Mumbai Court April 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.
Union of India and Others Vs. Gangadhar Narsingdas Agrawal and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-1986
Reported in: 1988(33)ELT673(Bom)
Kania, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Pendse, J.D/- 4th October 1979 whereby he made the rule absolute in terms of prayer (b) in the aforesaid Writ Petition being Misc. Petition No. 1120 of 1974. Pendse, J. directed the respondents (appellants herein) to withdraw or cancel the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent respectively and directed them to refund to the petitioners a sum Rs. 3,17,599.84 being the excess export duty recovered from the petitioners who are the respondents herein.2. Very limited controversy has been raised by the appellants in this appeal, and that too in a half-hearted manner. The relevant facts can be shortly stated :The petitioners are the members of a Hindu undivided family and carried on business as exporters of lumpy iron ore and iron ore fines in the name and style of Messrs. Gangadhar Narsingdas Agarwal. By a Notification dated 2nd August 1966 Items 28 and 29 were introduced in the Second Schedule to the Tariff Act,...
Ajabrao Sambhaji Bhagat Vs. Y.A. Khatke, Chairman, Pandt Staff Co-op. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-1986
Reported in: (1986)IILLJ430Bom; 1986MhLJ371
1. On 24th March, 1986, I had passed the following order :-'Heard Mr. Bhagat, petitioner in person. Mr. S. V. Natu, Advocate, for respondent No. 1, Mrs. Bodade, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. None for respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 4.The petition is dismissed for reasons to follow. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.'The following are the reasons.2. The petitioner, in his capacity as Working President of the All India P & T Employees Federation, which is a registered trade union, had preferred a reference under S. 25(2) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'), before the Labour Court, Nagpur. By the said reference, the petitioner sought declaration that the lock-out of the P & T Staff Co-operative Society Canteen, Nagpur G.P.O. by the respondents is illegal. Along with the said reference, the petitioner had also filed an application under A. 30(2) of the Act seeking interim relief agai...
Smt. Shakuntalabai Krishna Bhoyar and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-1986
Reported in: AIR1986Bom308; 1986(3)BomCR163; 1986MhLJ669
Puranik, J.1. Both these applications -- Misc. Civil Application No. 37 of 1986 and Misc. Civil Application No. 36 of 1986, for review of our judgments in First Appeals Nos. 40 of 1979 and 41 of 1979, respectively, decided on 21-11-1984, can be disposed of by a common judgment, inasmuch as the facts and circumstances in both the applications are identical.2. Brief facts leading to the present applications may be narrated as follows :--The present applicants are the landowners who were the respondents in the First Appeals mentioned above. By a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Principal Act'), issued on 11-2-1970, followed by Notification under Section 6 of the Principal Act dated 18-7-1970, 3.74 Acres of land out of Survey No. 83/1 and 3.21 acres of land out of Survey No. 98, both of village Mahadula, Tahsil and Dist. Nagpur, belonging to the applicants, were put under acquisition. The Additional Special Land Acquisition Off...
Antonio Xavier Silveria Vs. Mariano Silveria and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)BomCR80
G.F. Couto, J.1. The petitioner challenges in this Writ Petition the judgment dated 22nd January, 1986, passed by the Administrative Tribunal, Panaji.2. In short, the relevant facts are that a litigation in respect of some commercial premises was existing between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 herein filed, at one stage, an application under section 35 of the Goa, Daman & Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent Eviction) Control Act, 1968, claiming that he is the tenant in respect of the said premises where he is carrying on the business of a bar and restaurant under the name and style of 'Silveria Bar & Restaurant' since 1972. He further alleged that the petitioner herein had been adopting various means as to pressurize respondent No. 1 and to cause him to vacate the premises and, therefore, on 12th September, 1980, the petitioner forcibly locked the door of the room leading to the toilet. This application was heard by the learned Rent Controller and, ultimately, allowed. Th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›