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.
Gahininath Bhimrao Patekar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)BomCR524; 1987MhLJ153
ORDER1. The applicant-accused is the proprietor of M/s. Ganesh Dairy, 616, South Kasba, Solapur. The complainant-Food Inspector took a sample of buffalo milk from him on 17th May, 1981 at about 9.00 a.m. The said sample was sent to Public Analyst whose report dt. 19th June, 1981 revealed that the milk was adulterated. The Food Inspector obtained the consent of the appropriate authority to prosecute the accused and prosecuted him on 22nd April, 1982 in the Court of the learned trial Magistrate. At the trial he was found guilty of an offence of food adulteration and was convicted for offences punishable under S. 16 read with Sections 7(i) and 2(ia)(a)(m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months, by a judgment and order recorded by the learned trial Magistrate on 15th November, 1...
Elpro International Ltd. Vs. K.B. Joshi and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)BomCR1; [1987(54)FLR428]; (1987)IILLJ210Bom; 1987MhLJ376
Dharmadhikari, J.1. The petitioner Elpro International Limited has challenged in this writ petition the award passed by the 1st Labour Court, Pune dated 24th of May, 1985 in a Reference (IDA) No. 62 of 1980, setting aside the order of removal and directing reinstatement of the respondent, Mrs. Kusum Bhairavnath Joshi, to the post of temporary screen coptin operator with continuity of service and back wages at the rate of Rs. 400 per month from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement except for the period of six months.2. Rule came to be issued in the present petition on 1st October, 1985 and ad interim relief in terms of prayer clause (B) was also granted. Thereby implementation of the impugned award came to be stayed. Thereafter the respondent-employee filed an application under Section 17(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for payment of her wages. At that stage by amending the petition, petitioner challenged the very validity of the Section 17(B) of the said Act,...
Bhartiya Magas Vargiya Zopadpatti Mahila SarwangIn Vikas Sanghatana, N ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Bom150; 1987(2)BomCR563
ORDER1. The order passed by the Additional District Judge, Nagpur in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 306 of 1986 on 27-1-1987 injuncting the defendant No. 1 -- the Divisional Social Welfare Officer, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, from accepting fresh tenders up to 31-3-1987 and issuing a further mandate commanding him to place orders with the present Respondent 1, is challenged in this revision.2. The factual position is more or less admitted as far as the controversy is concerned. The Divisional Social Welfare Officer, Nagpur, invited tenders for the supply of Soji, Shira, Udits sweet as well as salty by the notice dt. 4-3-1986. The plaintiff -- Best Bread Company, submitted its tender. There were other tenderers also including the defendant No. 3 the present petitioner. The tender of the plaintiff came to be accepted and a contract came to be finalised on 30th June, 1986. The work under the contract was to commence from 7th July, 1986. However, by it sletter addressed on 4th July, 1986 to t...
J.C. Patel Vs. the Employees State Insurance Corporation
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1987
Reported in: (1987)89BOMLR147; 1987MhLJ280
P.B. Sawant, J.1. This is a reference made by the learned single Judge and the question referred for consideration of the Division Bench is whether Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 governs applications made under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), preferred between the 1st January 1964 (on which date the Limitation Act, 1963 came into force) and January 28, 1968 (on which date Section 11(1A) of the Act came into force, prescribing a limitation of three years for applications made to the Insurance Court).2. The only relevant facts which need be stated are that the respondent-Corporation made three applications on different dates under Section 75 of the Act to the Insurance Court for recovery of diverse amounts due from the appellants for diverse periods. The first application was made on October 13, 1964 for recovering an amount of Rs. 1,956/- due for the period October 3, 1954 to August 31, 1964; the second was made on Se...
Chemistar Vs. Union of India (Uoi),
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1987
Reported in: 1988(15)LC158(Bombay)
S.M. Daud, J.1. These petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are aimed at recovery of Additional Duty collected from the petitioners who had imported 'Phenol' and from whom Additional Duty was collected in 1985 and 1982 respectively.2. The contention is that Phenol was a 'drug' entitled to exemption from Notification No. 234/82-C.E. dated 1.11.1982 as amended from time to time ending with No. 80/85-C.E. dated 17.3.1985. Pursuant to a mistake of law entertained by both the parties, the Additional Duty was recovered. That such a recovery was illegal was so held by Pendse J. in the case of Raman Kantilal Shandari v. Union of India and Ors. reported in (1987) 11 E.C.C. 181 : 1987 (11) ECR 84. However, when the petitioners applied for a refund of the same, the applications were rejected, and therefore, the instant petitions. It is submitted that imposts collected without the sanction of law can be recovered at any time within three years of the discovery of the mistake. Petitioners...
Sudhir Chimanlal Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1987
Reported in: 1988(19)LC26(Bombay); 1988(36)ELT406(Bom)
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the rejection of an application made by the petitioner for refund of Additional Duty alleged to have been illegally recovered from him and, so recovered upon an import of a consignment of Sorbitol 70% Liquid USP covered by the Bill of Entry at Ex. 'E' to the petition.2. Petitioner's case is that the consignment imported was a 'drug' and exempt from Additional Duty vide Notification No. 104/82-C.E., dated 28th February 1982, as amended from time to time. Because of a mistake law mutually entertained by petitioner and the Assistant Collector of Customs, Additional Duty was illegally recovered. Petitioner realised the error pursuant to the judgment of Pendse, J. in Writ Petition No. 1808 of 1982. This judgment was delivered on 12th August 1986. Petitioner got knowledge of the judgment on or about 25th August 1986. On 6th October 1986, petitioner applied for refund. This application was rejected by responded...
Works of Art (Pvt.) Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1987
Reported in: 1988(36)ELT91(Bom)
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks to revoke an order of detention and permit the export of items covered by the invoices, copies whereof are at Ex. 'D' appended to the petition.2. The invoice items were brought for examination to the Customs Authorities and bills of landing in respect thereof were issued by the shipping company in favour of petitioners. In about May, 1986, the Customs Authorities detained items numbering about 200 on the suspicion that some of the items may be 'antiquities' within the meaning of Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972. Petitioners addressed several communications to respondents pleading that the consignments had been unnecessarily detailed, though at one stage they had been cleared, and that, the detention was working to their great disadvantage in terms of finance and reputation. On 25-11-1986, petitioners received an undated communication, which, to the extent relevant for the purposes of this petition, reads thus :-'The su...
Maria Madeirae Fernandes Vs. Vishnu Mahadeo Kanekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1987
Reported in: AIR1987Bom240; 1987(2)BomCR224; (1987)89BOMLR347
Kamat, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal by the landlady is against the order of the single Judge dt. 12th April, 1984 rendered in Writ Petn. No. 64 of 1983 challenging the validity of the order of he order of the Administrative Tribunal dt, 10th Mar. 1983 in eviction Appeal No. 24 of 1980 and the order of the Additionakl Rent Controller. South Goa, Margoa, dt. 30th Sept. 1980 in Case No. Building 53 of 1980. By the impugned order dt. 12th April 1984 in Writ Petition No. 64 of 1983 the two orders one dt. 10th Mar. 1983 made by Tribunal and the other of the Additional Rent Controller dt. 30th Sept. 1980. whereby the tenant had been ordered to vacate the residential premises under his occupation and directed him to put the landlandy in possession within 30 days were set aside.2. The question posed in this Letters Patent Appeal turns on the interpretation of S. 32 and S. 22 of the Goa. Daman and Diu Buildings Lease, Rent and Eviction Control Act. 1968. hereinafter for brevity sake called 't...
P. and T. Central Co-operative Society Ltd., Through Its Secretary and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)BomCR190; 1987MhLJ232
M.S. Deshpande, J.1. By these two writ petitions the orders passed by the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Bombay ('Appellate courts' for short) in two revision application affirming the order passed by the Co-operative Court, one allowing the application for adding parties and the other for consequential amendment passed on 4th and 27th February, 1985, are being challenged.2. Nine disputants, present respondents Nos. 3 to 11 filed Election Dispute No. 663 of 1984 before the Co-operative Court, Nagpur against petitioners Nos. 4 to 16 challenging the elections to various offices of the petitioner No. 1, the Posts and Telegraphs Central Co-operative Society, Ltd. The dispute was resisted by the written statement dated 7-11-1984 on various grounds, one of them being that the dispute was bad as the society and other necessary parties to the dispute had not been impleaded. It may be mentioned that the results of the elections which were being disputed, were declared on 24th S...
Keshariprasad S/O Sadhuram Tiwari Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1987
Reported in: 1987(3)BomCR74
M.S. Deshpande, J.1. This petition is directed against the order of the First Labour Court holding that a complaint by an employee under section 28 (1) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Unfair Labour Practices Act'), is not maintainable, without his complying with the provisions of section 42(4) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bombay Act').2. The petitioner was employed by the respondent No. 3 Nagpur District Central Co-operative Bank, as a jeep-driver from 4-2-1969. A charge sheet was served on him on 1-10-1975, and after holding a Departmental Enquiry, his services were terminated on 18-9-1976. The termination order was challenged before the First Labour Court, Nagpur, on 15-3-1977 and as a result of a compromise, the petitioner was reinstated in service, without back wages. On 19-4-1979, he was suspended with a view to holding a Departmental...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »