Mumbai Court January 1986 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.
Ganesh Rajan Servai, Vs. Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1986
Reported in: 1988(2)BomCR351
H.H. Kantharia, J.1. The facts and the law points involved in these three petitions being the same, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. In these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners-workmen question the legality, validity and propriety of the common order passed by the Industrial Tribunal (second respondent) on 24th June, 1986, in application filed by the first respondent-Company, M/s. Bennett Coleman and Company Limited, Times of India Building, Dr. D.N. Road, Fort, Bombay-400 001, under section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') granting approval of the Company's action of terminating the services of the petitioners.3. The relevant facts are as under :The petitioners were in the permanent employment of the first respondent-company. The petitioner in the Writ Petition No. 2150 of 1986, Ganesh Rajan Servai, was working in the Engineering Department for th...
Harilelas Vs. First Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1986
Reported in: (1986)16ITD356(Mum.)
1. The appeals for the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82 against assessment orders filed by the assessee were dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the sole ground that forms of appeals and forms of verification had not been signed by any partner of the assessee-firm personally as required by Clause (cc) of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 45 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 but had been signed by Shri D.M.Harish, advocate, who was constituted attorney of the firm. Against the said orders present appeals have been filed by the assessee.2. The acts are as follows : The assessee-firm's partners are non-residents and Shri D.M. Harish, advocate, was the constituted attorney of the assessee-firm. The forms of appeals and forms of verification were signed by Shri D.M. Harish and not by any of the partners. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) issued notices to show cause why the appeals should not be dismissed on the ground that the said forms had not been signed personally by any of the partners. T...
Shankar Kashinath Godse Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1986
Reported in: (1986)88BOMLR167; 1986MhLJ250
Dharmadhikari, J.1. In this Writ Petition, it is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Head Master by respondent No. 7 Jana Seva Sangh on April 8, 1977. He resumed his duties as Head Master on June 13, 1977. His appointment was then approved by the Deputy Director of Education on July 18 1981 with retrospective effect from June 13, 1977. Later on the Joint Director of Education the respondent No. 1 declared the said appointment as invalid by his order dated January 8, 1982. It is this order of the Joint Director of Education which is challenged by the petitioner in the present petition.2. It is an admitted position that the Jana Seva Sangh which is a registered body is conducting three secondary schools and two- night schools since the year 1944. Out of these three secondary schools, one is at village Nere, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad and others are Kumari Kasturi Vidyalaya, Bhandup, Janata Vidyalaya, Dongri, Mazgaon Night High School, Dongri and Bhandup Night High Sch...
Second Income-tax Officer Vs. S.S. Mathur
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1986
Reported in: (1986)16ITD9(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the AAC, H-Range, Bombay.2. The assessee is an individual and the appeal relates to the assessment year 1977-78. The assessee was an employee of Goodlass Nerolac Paints 8Ltd. ('the company'). The company had instituted a scholarship scheme for the children of the management staff called 'The Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd. Scholarship Scheme'. Clauses 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12 of this scheme are as follows : 3. The object of the scheme is the grant of scholarships to the children of the managing staff towards their education. 4. The grant of scholarships in accordance with the scheme shall be in the sole and uncontrolled discretion of the company. 5. The managing staff or their children or their families or any other person whomsoever shall have no right of action, claim or demand whatso ever against the company or the Board for or in relation to or in connection with the grant or otherwise of any scholarship under this sch...
Associated Bearing Company Limited, Bombay Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1986
Reported in: 1988(37)ELT510(Bom)
1. Petitioner No. 1 is a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act and carry on business of manufacturing ball and taper roller bearings and textile machinery components and accessories of various kinds. The petitioner Company imports equipments and machinery required for manufacturing the aforesaid items and also raw material and components. 51% of the shareholding of the Company is held by Aktiebolaget SKF, SKF, (U.K.) Ltd., England and Aktiebolaget S. A. Des Roulement a Billes. The Company had entered into collaboration agreements with these companies for the manufacture of ball bearing and taper roller bearing in India, for technical information and assistance for manufacture of textile machineries parts in India and for supply of technical information for manufacture of new textile items in India. The import of machinery and spares constituted about 20% of the total imports and the balance is made up of imports of raw materials. The import of raw material are ...
The Employees' State Insurance Corpn. Vs. Indian Dyestuff Industries L ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1986
Reported in: (1994)IIILLJ1149Bom
Vaze, J.1. The short point raised in this appeal is whether attendance bonus paid by the management under a scheme wrought by a settlement between the management and the workmen can be called 'wages' within the meaning of Clause (22) of Section 2 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 ('the Act').2. As a result of a settlement, under Section 2(P) read with Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, between the applicant Company and the Chemical Workers' Union, a scheme of attendance bonus was introduced with effect from 1st January 1968. Such of the workmen who remain present at least on all but one days were eligible to receive one day's wages per month by way of attendance bonus to be calculated at the end of each quarter. The Employees' State Insurance Corporation ('the Corporation') treated this attendance bonus as 'wages' and asked the employer to pay the contribution which stand was negatived by the Employees' Insurance Court at Bombay, giving rise to the present appeal.3. A...
B.R. Metal Dept. Bombay Vs. Collector of Customs (Appeals)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-1986
Reported in: (1986)(25)ELT990Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the order No. S/49-288/82M dated 30-10-1982 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay.2. The appellant's claim for refund of duty on shortages was rejected by the Asstt. Collector, MCD as unsubstantiated for non-production of triplicate B/E in original. On appeal, the Collector (Appeals) rejected the appeal holding that the appellants have not produced any documentary evidence that the questioned shortage was noticed before the order for clearance was made by a proper officer of Customs.3. During the hearing of this appeal, Shri Deshpande the appellant's learned advocate contended that the Collector (Appeals) order is erroneous in law. The claim was not made under Section 13. It was made under Section 23(1). Therefore, if the shortage is noticed before clearance, the proportionate duty becomes refundable.4. To establish that there was shortage, Shri Deshpande relied upon the survey report of Indian Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. and the BPT weighment ...
Regional Director E.S.i. Corporation Vs. M/S Arudyog and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1986
Reported in: (1987)ILLJ292Bom
1. M/s. Arudyog are a small engineering workshop having their factory in plot No. 18/6 Hadaspar Industrial Estate, Poona-13. The Maharashtra Government had framed a scheme of imparting training to artisans from rural areas of Sangamner and at the request of the State Government, Arudyog accepted two government trainees under the scheme. The stipendiary was to be paid by the Government and Arudyog were to impart practical training to the two apprentices for a period of four months, make periodical report about their performance and disburse the stipend received from the Government to the apprentices.2. M/s. Arudyog were employing only 18 persons in their factory and hence as matters stood, their unit did not come under the definition of Factory under section 2(12) of the Employee's State Insurance Act ('the Act'). However the Regional Director of Employees State Insurance Corporation, Bombay on a finding that the two apprentices were also working in the factory computed the total number...
National Union of Comm. Employees and ors. Vs. B.D. Borude and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1986
Reported in: (1995)IIILLJ633Bom
Pendse, J:1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the employees are challenging the legality of the award dated October 11, 1983 passed by Shri B.D. Borude, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bombay in Reference (IT) No. 52 of 1983.2. The employees of M/s. Protos Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd., Bombay, respondent No. 2, were paid dearness allowance in accordance with the settlement reached between the parties on January 29, 1974. On July 8, 1982 the Company served a notice of change seeking to revise the existing system of dearness allowance as contained in the settlement dated January 29, 1974. The employees objected to this change and the Government, of Maharashtra in exercise of powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 10 read with Sub-section (5) of Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the demand to the Industrial Tribunal, the demand being that the Company should withdraw the notice of change. By the im...
West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. and ors. Vs. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. E ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1986
Reported in: [1987(54)FLR742]; (1994)IIILLJ1152Bom
Pendse, J.1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners employer are challenging the legality of the award dated June 30, 1983 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Maharashtra, Bombay, fixing the dearness allowance at cost of living index Rs. 1206 as below:Salary SlabFix D.A. Rs.Variation per 10 point rise/fall indedRs. 1-Rs. 1001755 per cent.Rs. 101-Rs. 200175+802.5% + 5 per cent, on first 100 basic.Rs. 201 and above175+80+401 .5% + 5 per cent, above 2.5% per cent, on second 100 basic.The Tribunal also directed that the minimum variable dearness allowance should be fixed on the basis of 5 per cent as mentioned in Exhibit UC6 filed by the Union. The dearness allowance claimed is made effective from February 16, 1976. The litigation has a chequered career and the employer had made every effort to delay the proceedings. The facts giving rise to filing of the present petition are as follows:2. The petitioner company manufactures paper and has fact...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »