Mumbai Court November 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.
Pramod Purshottam Patkar Vs. Vasundhra Pramod Patkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-03-1987
Reported in: AIR1989Bom75
1. The Appellant in this appeal was the petitioner in the trial Court who had filed M.J, Petition No. 414 of 1982 against his wife , the present respondent for a decree for divorce. The grounds mentioned for divorce were two-fold :-(a) Cruelty on the part of the respondent/wife. Evidenced by the various instances averred in the petition and deposed to in the evidence: and (b) desertion for a period of nearly 15 years before and till the date of the petition.2. The Respondent/Wife filed her written statement and denied the various allegations of cruelty levelled against her. She also denied desertion on her part and contended, implicitly, if not in so many words, that the petitioner was himself the sole cause of desertion which was the constructive desertion practiced by himself against the respondent by driving her out of the matrimonial home. Her defense amounts to this that it was the petitioner who was to be blamed for her departure from the matrimonial house, because it was he who ...
Collector of Customs (Prev) Vs. Kamlesh Jewellers
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-1987
Reported in: (1987)(14)ECC481
1. The facts of this case, as given to us during the hearing, are quite revealing. The appellants were functioning as a licensed gold dealer till 1979. In 1979, their firm was reconstituted and accordingly for 1980 they applied for a fresh licence in the name of the newly constituted firm. Twice their application was rejected. Each time, the Collector (Appeals) found no substance in the ground of rejection and so twice he remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for a fresh consideration. Third time, the lower authority again rejected the application on the sole ground that the premises applied for were not safe and secure. Again, the Collector (Appeals) found no merit in the ground of rejection, for the premises were the same where the old firm had been functioning till 1979. He allowed the appeal on 11-2-1986 and directed the adjudicating authority to grant the licence. His order has not been implemented by the authorities. The Department is now in appeal before us against ...
Vinodkumar Balkrishna Damania Vs. Standard Batteries Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-1987
Reported in: (1994)IIILLJ870Bom
S.M. Daud, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution takes exception to an order of dismissal passed against the Petitioner by Respondent 1 and the affirmation thereof by Respondent 2 in a reference under Section 10(1) r/w 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act). 2. The first Respondent, hereinafter to be referred to as 'the employer', had on its rolls several employees, one of them being the petitioner. The petitioner was working with the employer as an electrician for over 7 years and in the year 1969 he came to be promoted as 'Electrician', Grade T-6'. Petitioner was a subordinate of Felix Simon D'Souza, who was a Section Supervisor of the Maintenance Section. From February to June 1975, the petitioner was served with four show-cause notices asking him to explain this or that alleged lapse.Petitioner submitted explanations to each of the show cause communications. On 17th September, 1975, a charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner, and, this began with...
Hanumansingh S/O Laxmansingh Thakur Vs. Municipal Council and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-1987
Reported in: 1989(2)BomCR129
H.W. Dhabe, J.1. The parties by Counsel. Rule, heard forthwith.The petitioner, who is working as a teacher in the secondary school run by the respondent No. 1 Municipal Council, was given a notice of retirement on 27-5-1987 on the ground that he would be completing 58 years of age on 31-10-1987 which is the age of retirement prescribed under the bye-laws framed by the Municipal Council in that regard. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition challenging the notice of retirement on the ground that by the Maharashtra Act No. XXX of 1987 the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of service regulation ) Act, 1977 (for short, 'the Act'), is amended and by the said amendment the secondary schools run by the Municipal Councils are included within the definition of the expression 'private school' given in section 2(20) of the Act with the result that all the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed there under which are applicable to the 'private schools' would be ap...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›