Mumbai Court August 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.
A.V. Joglekar and Others Vs. Wamandeo Mahadeo Deosthale and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1987
Reported in: 1987(3)BomCR88; [1990]69CompCas347(Bom)
Puranik, J.1. The petitioners are the accused in Criminal Complaint Case No. 49 of 1986 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gneissic, and instituted by respondent No. 1, Wamandev, against them. The complainant, respondent No. 1, alleges that the petitioners accused have committed offenses under section 409, 157, 120B read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The brief facts on the basis of which the complaint has been initiated by the respondent may be stated as follows :That the complainant is a partner of the firm, Shree Ganesh Ferrocastings, and the said firm was given various facilities by the Central Bank of India, Satpur branch. Petitioner No 1, accused No.1, was the regional manager of Gneissic region. Petitioner No.2, accused No.2, was the branch manager of the Satpur branch. Petitioner No. 3 was the divisional manager of the Gneissic division. Petitioner NO.4 was the general manager of the Central Bank of India, Bombay. According to the complain...
BasseIn Catholic Co-operative Bank Ltd. and anr. Etc. Etc. Vs. State o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Bom72; 1988(2)BomCR293; 1987MhLJ769
Dharmadhikari, J.1. As in all these writ petitions common questions of law and fact are raised, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. In these petitions the provisions of Clause(vii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 73G of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') are being challenged on the ground that they are ultra vires of Articles 14, 19(l)(c) and 19(l)(g) of the Constitution of India. It is contended by Dr. Naik learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that although the said clause purports to lay down guidelines by using expression 'regard being had to the financial position and share capital of such societies or class of societies', the said expression is vague and not capable of any reasonable meaning. This is so because there is no indication as to whether the expression 'financial position' means a weak financial position or a strong financial position, whether the expression 'share ...
indu D/O. Vishnu Mahajan Vs. National Safety Council and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1987
Reported in: (1995)IIILLJ341Bom
Bharucha, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of summary rejection of the writ petition filed by the Appellant. Pendse, J. gave no reasons for the rejection. Having heard counsel in detail we are satisfied that he was right in the conclusion to which he came.2. The Appellant joined the service of the first respondent on 1st November 1967. On 1st October 1975 her services were terminated. It was the Appellants contention that Rule 16 of the National Safety Counsel Service Rules had not been complied with inasmuch as her services had been terminated without giving her three months' notice or pay in lieu thereof. It was also her contention that the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, which are, substantially, of the same nature, were breached. The Appellant, therefore, made an application to the Labour Court under the provisions of Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for the payment of wages for the period October to December 1975. The first res...
Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)BomCR188; 1987MhLJ955
V.A. Mohta, J. 1. The Empress Mills, Nagpur---A textile undertaking has been nationalised by the Central India Spinning, Weaving and Manufacturing Company Limited, the Empress Mills, Nagpur (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1986, ('the Act'). Constitutional validity of sections 9(2), 10(2), 12(1) and 26 of the Act is questioned in this petition by a representative union of the workers on the ground that they violates Articles 14, 19(1)(c) and 21 of the Constitution.2. This century old undertaking was the first venture of the famous industrialist Shri Jamsethji Tata. It consists of 5 units and a paper division. The backdrop against which the undertaking is nationalised is best laid out in the Statement of Objects and Reasons accompanying the Bill. We reproduce the same :'The Central India Spinning, Weaving and Manufacturing Company Limited was established at Nagpur as far back as 1874 and was engaged in the production and manufacture of yarn, cloth and paper through its ind...
Bajaj Electricals Limited Vs. Metals and Allied Products and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Bom167
Pendse, J.1. This is an appeal against the order dated April 7, 1987 passed by Mr. Justice Suresh, on a Notice of Motion taken out by the plaintiffs, refusing to grant interim injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner using in relation to domestic appliances and kitchen utensils and appliances and wares and in particular in respect of the products mentioned in the brochure (being Ex. 'G' to the plaint), the mark 'Bajaj' or any other mark deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trade marks so as to pass off or enable others to pass off the defendants' goods as and for the goods of the plaintiffs. The facts which gave rise to the passing of the impugned order are as follows :2. The plaintiffs are a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1913 and are carrying on business as manufacturers of electric lamps, lighting, fittings, accessories, kitchen appliances such as stoves, heaters, toasters, mixers, grinders, pressure cookers and kitchen wares. The plaintif...
Shankar Narayan Goverdhan Vs. Bharat Pulverising Mills Pvt. Ltd. and a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-1987
Reported in: 1987(3)BomCR196; (1987)89BOMLR395; 1987MhLJ817
P.B. Sawant, J.1. The plaintiff instituted the present suit on July 27, 1977 as an indigent person under Order XXXIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for damages against the defendant. The inquiry into his indigent circumstances resulted in a finding against him and, therefore, while refusing permission to sue as an indigent person, the Court by its order dated September 30, 1980 give him time to pay the Court fees by October 30, 1980. The plaintiff failed to pay the Court-fees before that date, and on December 29, 1980 made an application to pay the same. On that day the Court passed an order giving him time to pay the Court fees upto December 30, 1980. The plaintiff accordingly paid the Court-fees on that day. When the suit came up for hearing, the defendants contended that the suit was barred by time on two grounds. The first was that the Court had not jurisdiction to extend the time for payment of the Court-fees, once the plaintiff had failed to pay the same before October 3...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Sindhi Alias Raman, S/O Dalwai Alias Raghav
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-1987
Reported in: 1987(3)BomCR570; (1987)89BOMLR423
R.A. Jahagirdar, J.1. [After discussing evidence and minor points His Lordship proceeds] There is a clear distinction between legal insanity and medical insanity. The medical insanity may be of various types, kinds and degrees. To what extent the medical insanity affects the cognitive faculties of a person will naturally depend upon the nature of that insanity. A person may be suffering from some form of insanity recognised by the doctors as such, but that form of insanity may not necessarily be the unsoundness of mind contemplated by Section 84 of the I.P.C. If despite the insanity, which the doctor may find in a particular person, that person is able to recognise the nature and the quality of the act for which he is tried or if he is capable of knowing that what he was doing was either wrong or was contrary to law, then the benefit of Section 84 of the I.P.C. naturally would not be available to him. It is not every form of insanity, loosely so called, that is recognised by law as suf...
Rupak Exports Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1987
Reported in: (1988)(37)ELT95Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These reference applications under Section 130(1) of the Customs Act is by M/s. Rupak Exports, the. appellants in Appeal Nos. CD(BOM) 484/85, 485/85, 486/85,487/85, 488/85, 489/85, 490/85, 491/85, 492/85, 493/85, 494/85,495/85,496/85,497/85 and 498/85. They arise out of the common order in the said appeals. They are identically worded. The reliefs claimed are also identical. Hence this common order.2. By these applications, M/s. Rupak Exports requires the Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and refer to the Hon'ble High Court the questions set out in their applications which according to the applicants, are questions of law and they arise out of the common order in the above stated appeals.3. The applicants are Registered Exporters. M/s. East India Hotels Ltd., M/s. Sam Fashion Wear Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Indo Burma Trading Corporation executed Letters of Authority in favour of the applicants to import goods covered by their respective additional licences.Accordingly, the appli...
Uma Balasaraswathi Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1987
Reported in: (1988)LC152Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the Order bearing No. AIR/CUS 49/4673/85, dated 3-6-1985 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Airport. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal may be stated as under :- 2. The appellant accompanied by her two daughters and mother-in-law arrived at the Bombay Airport on 3-6-1985 from New York. All of them went to red channel of the Customs Baggage hall. The appellant declared goods valued at Rs. 20,700 and also 4 gold bangles weighing 200 gms.valued at Rs. 24,800. The Customs Officers were not satisfied with the declaration, examined her baggage and found that the value of the goods declared was less by Rs. 6.800/-. They further found that she had not declared 8 gold bangles weighing 425 gms. valued at Rs. 52,700/- which were worn by her daughters and mother-in-law. According to the Customs, all the 12 bangles were in crude form and therefore they attracted the provisions of Section 13(1) of the Foreign Exc...
R.K. Motors (India) Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1987
Reported in: (1988)(33)ELT727Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Revision Application dated 15-3-1982 filed before the Government of India against the order bearing No.- S/49-83/81L dated 3-9-1981 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay statutorily stood transferred to the Tribunal for being heard as an appeal. The undisputed facts are : The appellants M/s. R.K. Motors (India) imported three consignments of automobile spares and glasses and sought clearance against Import Licence No. 2825392 dated 23-2-1980 additional Licence standing in the name of M/s. J.B. (Exports) Pvt. Ltd. as Letter of Authority holders. The clearance was objected on the ground that the licence produced was not valid for the goods imported. After issue of show cause notice and after affording personal hearing, the Deputy Collector of Customs, Bombay held an enquiry and ordered confiscation but allowed redemption on payment of a fine of Rs. 32,000/- in respect of one consignment, Rs. 19,000/- in respect of another consignment and Rs. 27,000/- in respect of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »