Mumbai Court August 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.
Cosmos India Rubber Works (P) Ltd. Vs. R.P.F. Commissioner
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-1986
Reported in: (1994)IIILLJ1157Bom
Pendse, J.1. The petitioners are an establishment covered under the Employee's Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The petitioners are required to pay the Provident Fund Contributions, the Family Pension Fund Contribution, Employees' Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme Contribution under the provisions of the Act. The petitioners failed to pay the Provident Fund Contribution, the Family Pension Fund Contribution and the Employees' Insurance Scheme Contribution for the period commencing from March 1979 to February 1981. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner thereupon served show cause notice dated August 26, 1981 on the petitioners to explain why damages as envisaged under Section 14B of the Act be not levied and recovered from the petitioners. The show cause notice was issued in respect of period commencing from January 1974 to February 1981, but the period was restricted only from March 1979 to February 1981 as separate proceedings were already instituted for the ea...
Video Master and Etc. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-1986
Reported in: AIR1986Bom428; 1986(3)BomCR68; (1986)88BOMLR525; 1986MhLJ794
Dharmadhikari, J.1. As both these writ petitions involve common questions of law and fact, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The petitioners in Writ petition No. 5004 of 1984 M/s. Video Master, is a partnership firm carrying on business of buying films for processing and making video gramcassettes, discs, tapes, in relation to feature films, documentaries, educational, art and cultural films for sale and/or for private exhibition on video play back equipment. After acquiring necessary rights the petitioners also market the same under the brand names like Time, Gold Action. The petitioner-firm possesses the requisite licence granted by the Government of India to process, transfer, and duplicate films on video cassettes. The petitioner-firm is also distributing the pre-recorded video cassette tapes made by Esquire Distributing and Servicing (P) Ltd. It is the case of the petitioner-firm that it has purchased the video rights in certified featur...
Sangappa Nigappa Malabadi Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)BomCR576
A.D. Tated, J.1. These four appeals arise from the judgement and order dated 16th July, 1979 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli, in Sessions Cases Nos. 2, 13 and 21 of 1979. In the three Sessions Cases tried together and disposed of by a common judgement, seven accused were charged with the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 302 read with section 149, section 302 read with section 34, section 353 read with section 34, section 332 read with section 149, section 332 read with section 34, section 337 read with section 149, section 337 read with section 34, section 323 read with section 149 and section 323 read with section 34 I.P.C. The Accused Nos. 1 to 6 were acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The accused Nos. 1 to 6 were acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The Accused No. 7 Sangappa Nigappa Malabadi was found guilty of the offence under section 302 read with section 34 I.P.C. and also of the offences under section 353 read...
Dhirajlal Velji Gucka and Vs. Pratap Bhogilal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-1986
Reported in: 1986(3)BomCR120
T.D. Sugla, J.1. By these two petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the amendments in the scheme of management and administration of the trust 'Seth Motishaw Religious Charitable Trust' allowed in terms of the order dated 5th November, 1977 by Bombay City Civil Court in Chamber Summons No. 991 of 1977, suit being No. 1195 of 1962.2. Late Seth Khimchand Morichand by his Will dated 13th August, 1869 and Gujarati writing dated 14th August, 1869 settled certain properties on trust. In a suit filed under section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, being Suit No. 82 of 1918, this Court by its judgment and order dated 6th March, 1931 granted a scheme for management and administration of the trust, (hereinafter referred to as the scheme). The scheme evidently envisaged a public trust of a religious nature in which the whole Swetamber Murti Pujak Jain Community is interested. Clause 26 of the scheme provided for liberty to the trustees to...
Ratan Singh Ramsingh Rajput Vs. M.V. Chitale and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1986
Reported in: 1986(3)BomCR709; (1986)88BOMLR548
Sawant, J.1. What is challenged in the present petition is an order of externment passed under S. 57(b) read with S. 59, Bombay Police Act, 1951, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The notice issued under S. 59 preceding the impugned order dt. 8th October 1985 states that the externee had been convicted of offences mentioned in the notice and further that he was likely again to engage himself in the commission of the offence similar to that for which he had been convicted. The externee was, therefore, called upon to remain present in the enquiry which was to be held under the said section. After the enquiry, the impugned order was passed on 15th November 1985 externing the petitioner from the districts of Thane and Greater Bombay for a period of two years.2. The gravamen of the challenge to the impugned order is that it has been passed only on the ground that the externee had to his record two convictions for the offences under S. 66(b), Bombay Prohibition Act. There was no further ...
Acme Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. George Barla, Acce, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1986
Reported in: 1989(19)LC31(Bombay); 1988(38)ELT270(Bom)
1. The dispute raised in this petition is about the correct classification of the articles manufactured by the petitioners. The petitioners are manufacturers of copper wire bars and wire rods and the petitioners claim the item is liable to payment of excise duty under Tariff Item 26A(1) or (1a) of the Central Excise Tariff. On the basis of this claim, the petitioners sought exemption under the Notification dated July 16, 1966. The petitioners accordingly filed a classification list before the Assistant Collector, but the claim was not accepted by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Bombay, by order dated August 10, 1979. The Assistant Collector held that the manufacture undertaken by the petitioner would fall under Tariff Item 26A(2) of the Central Excise Tariff. Against the order passed by the Assistant Collector, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Assistant Collector an...
Kishan Swaroop Ashok Kumar and ors., Etc. Vs. the Podar Mills Ltd. and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Bom198; 1986(3)BomCR1
1. Appeals Nos. 652 to 657 of 1981 are filed by M|s. Kishan Swaroop Ashokkumar and others, defendant in the six suits filed by the podar Mills Limited , the respondetns in these six appeal and appeal Nos. 735 of 1981 are filed by M|s. Hazarimal Chhogalal and other, defendatn in four suists filed by the respondetns in thse ofur apelas viz. The Piramal Spg. &Wvg.; Mills Ltd. These appeals arise out ofg the orders passed by the trial Judge on th notices of motion taken out in their respective suits by the appealt for staying the suyits and for referring the matters to arbitraion of Mill Owners Asociaiton , Bombay. The notices of motion in the six suits firl by the Podar Mills were dismissed by a comon order passed on April 24|28, 1981 while the notices of motion in other four suits filed by The Piramal spg. & Wvg Mills Lrtd. Were dismissed of September 15, 1981 for the reasons given in the order daste April 24|28 1981. As all these appeals involve common question of fact and the indentica...
Aurangabad Asbestos Cement Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Zakia Jalil (Smt.) W ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)BomCR571
M.S. Ratnaparkhi, J1. The remand order passed by the Appellate Authority under the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction, and Lease) Control Act, 1954, of muleting exemplary costs of Rs. 500/- on the tenant has been challenged in this writ petition-tenant.2. The controversy covers a very narrow compass, and this Court could not have much cognizance, had it not been a matter of concern. The respondent instituted an action for eviction of the petitioner under the Act. The Rent Controller served the notice of the proceedings on the tenant and it appears that in December, 1985, the tenant was directed to file the written statement. However, no written statement was filed and the matter was adjourned to 9-1-1986. It has been the contention of the petitioner tenant that he attended the Court on that date but the Presiding Officer was not present. The clerk concerned, therefore, openly declared, that the Board fixed on 9-1-1986 would be adjourned, en bloc, to 7-2-1986. With this pronouncement, he ...
Ratan Singh Ramsingh Rajput Vs. M.V. Chitale and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1986
Reported in: 1986CriLJ2075; 1986MhLJ879
P.B. Sawant, J.1. What is challenged in the present petition is an order of externment passed under Section 57(b) read with Section 59, Bombay Police Act, 1951, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The notice issued under Section 59 preceding the impugned order dt. 8th October 1985 states that the externee had been convicted of offences mentioned in the notice and further that he was likely again to engage himself in the commission of the offence similar to that for which he had been convicted. The externee was, therefore, called upon to remain present in the enquiry which was to be held under the said section. After the enquiry, the impugned order was passed on 15th Nov. 1985 externing the petitioner from the districts of Thane and Greater Bombay for a period of two years.2. The gravamen of the challenge to the impugned order is that it has been passed only on the ground that the externee had to his record two convictions for the offences under Section 66(b), Bombay Prohibition Act. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›