Mumbai Court October 1987 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.
Dattajirao Balwantrao Mane Vs. Nani Palkhivala and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)BomCR13
S.C. Pratap, J.1. Learned Advocate Mr. Niteen Pradhan for the petitioner submits that in view of the first respondent Nani Palkhivala's letter to the learned Advocate Mr. S.B. Jaisinghani---and which letter is now part of the record of these proceedings---the question of contempt will not arise. But---and we now quote the very words of the learned Advocate---the petitioner desires to highlight the conduct of Advocates and their growing tendency to hurl abuses on Judges and under criticism of courts.2. Now, what the petitioner, who is also himself a practising member of the Bar, should do or desires is not for us to advise. Living, as we all are, in a free democracy ...the one visible symbol thereof, significantly, is this very petition and its subject-speech but the vital symbol whereof is our independent judiciary...citizens are free to choose and charter out their course of action subject, of course, to the basic norms enjoined upon us all by the rule of law end the Constitution. But...
P.A.C. Rego Dias Vs. Madura Coats Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1987
Reported in: (1995)IIILLJ79Bom
H.H. Kantharia, J.1. The petitioners here filed complaints of unfair labour practice, being Complaint (ULP) No. 719 of 1984 and Complaint (ULP) No. 720 of 1984 in the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Bombay, charging the first respondent-employer under item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Their allegations against the employer were that there was a longstanding custom, usage and/or practice prevailing in the Company of not asking for medical certificate for one or two days sick leave and the said custom, usage and/or practice had crystallised into a term of service condition which was being violated by the first respondent and that is how they were guilty of an unfair labour practice covered by item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act. The defence of the first respondent was that there was no such long-standing practice prevailing in the Company of not asking for a medical ...
Taprogge Gesellschaft Mbh Vs. Iaec India Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Bom157
ORDER1. The plaintiff company, engaged in the business of manufacturing cooling water filters and allied products, incorporated under the laws of the Federal Republic of Germany, seeks a declaration that the defendants, an Indian Company and the plaintiffs erstwhile agents in India, are not entitled to sell or offer for sale two of the plaintiffs' products known as Taprogge Cooling Water Filters and Taprogge Condenser Tube Clearing systems, hereinafter referred to as the 'covered products'. This Notice of Motion is for interim injunction restraining the defendants from recommending, offering for sale or selling any of the covered products for a period of five years from 27th Aug. 1985.(i) THE FACTSThe undisputed facts are, as set out in paras 2, 3, 4 and 5 below.2. On or about 1st Mar. 1979 Ludwig Taprogge, an individual whose name the plaintiff company bears and the defendant entered into an agreement of agencywhereunder the latter was to sell in India the covered products manufacture...
Prafull Dattatraya Pore Vs. J.K. Chemicals Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1987
Reported in: [1989(59)FLR306]; (1993)IIILLJ129Bom
H. Suresh, J. 1. The petitioner was employed as a Clerk-cum-Compounder on a probation for a period of six months on 7th August 1978, by the respondent. The probation period was extended by the respondent by a letter dated 1st January 1979, on the ground that the performance of the petitioner was not satisfactory. Thereafter by a letter dated 23rd March, 1979, the petitioner was informed that the respondent found the petitioner unsuitable for the job for which he had been appointed and that, therefore, his appointment could no be confirmed. In the said letter, the petitioner was informed that the respondent had already started a search for a replacement and that the respondent would get another person. The respondent further informed the petitioner that that would not take more than one and a half month from the date of the said letter. The petitioner was given an option to discontinue if he so desired in the meanwhile. Thereafter by a letter dated 22nd May 1979, the respondent informed...
Ramesh Ramchandra Gawad Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1987
Reported in: (1993)IIILLJ698Bom
H.H. Kantharia, J.1. The petitioner in writ petition No. 760 of 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the workman') was in the employment of the first respondent therein (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company') as a mazdoor. He was a permanent workman. According to him, he was unwell and, therefore, proceeded on leave from 18th March, 1979 to 24th March, 1979 for which he had sent two medical certificates to the Company but unfortunately he was arrested by the police at his native place on 24th March, 1979 as a suspect in a murder case. He was in jail during pendency of the murder trial and was ultimately acquitted by the Sessions Court on 9th January, 1980. Thereafter he approached the Company with a request to allow him to resume duty. He also showed a certified copy of the judgment of the Sessions Court acquitting him of the murder charge. However, the Company sent him a letter on 27th March, 1980 that his name was struck off from the muster roll of the Company as he was treated havin...
Maimuna Begum Wd/O Abdul Razzaque Qureshi and ors. Vs. Taju S/O Ahmed ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1987
Reported in: I(1988)ACC106; 1989(1)BomCR673
V.A. Mohta, J.1. Abdul Razzaque who died during the pendency of this appeal under section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 ('the M.V. Act') had lodged a petition under section 110-A of the M.V. Act to recover a sum of Rs. 2,05,890.27 P. as compensation for the injuries suffered by him a in a motor accident that took place in the evening of 14th July, 1976 on Nagpur Kamptee Road. The petition was filed against Taju Ahmad Khan, who during the regular course of his employment was driving Truck No. MHG 6167 owned by Shriram Ramteke and insured with the New Indian Assurance Company Limited, Nagpur. Abdul Razzaque was a resident of Kamptee and was serving as a binder boy at Government Press, Nagpur. On the fatefull day, the truck was returning empty from Nagpur to Kamptee after unloading the goods. On the way the driver Taju Khan gave lift to Abdul Razzaque, his friend Meshram and several others on payment of Rs. 0.50 each. The truck was already carrying the conductor and the labourers ...
Satyawan Son of Harnamdas Bhatia Vs. Santok Singh S/O Sardar Surjan Si ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1987
Reported in: 1988(2)BomCR195
A.A. Desai, J.1. This revision raises a question whether appeal against an order passed in a Mesne Profit Case, is a continuation of original suit proceedings for eviction and possession.2. The non-applicants/plaintiffs on 1963 inducted applicant-defendant as a tenant in breach of Clauses 22 and 23 of the Rent Control Order. The plaintiffs filed a suit bearing No. 834 of 1966 for eviction, possession and future mesne profits. The applicant-defendant resisted the claim amongst other on the ground that proceedings for eviction and possession are not tenable for want of requisite permission from Rent Controller. The learned trial Court rejected the plea and on 19-12-1968 decreed the suit. The decree for eviction, possession and enquiry into future mesne profits has been confirmed in 1970 by this Court in Second Appeal. The non-applicants by executing decree, on 22-12-1972 took possession of the suit premises.3. The decree-holders/N. As. thereafter on 29-11-1975 filed Mesne profits Case No...
Satyabhamabai @ Bhamabai Bhr. Gangadhar Phopse Vs. Sakharam Dada Phops ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)BomCR384
Ashok Agarwal, J.1. The Execution Application of the appellant decree holder having been dismissed, the decree - holder has filed the present appeal. She had filed Special Civil Suit No. 13 of 1966 for partition and separate possession in respect of half share in the property left behind by her deceased husband Gangadhar wherein the judgement-debtor, the brother of Gangadhar had other half share. On the 31st January, 1967 a preliminary decree was passed whereunder she was held to be entitled to half share and the judgement-debtor was held to be entitled to the other half. When she filed the present Darkhast, Notice under Order 21, Rule 22 was issued and the judgement -debtor resisted the said Darkhast contending that in Special Civil Suit No. 5 of 1969 filed by Gangubai and Rakhamabai, the sisters of Gangadhar, it was held that each of them had 1/3rd share whereas the judgement-debtor in the present Darkhast 1/3rd share. In view of the subsequent decree to which the decree- holder was ...
Gangubai D/O A. Ramaswami Naidu Vs. A. Sudarshan Naidu S/O A. Ramaswam ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)BomCR421
B.N. Deshmukh, J.1. This second appeal is filed by the original plaintiff who filed a suit for partition of the House No. 1223 of Cantonment, Aurangabad. The case of the plaintiff is that A. Remaswami Naidu s/o Narayanswami is father of the plaintiff and defendant. The father of the plaintiff and defendant died on 15-9-1965. Thus, according to plaintiff, she is entitled for half the share as heir of A. Ramaswami Naidu. The property is under the joint enjoyment of the parties. The plaintiff demanded partition but defendant refused the same. That is why this present suit is filed by the plaintiff.2. The defendant admitted that A. Ramaswami Naidu was the father of the defendant but denied that plaintiff is the daughter of said Ramaswami Naidu and as such she is not entitled for any share in the property.3. It be noted at this stage that one suit was filed by the defendant against Nagbhushanam which was allowed finally in favour of the defendant. In that suit, the plaintiff had preferred a...
Aparna (Miss) @ Vandana Shamrao Hingane Vs. Shivaji University and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1987
Reported in: 1988(2)BomCR146; 1988MhLJ1085
Sharad Manohar, J.1. This is a proceeding peccadillos by the unfortunate stubbornness and callousness on the part of such a prestigious University as a University.2. The appellant was 17 years of age on 31-12-1985 and hence was eligible for appearing for the 1st year B.H.M. & S. (Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine & Surgery) Course Examination. Partly on account of negligence and partly on account of absence of astuteness on the part of her parents, her birth-date in the School Register was shown to be 1st June, 1969. The result was that she appeared to be less than 17 years on 13-12-1985 and, as such, ineligible for appearing for the particular examination. She tried to satisfy the University that the birth-date mentioned in the School Register was a mistake. The University Authorities refused to be satisfied. She filed a suit for vindication of her contention. The Courts are satisfied that her birth-date was wrongly mentioned in the School Register and that the true date of her birth w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »