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.
Director-general of Investigation and Registration Vs. Indian Manageme ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1987
Reported in: [1988]63CompCas132(Bom)
ORDERG.r. Luthra, J. (Chairman)1. The present application under section 12A of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, has been filed by the Director-General of Investigation and Registration. This application has been given during the pendency of enquiry on the basis of an application under section 36B(c) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act. A notice of enquiry has already been directed to be issued on the basis of the aforesaid application under section 36B(c) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act.2. The respondent released advertisement in various newspaper under the name 'Indian Management Development Institute ' inviting people to study through correspondence MBA (Master of Business Administration ) course which is for two years divided into four semesters.3. The Director-General alleges that the respondent is indulging in unfair trade practices within the meaning of section 36A(1)(ii) and (vi) of the Monopolies and Restrictive t...
Sarladevi Bharatkumar Rungta Vs. Bharatkumar Shivprasad Rungta and Ano ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1987
Reported in: 1987(3)BomCR642
Masodkar, J.1. by his order dated 27th of January 1986 in this contempt petition ordered issuance of notice to Respondent No. 1 as to why he should not be proceeded with for contempt of Court and be not dealt with as such for not obeying the directions of the Court given in First Appeal No. 479 of 1983 by order dated 20th of December, 1984.2. The brief facts giving rise to those proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act are that Respondent No. 1 Bharat Kumar Shivpasad Rungta was married to the Petitioner Sarladevi Rungta according to Hindu rites. Respondent No. 1 filed marriage Petition No. 10 of 1977 in the City Civil Court, Greater Bombay against the Petitioner wife for a decree of nullity of marriage and in the alterative prayed for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on various grounds. The petition was resisted by the wife. During the pendency of the proceedings on the application of the wife interim alimony at the rate of Rs. 700/- per month was fixed. As per the or...
Baburao Baliram Malgaonkar Vs. the Executive Engineer 'B' and 'C' Div. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1987
Reported in: (1994)IIILLJ696Bom
R.A. Jahagirdar, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to challenge the order dated 20th of May, 1979 passed by the Labour Court at Kolhapur in I.D.A. Application No. 155 of 1975 filed by the petitioner. That application was made under Section 33-C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. The case of the petitioner ought to be briefly mentioned. By an order dated 14th of November, 1956, the Executive Engineer, Ratnagiri Division, the petitioner was appointed as a Mechanic on Work-charged establishment to work on the Boring Plant in Kankavli Sub-Division. The scale of pay which was offered to the petitioner was Rs. 60-4-100. According to the petitioner, his name had been suggested by the Employment Officer of Kolhapur for the post of a Boring Mechanic to be filled in by the office of the Executive Engineer of Ratnagiri. The scale of pay attaching to the post of the Boring Mechanic was Rs. 100-5-150. This was so on 1st of January 1957. After joining the d...
Vamen Maruty Gharat and ors. Vs. M.S. Apte and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1987
Reported in: (1998)IIILLJ603Bom
P.B. Sawant, J. 1. The short question involved in the present petition is whether the refusal of the employer to allow the workmen to resume their work unless they sign the undertaking in writing to the effect that they were calling off the illegal strike and that they will discharge their duties properly and will not cause any damage to the property, amounts to a lock-out and whether such a lockout was justified.2. The present petition is filed by the Petitioner-workmen in their representative capacity on behalf of themselves and other employees of the 3rd Respondent-Company (hereinafter referred to as the Company). The Company is engaged in the business of dyeing cloth. All the employees of the Company numbering about 400 had gone on strike from April 2, 1978 following the dismissal of one of their Co-employees on March 9, 1978 and suspension of another pending inquiry. The Company therefore filed an application before the Labour Court under Sections 77, 78, 79 and 80 and 88 read wit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›