Mumbai Court June 1986 Judgments
The Bombay Dyeing and Mfg. Co. Ltd. and Others Vs. Mumbai Mazdoor Sabh ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1986
Reported in: (1987)ILLJ50Bom
1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner employer is challenging the interim relief granted by the Industrial Court by order dated May, 26, 1982 passed below Exhibit U-2. Only few facts are required to be stated to appreciate the grievance of the petitioners.2. The Union of employees had served a strike notice on August 31, 1981 and in pursuance of the notice, the workmen at the Head Office commenced their sit-in-pen-down strike from September 15, 1981 on a day by day basis. On April 12, 1982, the management issued notice expressing its desire to restore normal working at Neville House and in order to do so, the Management decided to obtain an undertaking of good behavior from all the workers before permitting them to enter Neville House. The notice recites that on March 18, 1982 the striking workmen led by their leaders forced open one of the main entrance door and when the Security Staff tried to prevent them from taking the law into th...
Tag this Judgment!Gangaram Son of Bhika Vs. Kamalkishore Son of Sungidas Panpalia and an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)BomCR310
H.W. Dhabe, J.1. This is a writ petition arising of the proceedings under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land (Vidarbha Region ) Act, 1958 (for short, the Tenancy Act).2. The dispute relates to the field Survey No. 10, admeasuring 18 acres and 29 gunthas of village Tulanga Khurd, Tahsil Balapur, District Akola. The petitioner is a tenant and the respondent No. 1 is the landlord of the suit filed. The respondent No. 1 landlord initiated proceedings under section 38 read with section 36 of the Tenancy Act for resumption of the suit filed. Originally the Tenancy Courts held that the claim of the landlord was hit by section 38(7) of the Tenancy Act. However in the writ petition preferred by the landlord in this Court, the said decisions were set aside and the proceedings were remanded to the learned trial Court for a decision on merits.3. The learned Additional Tahsildar after remand held that the respondent was entitled for resumption of half of the suit field. His order was affirmed...
Tag this Judgment!State of Maharashtra Vs. Nargis B. Mewawala (Mrs.)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-1986
Reported in: 1987(2)BomCR237
Sharad Manohar, J.1 The question of law involved in these group of Appeals is a common question and the judgment in S.A. No. 382/79 will apply to all the appeals.It is enough to State the facts in S.A. No. 382 of 1979, because the facts in all other appeals are similar, though the dates vary, without making any distinction on principle.2. For the sake of convenience, I will refer to the parties as plaintiff and defendant.The plot of land Survey No. 637, C.T.S. 4644 situate at Dhulia belongs to the plaintiff. As early as on 13/7/1916 Sanad was issued in favour of the plaintiff or her predecessor-in-title permitted her the N.A. user of the land. As per the Sanad, she was required to pay the assessment of Rs. 7-10-0 for the land and a guarantee was given that the said assessment will not be varied for a period of 50 years from 17-7-1917.Thereafter, in the year 1949 there was a revision of the assessment of the lands in general. But from the very nature of things, the revision could have n...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Electricals Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1986
Reported in: 1986(10)ECC63; 1986(26)ELT882(Bom)
1. The petitioners carry on the business of manufacturing P.V.C. underground and over ground telephone cables in their factory situated at Nadiad in the State of Gujarat. The factory was established in the year 1962 after obtaining the requisite industrial licence in May-October of the year 1960. The industrial licence granted to the petitioners is for the manufacture of P.V.C. insulated cables. The petitioners manufacture diverse kinds of P.V.C. insulated cables including cables, both for over ground and underground use in the telecommunications and for the purpose of telephones. The petitioners have supplied the cables not only to the Government of India Undertakings such as Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., the Indian Ordnance Factories at Kirkee, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, but also to other manufacturers.2. The Government of India, Ministry of Finance, in exercise of powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 issued exemption Notification ...
Tag this Judgment!Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. R.D. Toplewar, Ex-con ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1986
Reported in: 1986(3)BomCR689; 1987MhLJ85
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 'the Act'). Briefly, the facts are that the respondent No. 1 was working as conductor in the petitioner-Corporation during the relevant time. On 8-5-1973, he was the conductor of the bus going from Nagpur to Pusad. The said bus was checked in front of the Office of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Digras. When the said bus was checked, the checking party found that there were 30 passengers in the bus, out of whom 27 were having tickets and three were without tickets. According to the checking party, the passengers who were without tickets were going from Nagpur to Pusad, and that they had paid the necessary fare to the conductor of the bus, i.e. the respondent No. 1, but no tickets were issued to them by the conductor. Further, according to the checking party, when the bus was approaching the che...
Tag this Judgment!Navbharat Potteries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-1986
Reported in: (1994)IIILLJ1144Bom
Pendse, J.1. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, and is engaged in manufacture and sale of ceramic crockeries. The registered office and factory of the petitioner is situate at Sewree and the petitioner had employed about 200 workmen. On August 27, 1970 the service conditions of the employees were adjudicated by an award passed by the Industrial Tribunal presided over by Shri R.D. Tulpulet. A year after the date of the award, the workmen joined the union of Bombay Mazdoor Sabha and from the year 1972 onwards resorted to unfair labour practices, like indiscipline, go slow, assaults, etc. The Sabha submitted demand for revision of pay scales, dearness allowance, etc., and the demand was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal did not give relief as the financial position of the petitioner was extremely precarious and it was not possible for the petitioner to bear the additional burden. As the workers failed to secur...
Tag this Judgment!American Bureau of Shipping Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-1986
Reported in: (1986)19ITD793(Mum.)
1. These six appeals-three by the assessee and three by the revenue, are against the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) which relate to the assessment years 1977-78 to 1979-80. As most of the points involved in these appeals are common, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order, for the sake of convenience.2. The first common point being ground No. 1 in each of the appeals by the assessee is against the assessment of income from subletting of property as 'Income from other sources'. The assessee claimed it as assessable under the head 'Profits and gains of business or profession'. The assessee is a shipping consultant and supervises the repairs of ships. It is not a shipping company as such nor is it a manufacturing company. It had taken a business premises on rent 10 1968. It was under a monthly tenancy. A part of this premises, i.e., 10 per cent was sublet for the first time in 1975 to a connected concern, namely, ABS Worldwide Tech. Services (I) (P.)...
Tag this Judgment!Petron Engineering Construction (Pvt.) Ltd. and Another Vs. Central Bo ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-1986
Reported in: (1986)57CTR(Bom)268; [1987]165ITR668(Bom)
R.A. Jahagirdar, J.1. The first petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') is a private limited company which is a party to an agreement between itself and a company known as Toyo Engineering India Ltd., the latter being a company organised and existing under the laws of India. It has its registered office at United Commercial Bank Building on Parliament Street at New Delhi. As its name itself indicates, it is an Indian company and there cannot be any dispute about the same.2. Under the said agreement, Toyo Engineering India Ltd. (hereinafter called 'TEIL') engaged the petitioner company for a project which was a State sponsored project at Iraq. It is called the Project of Storage Terminal of State Organisation for Oil Project. The petitioner was to render several services to TEIL under the agreement and for services so rendered, the petitioner was to receive payment as per the agreement. The terms of the payment and the schedule of payment have been spelt out in great de...
Tag this Judgment!Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. State Transport Appel ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Bom100; 1986(2)BomCR486; (1987)89BOMLR23; 1986MhLJ626
Dharmadhikari, J.1. As both these writ Petitioner involve common questions of law and fact, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Respondent No. 2 in these Writ Petiitons, who are transport operators, applied for a special permit undertaking a round tour of a party who engaged their public service vehicles. This application was rejected by the Regional Transport Officer by a speaking order. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondents filed appeals before the State Trnasport Appellate Tribunal. The learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal by his orders dated 19th December 1985 allowed the appeals and set aside the orders passed by the Regional Transport Officer. It is these orders of the Appellate Tribunal which are challenged in these Writ Petitions.3. Shri Mor, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, contended befor us that a Scheme under Chapter IV A of the Motor Vehicles Act w...
Tag this Judgment!Shankar Ramchandra Iparkar Since Deceased by His Heirs Vs. Bhanudas Sh ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)BomCR434
Sharad Manohar, J.1. The appellants before me are the heirs and legal representatives of original defendant No.1, who has filed this appeal against the decree for partition passed by the trial Court in flavour of plaintiffs and defendant No. 4. The original plaintiffs are respondents Nos,1and 2 and original defendant No. 1 is respondent No. 3 before me. Original defendants Nos. 4 to 7 are respondents Nos. 5 to 8 before me. Original defendants Nos. 2 and 3 appear in this appeal is two-fold capacity (i) their individuals capacity (ii) in their capacity of heirs of deceased defendant Nos. 1.For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants.2. For understanding the claim of plaintiffs, it is useful referring to the genealogy which is as follow :Ramchandra Hanmanta Laxman|---------------------------------------------------------------| |Shankar Vishwanath(Deft.No. 1) (Deft.No. 3)| |---------------------------------------------------- || | | | |Bhanuda...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »