Mumbai Court September 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.
Palmon Fashions and ors. Vs. M.M. Verghese and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1987
Reported in: (1993)IIILLJ683Bom
H.H. Kantharia, J. 1. By an award dated 22nd March, 1984, in Reference (IDA) No. 97 of 1982, the third respondent, presiding over the 4th Labour Court at Bombay, granted the relief of reinstatement with fifty per cent back wages to the first respondent-workman. It is said award that has been impugned by the petitioners in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. Admittedly, the first respondent was reinstated in pursuance of the award and, therefore, the only point now canvassed by Mr. Dixit, learned Advocate, appearing for the petitioners, is that the impugned award to the extent of granting fifty per cent back wages to the first respondent is bad in law. Thus, in the submission of Mr. Dixit the impugned award to that extent is bad in law because the petitioners had offered employment to the first respondent during his period of forced unemployment but the first respondent did not accept it and, therefore, the third respondent was not correct in passing an award...
Leelavati W/O Vasantrao Pingle and anr. Vs. Dattatraya Dhondiraji Kavi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1987
Reported in: 1988(2)BomCR429
B.G. Deo, J.1. This revision is directed against the rejection of the preliminary objection made by order dated 13-4-1987 by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chikhli, in Regular Civil Suit No. 60 of 1987. The preliminary objection to the tenability of the suit made by application (Exhibit 19) by the applicants was on the ground that since it appears that the plaintiffs are trustees of a Registered Public Trust `Wakratund Maharaji Kavishwar Smarak' and have claimed possession of a portion of Survey No. 53/2 on the ground that the defendants have encroached upon the same, it is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the authorities contemplated under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as to whether any property belongs to Public Trust or not under section 79(1) of the Act and that, therefore, the suit should be dismissed.2. It appears that while arguing before the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chikhli, it was contended by the applican...
Mahesh S/O Yeshwantrao Tickely and anr. Vs. Principal, Institute of Ph ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1987
Reported in: 1988(2)BomCR266; 1988MhLJ623
M.S. Deshpande, J.1. It would be convenient to take these two petitions for consideration together as the main point, which is raised in these two petitions, relates to the validity of Clause No. 9 of the Resolution of the Government of Maharashtra, Education and Employment Department, dated 21st May, 1983, which prohibits the transfer of a student from one institute to another.2. The two petitioners in Writ Petition No. 1892 of 1986, after passing the examination in Diploma in Pharmacy from Datta Meghe Polytechnic, Nagpur, which is affiliated to the Board of Technical Education, Maharashtra State, made an application in June, 1984, for admission to respondent No. 1 - Institution and were admitted in August, 1984, to the First Year Course in Bachelor of Pharmacy, the tuition-fees for the course being Rs. 6,000/- per annum. The petitioners having passed IInd Year Examination of Bachelor of Pharmacy in First Division in July 1986, took admission in the Department of Pharmaceutical Scienc...
Krishna Lulla Vs. Shyam Ajwani and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1987
Reported in: 1987(3)BomCR671; 1987MhLJ1030
S.C. Pratap, J.1. Hearing in extenso the petitioner in person who is also a practising advocate, we are unable to persuade ourselves to hold in his favour that a case has been made out for taking against the respondent action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.2. Embarrassing questions of a personal nature put in cross-examination to a witness in a judicial proceedings will not per se amount to contempt. The petitioner invited our attention to certain questions put in cross-examination of a witness in a proceeding under section 107 of the Code of Civil Procedure. We cannot appreciate the tone and tenor of these questions or the relevance thereof to those proceedings. Courts must prevent vexatious cross-examination and overrule irrelevant questions. And if that is not so done, the aggrieved party is not without appropriate remedy. But action in contempt is not that remedy. We say no more. Indeed, we cannot, unless we travel beyond the parameters of these contempt proceedings. Threat...
Vikas Chemicals Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1987
Reported in: 1988(16)LC327(Bombay)
S.N. Variava, J.1. In this Petition, the Petitioners are applying for liberty to withdraw the Petition. Under normal circumstances, there would have been no further arguments.2. However, Mr. Sethna has strenuously argued that the Petitioners have made false statements on oath an action should be taken against them for that purpose.3. It is the submission of Mr. Sethna that in the five copies which were supplied by the Petitioners to the Respondents, the paragraph regarding jurisdiction reads as follows: 30. The Petitioner says and submits that the goods have arrived at Bombay. The clearance of the said goods have wrongfully been with-held at Bombay. The entire cause of action arising within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court and therefore this Honourable Court has Jurisdiction to entertain and try the present Petition. Subsequently, by a letter dated 14th September, 1987 addressed by the Petitioners to the Respondents, wherein it is stated that incomplete copies of the Petition had...
Prabhakar Shankar Kulkarni Vs. Jayantrao Tilak and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1987
Reported in: (1993)IIILLJ593Bom
Vaze, J.1. Prabhakar Kulkarni, a journalist, residing at Kolhapur, was working as a part -time correspondent to various newspapers including Kesari published by the Kesari Maratha Trust from Pune. Kulkarni worked as a correspondent of Kesari from Kolhapur from Nov. 1962 and alleges that on 25th Dec., 1974, his services were terminated without notice. The Labour Court, Kolhapur in Reference (IDS) No. 107 of 1976 concluded that the termination of the employment of Kulkarni by the Kesari Maratha Trust with effect from 21st Dec. 1974 was illegal and ordered that the employer should pay Rs. 390/- as notice pay, Rs. 780/- as retrenchment compensation and a like amount as compensation for loss of employment and costs, but rejected the prayer for reinstatement and back wages. Aggrieved Kulkarni has challenged this award by the present writ petition.2. According to Shri Kamerkar, the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the termination of the services of the Petitioner was malafide because he di...
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corpn. Vs. Suryakant Dhondiba Mane an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1987
Reported in: (1993)IIILLJ684Bom
Vaze, J.1. Suryakant Mane was employed by Maharashtra Road Transport Corporation as a conductor since 1.11.1970 and was attached to Atpali Depot. On 30.9.1976 the employer Maharashtra Road Transport Corporation dismissed Mane for misconduct after inquiry. The imputation against Mane was that while acting as a conductor in Bus No. 1038 which was plying on the Miraj-Nimbalak route, the bus came to be checked at Shirgaon by the checking staff and it was found that Mane had not issued tickets to five passengers travelling from Tasgaon to Borgaon inspite of having collected the legitimate fare and that Mane did not issue tickets to two passengers travelling from Vanjarwadi to Borgaon. The workman Mane having requested for a reference, a Reference being (IDA) No. 101 of 1981 was made before the Labour Court, Kolhapur which concluded that the charges were duly proved but that the dismissal was disproportionate. On this basis the Labour Court set aside the dismissal and directed the employer t...
HussaIn Khan S/O. Sawarkhan Pathan Vs. Shaikh Ahmed S/O. Shaikh Lal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1987
Reported in: 1988(4)BomCR60; 1988MhLJ55
B.N. Deshmukh, J.1. This Second Appeal by original defendant against whom suit was filed by the plaintiff for claiming perpetual injunction restraining him from causing obstruction in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property---gate numbers 440 and 443 of village Dongaon, Taluka Jafrabad. The facts which are not in dispute are as follows :That the defendant-appellant in this Appeal is the owner of the suit land. On 30 August, 1974, he executed an Issar Parvati i.e. agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff. The agreement of sale recites that on the date of the document, defendant received Rs. 5,000/- and agreed to receive the balance on the date of the sale-deed. Further it recites that the possession of both the lands in dispute was delivered to the plaintiff on that date. These facts are not in dispute, and were not disputed before me. 2. The plaintiffs filed a suit for injunction simpliciter on the ground that he was put in possession on the agreement of sale and def...
Dinesh A. Parekh Vs. Special Director of Enforcement and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1987
Reported in: 1988(2)BomCR42
V.S. Kotwal, J.1. The mystery of an Air Mail has left behind its haunting trial. The chapter opens when the husband left his house located in Grand Paradi Apartments, August Cranti Marg in this metropolis to resume his duty in the office of Swiss Air where he was working, unmindful of the event that was followed on that fateful day. The wife was all alone in the house who had also no inkling when the door was trapped and she had to receive unwelcomed guests as she was confronted with the Enforcement Officers at the entrance. They inquired about the husband and on learning that he was away they deputed some one to fetch him from his office. The other officers entered the premises and awaited his arrival. After some time the person who deputed came in the company of the husband back to his residence. The Enforcement Officers were on the official duty as they wanted to effect the search of the premises after having received credible information that the husband was involved in a transacti...
Prabhakar S. Baikerikar Vs. Collector of Customs (P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1987
Reported in: (1988)(19)LC315Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the order in original bearing No. XVII (GC) 8-3/83/3951 dated 30.8.85 passed by the Collector of Customs (P), Bombay.2. The subject of challenge is the order of confiscation of the new gold ornaments weighing 925.000 gms and the fine of Rs. 15,000/- levied in lieu of confiscation as well as the penalty of Rs. 2500/- imposed on the appellant.3. According to the department, on the basis of information, on 4.2.83 that about a kg. of new gold ornaments not covered by valid documents would be brought by a person for sale to the shop of M/s. Shantilal Shobhavat and Co. they visited the said premises and found the appellant along with others holding a briefcase. On inspection of the briefcase they found new gold ornaments weighing 925.000 gms alongwith 96 pieces of German silver screws. After carrying on the search of the premises of M/s. Shantilal Shobhavat and Co. a panchanama was done as to the gold ornaments contained in the briefcase ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »