem, Salcete Goa.2. The first respondent to the petition is Union of India and the second respondent is Assistant Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Goa, having his office at Goa.3. The petitioners have for the past several years been carrying on the business of bottling soft drinks such as 'Gold Spot', 'Limca' and 'Thums Up' which are marketed under the registered trade mark of a concern known as Parle (Exports) Pvt. Ltd. I...
Radheshyam Tiwari Vs. Eknath Dinaji Bhiwapurkar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Bom285
1. This appeal is filed by original defendant 1 challenging the judgment and decree dt. 22-9-1977 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhandara decreeing the claim of the original plaintiff for Rs. 3100/- on account of damages for defamation against him with proportionate costs of the suit.2. The plaintiff at relevant times was Block Development Officer at Tirora. The defendant 1 is the proprietor, Editor, Printer and Publisher of Local Marathi Weekly 'Tirora Times' published from Tirora. The defendant 2 is an agriculturist. The defendant 3 was the Chairman, Panchayat Samiti, Tirora. The defendant 1 published in his said newspaper articles making serious allegations and imputations against the plaintiff on 12-5-1971, 26-5-1971, 2-6-1971, 23-6-1971, 30-6-1971, 14-7-1971, 28-7-1971 and 4-8-1971. The plaintiff served the defendants with registered notice dt. 11-12-1971 calling upon them to tender apology and pay damages of Rs. 10,000/- for defamation.3. The defendants 2 and 3 vide ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›