Mumbai Court February 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.
Khamgaon Central Co-operative Consumers Wholesale and Retail Stores Lt ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)BomCR536
M.S. Deshpande, J.1 This petition by the employer under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution is -directed against the order passed by the Industrial Court while setting aside the order passed by the Labour Court dismissing the complaint filed by the respondent under section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU and PULP Act' for short), declaring that the petitioner has committed an unfair labour practice under Clauses I(a), (b) and (d) of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, and directing the petitioner to pay to the respondent Rs. 1000/- by way of compensation for wrongful discharge together with back wages for-two years.2. The respondent who was employed as a clerk with the petitioner society was given a notice by the petitioner on 10-2-1981 intimating to him that as he had attained the age of 58 years, he would stand discharged from the employment with effect from 11-3-1981 and directing him to hand over the cha...
Abdul Rasheed Khan Alias Rasheed Mamu Son of Abdul Hameedkhan Vs. Stat ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)BomCR131
C.H. Guttal, J.1. The petitioner Abdul Rasheed Khan son of Abdul Hameedkhan a resident of Aurangabad was detained under the National Security Act, 1980, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), by order dated 3rd June, 1986 made by the District Magistrate, Aurangabad. In this petition he challenges the legality of the order of detention.I. FACTS GROUNDS OF DETENTION--------------------------------------------2. Briefly stated the facts are as under :The order of detention was served on the petitioner at 6.30 p.m. on 3rd of June, 1986. The grounds of detention were served on him at 00.10 a.m. on 8th of June, 1986. The petitioner disputes this fact and claims that the grounds of detention were actually served on him at 2 a.m. and not at 00.10 a.m. on 8th of June, 1986. Along with the grounds of detention the petitioner was also supplied with the copies of first information reports, statements of witnesses, panchnamas, etc. The report under section 3(4) of the Act was received by the Governm...
Shaikh MoIn @ Kabadi Vs. District Magistrate, Parbhani and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)BomCR501
G.H. Guttal, J.1. The petitioners who are residents of Parbhani were detained under section 3(4) of The National Security Act. The orders of detention were made by the District Magistrate bear Nos. 1986-A-Pol-NSA-7; 1986/A/POL/NSA-10; 1986-A-Pol-NSA-6, 1986/Pol-A-NSA-8; 86-A-POL-NSA-9 respectively all dated 22nd August, 1986. The District Magistrate, Parbhani is respondent No. 1, to Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 102 of 1986; 117 of 1986 and 118 of 1986 and respondent No. 2 in Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 104 of 1986 and 108 of 1986. The State of Maharashtra are respondent No. 2 in Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 102 of 1986; 117 of 1986 and 118 of 1986 and respondent No. 1 in Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 104 of 1986 and 108 of 1986. In all these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge orders of detention made respectively against them.I. The facts2. The petitioners were detained on 22nd August, 1986. The grounds of detention were served on the respec...
Maheshwari Cotton Company Vs. Shakuntaladevi W/O Dungarsidas Zunzunwal ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1987
Reported in: 1987(3)BomCR17
B.G. Deo, J.1. I have heard Shri Deshpande for the applicant-revision petitioner. Shri Bhide for the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 and Shri Sinha Public Prosecutor for the State.2. In this revision petition the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Khamgaon, on 18-5-1985, allowing the revision filed before him against the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Malkapur, issuing process against accused-respondents for the offence punishable under sections 420, 109 read with section 34, I.P.C. has been challenged. In the revision before the learned Sessions Judge, the Court by allowing the revision petition set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Malkapur, and dismissed the complaint.3. Shri Deshpande has now challenged in this revision petition before this Court the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge on the short ground that the order passed by the learned Magistrate under section 204, Cri.P.C. being an interlocutory order the r...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Sadanand Laxman Tawde and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1987
Reported in: 1987(1)BomCR656
Khatri, J.1. The two respondents were tried before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, Shri T. R. Desai, on charges under sections 392/34, 397 and 302/34, I.P.C. on the allegation that on 11th February, 1975 in the Lalbaug Market locality, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Road, Bombay, they, in furtherance of their common intention committed robbery of cash worth Rs. 15/- belonging to one Daji Baloo Gharge and also committed his murder. The learned Judge has convicted both respondents under S. 304/34, Part II, and sentenced the first to 7 years' R.I. and the second to 2 years' R.I. The first respondent was further convicted under S. 392/397, I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for 7 years and a fine of Rs. 50/- while the second Respondent was convicted under S. 392/34 and sentenced to R.I. for 3 years and a fine of Rs. 50/-. Substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. By implication both the respondents stand acquitted of the capital charge of murder under S. 302. The St...
Eagle Flasks Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1987
Reported in: 1987(29)ELT850(Bom)
1. This petition is aimed at the quashing of Ex. 'G', getting a mandate calling upon the respondents to make the licences figuring in this petition to the extent of unutilised portion thereof transferable and to revalidate the licences wherever the period of their validity has expired. These reliefs are sought under the terms of Import and Export Policy for the period April, 1985 to March, 1988.2. Petitioners are in the business of manufacturer-exporter and were registered-exporters under Import Policy 1985-88. They had secured REP licences which are at Exs. 'A' to 'E'. These licences are valid for a period of 18 months from the date of issue thereof, which ranged from May to October 1985. 25% of the c.i.f. value had been utilised by petitioners. On 30-3-1986, petitioners applied for the making of an endorsement on the licences enabling them to transfer the remaining or unutilised value thereof. This was turned down under Ex. 'G' which reads as follows :-'.... your request cannot be co...
Vishwasrao Vs. Ushabai and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Bom392; 1987(1)BomCR707
ORDER1. The petitioner, who was a judgment-debtor before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Wardha in Special Darkhast No. 4/79, has challenged the order passed by the Court on 18-1-1985.2. The following facts will be necessary for appreciating the real controversy. The respondent 2 Hanumantrao is the son of the petitioner-Vishwasrao. Respondent 1 Sou. Ushabai is the mother of Hanumantrao and wife of Vishwasrao. They constituted a joint Hindu family which owned extensive property-moveable as well as immoveable. Hanumantrao instituted a civil suit for partition and separate possession of his share in the family property. A preliminary decree came to be passed in the suit.3. The final decree proceedings were taken after the passing of the preliminary decree. We are not much concerned regarding the division of the revenue yielding estate and other moveable property. It is an admitted position that a Commissioner was appointed by the Court for effecting the partition of the house. It appear...
Hiren L. Patel Trust No. 10 Vs. Ninth Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1987
Reported in: (1987)21ITD219(Mum.)
1. These five appeals are by the assessee against the orders of the AAC. They all relate to the assessment year 1980-81. In all these appeals the point involved is about the claim of exemption under Section 5(1)(xxiii) read with Section 5(1A) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act').2. All these trusts have shares in Indian companies and filed their returns as specific trust declaring the net wealth after deducting the values of interest of life beneficiaries and reversionary beneficiaries. The WTO, however, assessed these trusts as discretionary trusts and levied the tax at maximum rate on the entire net wealth without allowing exemption under Section 5(1)(xxiii). The AAC held that these trusts are specific trusts and directed the WTO to assess them on the net wealth after reducing therefrom the values of interest of life beneficiaries and reversionary beneficiaries. He, however, did not allow the deduction under Section 5(1)(xxiii) in some cases and in other cases he did not consider...
Maharashtra State Financial Corporation Vs. Jaycee Drugs and Pharmaceu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1987
Reported in: 1987MhLJ291
H. Suresh, J.1. The Maharashtra State Financial Corporation has filed this petition under Sections 31 and 32 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for a decree in the sum of Rs. 15 lakhs and odd as against the Respondents.2. Respondent No. 1 is a private limited company. The company proposed to set up a factory at Taloja and sought the assistance of the petitioners. The petitioners sanctioned the loan of Rs. 30,00,000/-. As and by way of security, the said company executed a deed of mortgage dated June 29, 1973. Respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 also stood surety for and on behalf of respondent No. 1 company, in respect of the loan to be advanced by the petitioners. The company has not been able to go ahead with the project. In the meanwhile the company had received about Rs. 14 lakhs and odd. Since the company failed, the petitioners took steps to realise the amount. As provided under the Act, they took possession of the project and took charge...
Dulba S/O Tukaram Bakhar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)BomCR331
P.V. Nirgudkar, J.1. One Dulba Tukaram Bakhar has filed this Criminal Revision under section 401(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the respondents for setting aside their acquittal and for retrial.2. The petitioner was the original complainant in Criminal Case No. 289 of 1985 and respondents 2 and 3 were the accused in that case. Those accused were tried for offence punishable under section 325, 324 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It was at the instance of the complainant, the State of Maharashtra prosecuted the accused and it was a police case.3. However, on merits the case ended in acquittal. The State did not come in appeal and the aggrieved complainant has filed this revision. There is no doubt that in exceptional cases even a private complainant can file a revision and the High Court can order retrial but there must be some illegality or utter ignorance of reliable testimony of eye-witnesses or error in point of law, as held in Ayodhya Dube v. Ram Sumer Singh, : ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »