Mumbai Court December 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.
S.R. Nagre Vs. Divisional Controller, M.S.R. Transport Corporation
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-1986
Reported in: 1988(1)BomCR531; (1987)89BOMLR41; [1987(54)FLR108]; 1987MhLJ212
R.A. Jahagirdar, J.1. An order passed by the Industrial Court, Nasik on April 25, 1986 did missing the complaint of the petitioner, being Complaint (ULP) No. 18 of 1986, has been challenged by the petitioner in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The facts leading to the said complaint must necessarily be stated before one can appreciate the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner by the learned Advocate Mr. Kochar appearing for him.2. The petitioner at the relevant time was working as a driver in the Nasik Division of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, hereinafter referred to as 'S.T.'. On July 23, 1982 a charge-sheet was served upon him wherein he was charged with an act of misconduct which consisted of behaving in an arrogant and disorderly manner with his superior officer under the influence of liquor. After holding the necessary enquiry the competent authority under the State Transport Employees' Service Regulations, hereinafter refe...
Rajabai (Smt.) D/O Nivrutti Mane Vs. Arjun Keru Walekar and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)BomCR467; 1987MhLJ258
H.H. Kantharia, J.1. The petitioner-wife filed the present criminal revision application challenging the judgment and order recorded by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, on 25th December, 1984 in Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 1983 allowing respondent No. 1 husband's application under section 127(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code thereby cancelling the order of maintenance passed in her favour by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangola.2. The short facts giving rise to this application are as under :The wife had filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 20 of 1976 in the Court of the learned Judical Magistrate, First Class, Sangola, for maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned trial Magistrate, allowed her application by judgement and order dated 19th June, 1979 granting her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 35/- per month. The husband filed Criminal Revision Application No. 55 of 1978 which was dismissed by the Session...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Labour Law Practitioners's Association
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-1986
Reported in: 1988(2)BomCR16; (1987)89BOMLR120; [1987(54)FLR732]; 1987MhLJ191
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. The Labour Court in the State of Maharashtra are constituted under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947, the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 and the Maharashtra recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act 1971.2. The relevant provision in the Industrial Disputes Act is contained in section 7. Sub-section (1) of section 7 authorises the State Government (the appellant) to constitute one or more Labour Court for the adjudication of Industrial disputes relating to any matter specified in the Second Schedule to that Act sub-section (2) of section 7 provides that the Labour Court shall consist of one person to be appointed by the appropriate Government. The original sub-section (3) of section 7 provided the qualifications of that person viz., that (a) he is or had been a Judge of a High Court, or (b) had, for a period of not less than three years been a District Judge or an Additional District Judge; or (c) had held the o...
The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Ramkrishna and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1986
Reported in: II(1987)ACC48
V.A. Mohta, J.1. The New India Assurance Company Limited, the original non-applicant No. 3 (which has chosen to remain ex parte before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nagpur) has filed the present appeal challenging only the quantum of compensation granted in a Motor Accident Claim.2. Anilkumar aged 14 who was eldest son and a brilliant boy, died in an accident and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has granted a total sum of Rs. 44800/- to the parents and two younger brothers. This is inclusive of a sum of Rs. 5000/- on account of deterioration of health of the mother, a sum of Rs. 150/- by way of compensation for the damage caused to the cycle and a sum of Rs. 50/- by way of notice charges.3. Miss Bhamburkar, the learned Counsel for the appellant, contended that the boy was not intelligent. The submission is not correct. The evidence of the father as well as the school teacher has remained unchallenged. The Tribunal considered the age of father (40 years) age of mother (35) and...
Reliance Industries Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-1986
Reported in: (1987)(11)LC287Tri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. have filed this appeal against the Order F.No. V-Adj(18)15-86/B-III, dated 3-3-1986 of the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-Ill, holding that the normal quantum of production need not be determined Under Rule 173E of the Central Excise Rules 1944, before framing charges (i) and (ii) in the show cause notice No. V(18)15-54/85/6773, dated 28-10-1985. Charge (i) in the show cause notice is that M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. have not accounted for the production of Polyester Filament Yarn weighing 1302.3 Metric Tonnes during the period October 1980 to 7th May, 1985 in the Central Excise record and it has been further alleged that the aforesaid quantity has been removed in contravention of the Central Excise Rules and by evading duty amounting to Rs. 10,90,67,625.00. Charge (ii) in the show cause notice relates to the allegation that M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. have manipulated the account of Polyester waste during the period October 1982 to December 1...
Union of India and Others Vs. Popular Dyechem
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-1986
Reported in: 1990(26)ECC334; 1989(23)LC565(Bombay); 1987(28)ELT63(Bom)
ORDER1. The only goods which remain now to be cleared are goods in respect of which it was contended by the appellants that the same were not plastic scrap but serviceable plastic articles when imported whereas the respondents contended that the said goods were plastic scrap. The order of clearance under Section 47 was passed by the Assistant Collector concerned after physical verification of the goods. In view of this and in view of the decision of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court reported in Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd., and Others v. Union of India and Others, (1982) E.L.T. 43, it is clear that such goods cannot be confiscated, except in contemplation of an order or in pursuance of an order passed in revision under Section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962. No such order has been passed till today. In those circumstances, no interference with the trial Court's order is called for, except that we direct that in respect of the aforesaid disputed goods the appellants-respondents shall...
Kishorilal Maikulal JaIn Vs. Santoshi Tel Utpadan Kendra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-1986
Reported in: 1987(2)BomCR648; (1994)IIILLJ399Bom; 1987MhLJ365
H.W. Dhabe, J. 1. This is a writ petition arising out of the proceedings under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short, 'Act'). 2. The petitioner, according to him, was working with the respondent from 1.4.1976 on the power machine and gas. Further, according to him, he was illegally dismissed from service by the respondent with effect from 6.4.1980. He raised an industrial dispute about his illegal dismissal under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'ID Act'). There was a settlement arrived at on 30.7.1980 between the parties by which the respondent agreed to take back the petitioner in service from 1.8.1980 and also agreed to pay the back wages and to give him continuity of service. It is the case of the petitioner that on 1.8.1980 and even thereafter when he went to join his duties he was not allowed to do so by the respondent. He, therefore, filed an application under Sections 28 and 30 of the Act before t...
Pramilabai and anr. Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1986
Reported in: I(1987)ACC494
V.A. Mohta, J.1. Dissatisfied with the grant of claim of only Rs. 30,000/- with interest at 6 per cent per annum granted to the legal heirs of the deceased Vallabhdas Panpalia in a Claim Petition No. 3 of 1981 decided on 10th September 1981 under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Amravati, the present appeal has been filed.2. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Amravati, held Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and the driver Narendra Bharati employed by it, responsible for the death of deceased Vallabhdas on account of rash and negligent driving of a bus, rejecting several defences including that of contributory negligence. A claim of Rs. 1,00,000/- was made. The respondent have not challenged the order passed by the Tribunal either by filing an appeal or cross-objection. The only point thus that falls for determination is whether the appellants are entitled to enhancement of compensation and if yes, to what extent? The following...
Godawaribai and ors. Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1986
Reported in: II(1987)ACC425
V.A. Mohta, J.1. Dissatisfied with the grant of claim of only Rs. 29000/- with interest at 6 per cent per annum granted to the legal heirs of the deceased Jethmal Panpalia in a Claim Petition No. 5 of 1981 decided on 10th September 1981 under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Amravati, the present appeal has been filed.2. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Amravati, held Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and the driver Narendra Bharati, employed by it, responsible for the death of deceased Jethmal Panpalia on account of rash and negligent driving of a bus, rejecting several defences inter alia that of contributory negligence. A claim of Rs. 1,00,000/- was made. The respondents have not challenged the order passed by the Tribunal either by filing an appeal or cross-objection. The only point thus that falls for determination is whether the appellants are; entitled to enhancement of compensation and if yes, to what extent ?3. The ...
Shiv Kumar Tulsian and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1986
Reported in: [1990]68CompCas720(Bom)
1. The first petitioner is a shareholder of the third respondent, Hindustan Commercial Bank Ltd. (hereinbefore called 'the HCB'). The second petitioners are a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and are also shareholders of HCB. The first petitioner is also a director is also a director and shareholder of the second petitioners. The first and respondents are respectively the Union of India and the Reserve Bank of India. The third respondent, HCB, is a banking company on which a moratorium has been imposed by the Central Government and is sought to be amalgamated with the fourth respondent, the Punjab National Bank.2. The petition was mainly argued by both the sides on points of law, particularly as regards the ambit and scope of section 45(1), (2) and (3) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), and the constitutional validity of the said provisions. In the light of the submissions, it would be necessary to state a few relevant fa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »