Mumbai Court July 1985 Judgments
Jethmal Kapurchand Kothari Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-1985
Reported in: (1985)87BOMLR525
Shah, J.1. This is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the detention of Kishormal Jethmal Kothari under an order of detention dt. July 16, 1984, passed by the Government of Maharashtra under sub-sec. (1) of S. 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The grounds together with the material relied on by the detaining authority were served on the detenu two days thereafter i.e. on July 18, 1984. On August 9, 1984, Mr. M. V. N. Rao, Addl. Secretary to the Government of India respondent 2 herein, issued a declaration under sub-sec. (1) of S. 9 of the Act as amended, declaring that he was satisfied that the aforesaid Kishormal Jethmal Kothari abets and is likely to abet the smuggling of goods into and out of Bombay which is an area highly vulnerable to smuggling as defined in Explanation (1) to S. 9(1) of the Act. On August 22, 1984, the...
Tag this Judgment!Association of Engineering Workers Vs. Indian Hume Pipe Company Ltd. a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)BomCR699; [1985(51)FLR237]; (1986)ILLJ450Bom; 1986MhLJ34
Dharmadhikari, J.1. Respondent No. 1, the Indian Hume Pipe Company Limited, filed an application under S. 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on 30th October, 1984 soliciting permission to retrench 100 workmen out of the 287 daily-rated workmen. The Minister for State, Law and Judiciary, Finance and Labour partially allowed the application by granting permission to the Company to retrench 9 workmen who had tendered voluntary resignations. The respondent Company being aggrieved by the said order, presented a review application under S. 25N(6) of the Act. Government, instead of reviewing its own order, was pleased to refer the matter for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Maharashtra at Bombay, consisting of Shri R. N. Gawande, vide order dated 11th February, 1985. It appears that the said reference was received by the Tribunal on 12th February, 1985. On 13th February, 1985, notice was issued to the Company to file the Statement of Claim....
Tag this Judgment!Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Maharashtra Motor Kam ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)BomCR126; 1985MhLJ802
H.D. Patel, J.1. The two appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 21-2-1984 of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1955 of 1978 and Writ Petition No. 2117 of 1978 involving identical issues and hence both the appeals are disposed by this common judgment.2. The appellant in either of the appeals is Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation), which is constituted under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1960 and is engaged in the business of transporting passengers from one placer to another. Its activities are spread throughout the State of Maharashtra. The first respondent namely, Maharashtra Motor Kamgar Federation in Writ Petition No. 1955 of 1978 (Letters Patent Appeal No. 63 of 1984) and the first respondent namely, Provincial Rashtriya Motor Kamgar Union in Writ Petition No. 2117 of 1978 (Letters Patent Appeal No. 65 of 1984) (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant'), claiming to have sizable membership of the e...
Tag this Judgment!R.N. Lotlikar and anr. Vs. Kashinath Ghanashyam Sinai Kakodkar and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1985
Reported in: 1986(3)BomCR367
D.G. Couto, J.1. The petitioners challenge in this writ petition the judgments dated 30th April, 1981, and 3rd March, 1984, passed by the Rent Controller, Margao, and the Administrative Tribunal, Panaji, respectively, stopping the eviction proceedings instituted against them and directing them to put the landlord in possession of the rented premises within 30 days from the first order.2. Broadly, the relevant facts are that the first petitioner is a partnership firm which is occupying a premises belonging to the first respondent. On 17th November, 1979, the said respondent filed an application for eviction before the Rent Controller, South Goa, on the ground of non-payment of rents from June 1978 till the date of filing of the application i.e. till 17th November, 1979, at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month. The petitioners were served with a copy of the application on 22nd March, 1980 in the Court itself and moved an application on 24th April, 1980, under section 32(3) of the Goa, Daman a...
Tag this Judgment!Bombay Gas Company Employees Union Vs. the Bombay Gas Public Ltd. and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1985
Reported in: (1994)IIILLJ805Bom
Pendse, J.1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-Employees' Union of Bombay Gas Company - is challenging the legality of order dated November 11, 1983 passed by the Member, Industrial Court, rejecting the application filed by the Union : for condonation of delay in filing the complaint. The facts giving rise to the passing of the impugned order are required to be stated to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner.2. The employees of the Bombay Gas Public Limited Company went on strike on July 29, 1981 for realisation of their demands. The result of the strike was that the employees were not paid their wages for 29 days of July 1981. The workers approached the Company for payment of their wages for 29 days in the month of August 1981, but their demand could not be met with as the Company was unable to calculate the wages and pay the same, as even the clerical staff was on strike. The strike continued for a considerable period and on Se...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. Maria Olivia Carvalho and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Bom1
Couto, J.1. This appeal by the Union of India is directed against the Award dated 27th August 1984, made by the learned District Judge, Panaji, in a reference made to him under S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984.2. By a Notification dated 19-11-1977, the Government notified that several pieces of land, situated at Bambolim and admeasuring, in all, 1,81,690 sq.mts., would be required for the purposes of 'Grenade Range'. Amongst the acquired plots, those bearing the Nos. 1 to 5 belonged to the respondents herein. The Land Acquistion Officer, in his Award, assessed the value of the said plots at the rate of Rs.3/- per sq.mt. and he further valued, separately, the cashew, mango and other trees standing on the plots.3. Being aggrieved by the said compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the respondents herein filed under S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act, a reference to the learned District Judge and a compensation at the rate of Rs.8/- per sq.mt. be paid to them. After refe...
Tag this Judgment!Ranganath S/O Narsingrao Hajare Vs. Dhondubai (Smt.) W/O Ranganath Haj ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1985
Reported in: 1986(2)BomCR3
Sharad Manohar, J.1. This is an husband's petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, questioning the legality of the order of maintenance passed by both the courts below in favour of his wife, present respondent No. 1, and child, present respondent No. 2, granting them maintenance at the rate of Rs. 250/- and Rs. 150/- respectively per month.2. The petition was filed by respondent-wife under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code along with her minor son, respondent No. 2. Her contention, in short, was that after a fair and happy married life of 7 years, she was ill-treated and beaten severely by her husband. She was driven out of her house by him along with her son. He had married a second wife. Her obvious contention was that on this ground she is entitled to live separately and claim maintenance from her husband for herself and her minor son, who was 7 years old, at the time of filing of the application.3. The application was opposed by the husband denying the al...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Vegetable VitamIn Foods Company (Pvt) Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer L ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1985
Reported in: (1986)IILLJ400Bom
Kurdukar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated August 2, 1979 passed by the learned single Judge (S. K. Desai, J) making the Rule in Misc. Petition No. 704 of 1977 absolute in terms of prayer (a) of the petition.2. Few facts leading to the present proceedings may be summarised as under : The Appellant in this appeal are the original respondent No. 1 in the Misc. Petition No. 704 of 1977 - hereinafter referred to as 'the 1st Respondent Company.' Respondent No. 1 in this appeal is the original Petitioner who is hereinafter referred to as 'The Union.' Respondent No. 2 is the General Secretary of other Union known as 'Bharatiya Kamgar Sena.' Respondent No. 3 is the Presiding Officer of the Second Labour Court.3. The 1st Respondent (Appellant) is a Private Limited company. The Petitioner Union is the General Secretary of the Maharashtra Mazdoor Congress, Bombay, representing one section of the workers employed by the 1st Respondent in the Company. Originally the...
Tag this Judgment!Cham Ice and Cold Storages Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-1985
Reported in: (1990)(46)ELT373Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against Order bearing No.S/16-DEEC-1063/84 Exempt. dated 30-6-1986 passed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal lie in a narrow compass.2. M/s. Cham Ice & Cold Storages (appellant) imported a consignment of 120 bales of Tokai Brand White Cardboard weighing 25,995 kgs. and sought clearance against an Advance Licence P/W/2962994/C/XX/90/A/83, dated 12-1-1984 and D.E.E.C. No. 6964, dated 18-2-1984. The licence was valid for import of White Card Board/Paper and Paperboard all sorts, other than ivory board. The Customs, however, objected to the clearance on the ground that the goods imported are ivory board. Initially the Addl. Collector of Customs held the enquiry and by his order dated 25-1-1985 ordered confiscation but allowed redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 3 lakhs. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred an appeal CD(BOM.) A 142/85 before this Bench. This Bench, ...
Tag this Judgment!Ajit S/O Govindrao Jilhewar Vs. Nanded Municipal Council Through Its A ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)BomCR520
R.A. Jahagirdar, J.1. The petitioner is a Municipal Engineer employed in the Nanded Municipal Council. Though in the petition and in the arguments before us for some time it was sought to be contended that the petitioner was appointed by the State Government and, therefore, is an employee of the State Government. On a proper interpretation of the relevant sections of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act of 1965 it is impossible to hold that the petitioner is a State Government employee. On the other hand, pursuant to a resolution passed on 18th of July, 1983 the petitioner was confirmed in the post of the Nanded City Municipal Engineer. This must, therefore, be taken to be the basis of the petitioner's position in the Nanded Municipal Council.2. On 11th of November, 1984 the Administrator of the Nanded Municipal Council passed an order suspending the petitioner. He passed this order, to quote him, ' in exercise of the powers vested in him by section 75-A(3) of the Maharashtra Municipalit...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »