Mumbai Court September 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.
Rajesh Steel Centre Vs. Smt. Rashmi K. Agarwal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-1986
Reported in: (1986)88BOMLR697; 1986MhLJ993
N.K. Parekh, J.1. The short question that has arisen on this Summons for Judgment is whether a suit against the legal heirs and representatives of the deceased, who are sought to be made liable only to the extent of the estate of the deceased in their hands, is maintainable as a summary suit.2. Mr. A.G. Shah, the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs, has urged that the plaintiffs sold and delivered goods to the deceased and in respect whereof a bill of exchange was drawn. That the bill of exchange was accepted by the deceased, but he, failed to make payment under the same despite repeated demands. That the plaintiffs have hence filed a suit against the legal heirs and representatives of the deceased for the recovery of the plaintiffs' dues. That since the suit is on a bill of exchange, the suit would be maintainable as a summary suit. That the defence set out by the present defendants does not raise any substantial or triable issues and in view of this, the Summons for Judgment must be m...
All India Labour Union Vs. Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-1986
Reported in: (1986)88BOMLR560; (1995)IIILLJ755Bom
S.M. Daud, J. 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against an order passed by a Member of the Industrial Court in relation to interim relief claimed in a complaint (ULP) moved under Schedule IV Item No. 9 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (PULP Act).2. The points that arise for determination in the instant petition have to be considered in the following background:Respondent No. 1 (employer) is doing business in the name and style of M/s. Crown Aluminium Works, Bombay and it has a labour force of about 100 workers. In the year 1981, a dispute arose between the employer and the workers in relation to pay allowances and other conditions of employment. On August 20, 1981 through the mediation of the Conciliation Officer, the employer and the workmen came to an amicable settlement which was reduced to writing in a memorandum , dated 20.8.1981. Under this settlement, the workers were to be paid a ...
Sakharam S/O Magnaji Mitkar and Vs. Dattu S/O Ramji Khobre Per L.Rs. a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)BomCR681
M.S. Ratnaparkhi, J.1. The petitioner Sakharam Magnaji Mitkar challenges the order passed by the District Judge, Beed, in Rent Appeal No. 7 of 1977, confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller on 10-5-1977 evicting the tenants from the suit property and directing to hand over vacant possession of the property to the plaintiffs.2. The facts giving rise to this litigation maybe briefly stated as follows:-Survey No. 227 admeasuring 2 acres 6 gunthas and Survey No. 37 admeasuring 1 acre and 1 gunthas previously belonged to Dattu Ramji and his brother Deorao. Deorao had one-fourth share in Survey No. 227, whereas, the remaining land in Survey Nos. 227 and 37 belonged to Dattu Ramji. The plaintiffs purchased the share of Deorao and they became the exclusive owners of the property. Admittedly, this land was leased out to defendant No. 1 for a period of 51 years under two registered lease-deeds one dated 27th Teer 1352 Fasli and 17 Farwardi 1352 Fasli on the annual rent. It ...
Mohammedi Fida HussaIn Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-1986
Reported in: (1986)88BOMLR557
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. The third respondent is the Mohammed Haji Saboo Siddik Institution, which is a public charitable trust, It runs a technical high school, a polytechnic and trade and certificate courses. The 4th respondent is the Anjuman-I-Islam which is incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, and is also registered as a public charitable trust. It is responsible for the management and administration of the 3rd respondent.2. It is the petitioner's case that on April 1, 1958 he was employed by the third respondent as an accounts clerk. The petitioner worked with the 3rd respondent until March 6, 1980. On March 6, 1980 his services were temporarily transferred by the 3rd respondent to the 4th respondent. From March 10, 1980 to June 22, 1982 he worked with the 4th respondent in a temporary capacity. On June 22, 1982 the 4th respondent issued to the petitioner a letter stating that his services had been permanently transferred by the 3rd respondent to the 4th respondent. The p...
Vashdev Bheroomal Pamnai Vs. M. Bipinkumar and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Bom226; 1987(2)BomCR645
1. Both thecivil revision applications are disposed by this common judgment. The petittioner and the respondents are the same in both the revision applications. The petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ' the plaintiff') insituted Civil Suits Nos. 4 of 1985 and 8 of 1985 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division Thane, for a perpetual injuncition restrining the repondents'), their agents and employees from entering into the suit permises situate at Plot No. B46, 16/29 'C' Wagle Industrial Estate, Thana In both the suits the plaintiff filed an application for a temporary injuction market Ex. 5 in both the suits. The learned trial Judge passed an ex parte temporary injunction on 2nd Jaunary, 1985 and the defendants were noticed to shos cause why theexparte order for temporary injucation shoul not be confirmed in both the suits. The defendants put in appearance under S. 34, Arbitration Act, 1940, which is market Ex. 12' in both the suits, According to the defendants, the conductin...
Nagji Vallabhaji and Co. Vs. Meghji Vijpar and Co. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)BomCR547; (1986)88BOMLR633
Sharad Manohar, J.1. This is defendant's appeal against whom decree for possession has been passed by the City Civil Court. The plaintiffs, who are the respondents before me, had filed the suit against the defendant contending, inter alia, that the defendant was the tenant of plaintiff No. 2 on the date of the suit, that the Bombay Rent Act did not apply to the premises in question and that the defendant's tenancy had been duly terminated by the plaintiff and that, hence, the plaintiff was entitled to possession of the suit premises from the defendant.The defendant, inter alia, contended that he was protected by the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act and hence---(a) that no decree for eviction against him could be passed by the City Civil Court; and(b) that he was entitled to the protection under the Rent Act even, otherwise.This defendant's contention was negatived by the trial Court and a decree for possession was passed in favour of the plaintiff. When this Appeal, initially came bef...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Ashok Yashwant Atigre
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-1986
Reported in: 1987(2)BomCR46; (1986)88BOMLR718
Sawant, J.(Paras 1 to 27 xxxxxxxxxxxx)28. We may now examine the defence case for the protection of the general exception under S. 86 of I.P.C. which is the alternate defence set up. Before we do so, it is necessary to appreciate the precise implications of S. 86. The reading of Sections 85 and 86 together makes it clear that S. 86 is an exception to S. 85. Section 85 reads as follows :-'Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, is, by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong, or contrary to law; provided that the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.'These provisions show that if the intoxication is induced voluntarily, the act done is an offence even if the person is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that what he is doing is either wrong or contrary to law. This section obviously covers all offences. That is why, ...
Dilip Dattatraya Pukale and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-1986
Reported in: 1986(3)BomCR505
V.S. KOTWAL, J.1. An unusual phenomena was noticed when the sample of milk was collected by the Food Inspector, purporting to be skimmed milk and the report of the Public Analyst as well as the certificate of the Director showed that it contained fat contents more than as required under the rules. Therefore, this is a case where more fat contents are found in the milk though it is true that for the purpose of skimmed milk the percentage should have been less. According to the prosecution, on 5th December, 1974 at about 7-30 a.m. the complainant Food Inspector Shri Jangude along with Food Inspector Tiwari visited the premises of the present petitioner, who was original accused No. 1, who runs milk Dairy in partnership with his brother, who is original accused No. 2 while the firm was made originally accused No. 3. The milk sample was collected from the pot which was purported to be sold as skimmed milk for which receipt was passed, formalities were observed when the sample was divided i...
Vardhan Syntex, a Unit of Zenith Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-1986
Reported in: 1986(9)LC348(Bombay)
V.A. Mohta, J.1. By this petition, the adjudication order of the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Division Amravati (Respondent No. 2) dated 5th July 1986, about classification of yarn manufactured by the petitioner, has been challenged. Chemical Examiner found that the yarn contains manmade fibre of non-cellulosic origin and hence it was liable to be classified under T.I. 18 (III)(ii) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (The Act).2. Before hearing commenced, Shri Bhangde, the learned Counsel for the respondents, raised a preliminary objection to the effect that alternate remedy of an appeal under Section 35F of the Act, though available, has not been exhausted and under the circumstances, we should not entertain the petition and dispose of it on this ground only. Strong reliance was placed in this connection on the case of Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar v. Dunlop India Ltd. and Ors. A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 330 in which the following observations are made:But t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›