Mumbai Court October 1985 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.
Venkatraman Sambamurthy Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1985
Reported in: (1986)IILLJ62Bom
Lentin J.1. On 16th September, 1954 the appellant (original petitioner) joined the All India Khadi & Village Industries Commission as manager. In course of time he was promoted to the post of Deputy Director and in that capacity, on 6th June, 1968 was transferred to Bhubaneshwar, Orissa. In August 1970 he was in due course transferred to Bombay.2. On 17th May, 1974 the appellant was issued a show cause notice informing him that a departmental enquiry was proposed to be held against him and one Dora in respect of 9 charges listed in the annexures. Those charges pertained to certain alleged acts of the appellant during his tenure at Bhubaneshwar in 1968-70. Inspector Ghosh of the C.B.I. was appointed as the presenting (prosecuting) officer. After the conclusion of the enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his findings to the Disciplinary Authority on 1st August, 1977. The enquiry officer found the appellant guilty of 5 charges. Regarding 3 charges, the enquiry officer did not record a f...
Ganpat Nana Loke Vs. the Ahmedabad Jupiter Spg. and Mfg. Co. Ltd. and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1985
Reported in: [1986(52)FLR282]; (1995)IIILLJ486Bom
Desai, J. 1. I think the Writ Petition may be disposed of on a very short point. However, a few facts are required to be noted. The petitioner was employed by the Ahmedabad Jupiter Spinning, Weaving and ., at Jupiter Mill No. 3. This Mill No. 3 has been taken over subsequently by the 2nd respondent Corporation. This was obviously because it became a 'sick' unit as the term is used in common commercial parlance. The petitioner who had put in over 29 years of service as a canteen vendor was charge-sheeted for certain acts of misconduct under Standing Order 19(a) and was subsequently dismissed by the Mills by its order dated 20th February 1975. He thereafter made an approach as provided by Section 42 and subsequently on 4th July 1975 filed an application before the Labour Court under Sections 78 and 79 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. This, application was registered and came to be numbered as application No. 437 of 1975.2. In the said application Written Statement was filed ...
Pandurang Chimaji Agale and anr. Vs. New India Life Insurance Company ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1985
Reported in: 2(1986)ACC75
Masodkar, J.1. In an accident that occurred on February 27, 1981 in front of a computer block within the premises of Telco factory (Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited), Pradeep alias Pradyumna Fulshankar Kapta received injuries and he eventually died. His widow Kalpana and daughter Namrata filed proceedings under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called 'the Act') against the driver of the truck bearing No. MHE 144-E, the owner of the vehicle, namely, Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited, and the insurance Company, namely, New India Assurance Company Limited. The those proceedings, the Insurance Company took the plea that the accident did not take place in 'a public place' and as such it was not liable. By the award under appeal, the Tribunal found that the accident did occur due to negligence of the driver, but the deceased Pradeep contributed to it. The Tribunal quantified the amount of compensation at Rs. 1, 00,000/- with interest at 9...
NagIn Kumar Mamaiyabhai Jagde Vs. Collector of Customs and Central
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1985
Reported in: (1986)(26)ELT660Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the order in appeal No. S/49-139/84-GC dated 22.12.84 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay.2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal lie in a small compass. The appellant N.M. Jagda alias Babubhai Soni at the material time was carrying on busines as the certified goldsmith. The Central Excise officers of Junagadh Division searched the appellant's premises and seized gold ornaments weighing 269 grams valued at Rs. 39,000/-and also certain documents on 11.6.83. The Additional Collector of Central Excise held the enquiry and ordered confiscation of the gold ornaments valued at Rs. 39,000/- but allowed redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 39,000/- and he also imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 1,95,000/-by his order dated 3.7.84. The Additional Collector also cancelled,the certified goldsmith's licence.3. Being aggrieved by the order, the appellants preferred an appeal before this Tribunal on 1.10.84. It appea...
Jayantilal Padamshee Shah Vs. Chandu Khushaldas Udhwani and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)BomCR153; (1985)87BOMLR688; 1986MhLJ855
ORDER1. This petition raises following two questions in respect of the procedure which a magistrate is expected to follow before passing an order under S. 145(1) Cr.P.C. :-(i) whether a Magistrate is competent to hear both the parties before passing a preliminary order under S. 145(1) Cr.P.C. for the purpose of arriving at the satisfaction that a dispute likely to result into a breach of the peace exists and(ii) whether hearing the parties before passing an order under S. 145(1) Cr.P.C. renders illegal and invalid the subsequent proceedings and the final order ?2. The dispute in the matter relates to Gala No. 5, Shaikh Sahajani Industrial Estate, Sonawala Cross Road, Goregaon, Bombay, The Inspector, Goregaon Police Station made a report to the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 23-5-1984 about the existence of a dispute contemplated by S. 145(1) Cr.P.C. The learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate did not make preliminary order on the basis of the report, but instead issued noti...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. R.R. Sood
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1985
Reported in: [1986]161ITR92(Bom)
Kania, J.1. This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessment year with which we are concerned is the assessment year 1966-67, the relevant previous year being the one ended on March 31, 1966.2. On April 28, 1963, the assessee paid a sum of Rs. 20,000as 'earnest money' to S. N. Desai Topiwala for the purchase of land admeasuring about 2,454 square yards in Goregaon (referred to hereinafter as 'the said plot'). On May 25, 1963, an agreement was entered into under which the said Topiwala as the vendor agreed to sell and the assessee as the purchaser agreed to purchase the said plot for Rs. 29,448. The said agreement referred to the said Topiwala having received Rs. 20,000 as part of the purchase price and recorded that the balance of the purchase price would be payable on or before the execution of the conveyance. The assessee was gen possession of the said plot and under the agreement to purchase the said plot, it was the duty of the assessee to guard ...
Pralhad Eknath Fulkari Vs. Ramkrishna Tukaramji Dhage and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1985
Reported in: 1986(2)BomCR516; 1985MhLJ971
S.W. Puranik, J.1. Defendant No. 1 Pralhad had objected to the maintainability of the suit filed by non-applicant No. 1-Ramkrishna against himself and non-applicant Nos. 2 and 3. The said application Exhibit 12 came to be dismissed by the trial Court by its order dated 5-12-1981 passed below Exhibit 12 in Reg. C. S. No. 115 of 1981.2. Non-applicant No. 1 Ramkrishna is the original plaintiff who filed the said suit on the ground that he is an agriculturist, that he had cultivated cotton crop and the raw cotton produce was sold by him through a broker defendant No. 2 under the superintendence of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Yavatmal-defendant No. 3. Inspite of his right to the price of the agricultural produce sold by him, the Market Committee defendant No. 3 made over the payment through Adity or broker- defendant No. 2 to defendant No. 1. According to the plaintiff, therefore, all the three defendants have committed a fraud upon him by issuing payment to a wring person an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›