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.
Allahabad Bank Employees' Union Vs. Union of India (UOi) and Ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1987
Reported in: (1995)IIILLJ74Bom
H.H. Kantharia, J. 1. The petitioner-union raised a demand on behalf of the workmen of the second respondent bank that after retirement of 'Officer Head Cashier' from Fort, Bombay Branch on 31st July, 1983, the management wanted to fill up the vacancy from Officers cadre only thus depriving the rights of the workmen which should not be permitted. In this demand of the petitioner- union, the Assistant Labour Commissioner-(C)II, Bombay submitted a failure report under Section 12(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Government of India (first respondent) refused to make a reference about the demand of the petitioner by their order dated 22nd August, 1985 which has been impugned by the petitioner- union in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. Now, after a Conciliation Officer submits a failure report under Section 12(4) of the Act, the appropriate Government is required to consider whether a reference should or shoul...
Nishi Prem Vs. Javed Akhtar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Bom222
Pendse, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by original defendant No. 3 against the order dated July 14, 1987 reported in AIR 1987 Bom 339 passed by the learned Chamber Judge directing defendant No. 3 to disclose on affidavit the names of person to whom the reference is made under the article written by defendant No. 3 and published in the issue of April, 1987 of magazine 'Star Dust'. The facts relevant for the purpose of understanding the controversy in this appeal are as follows :2. The defendant No. 3 has written an article under the title 'Queer Quartet' and the article is published in April, 1987 in the magazine and the article relates to the plaintiff and his wife who is a film artist. The plaintiff claims that the article is per se defamatory and the statements and suggestions made in the article are false to the knowledge of defendant No. 3. The article is published in a film magazine which is published in three languages :(1) English, (2) Hindi, and (3) Gujarathi and defendant No...
Dhondiram Appa Hatkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1987
Reported in: 1987(3)BomCR656; (1987)89BOMLR533; 1987MhLJ1046
V.P. Tipnis, J.1. The petitioner was externed by the order dated 8th November, 1986, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Phaltan Division, Phaltan, under section 57 of the Bombay Police Act, 1961. The petitioner has challenged the said order on several grounds.2. Before going into the facts of the case, it may be worthwhile to refer to the provisions of the Act and certain authorities which lay down certain principles relevant to the passing of valid and lawful orders as also indicating what caution and circumspection has to be exercised while considering the validity of the orders of externment passed under section 56 or 57 of the Bombay Police Act.3. In State of Bombay v. Vishnu Ramchandra. : 1961CriLJ450 , the Supreme Court has observed :---'An externment order, however, to satisfy the requirements of section 57 of the Bombay Police Act, must be made bona fide, taking into account a conviction which is sufficiently proximate in time. Since no absolute rule can be laid down, eac...
Syed Mohammed Umar Vs. the Sheriff of Bombay and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Bom67; 1988(2)BomCR487; (1988)2BOMLR487
Shah, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution raises a question as to the interpretation of certain provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called 'the Act') and the Rules framed thereunder viz. the Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules, 1959 (hereinafter called 'the Rules'). The question raised is whether the Accidents Claims Tribunal can, either through the High Court or the City Civil Court at Bombay, or on its own, direct the Sheriff of Bombay to execute the award passed by it.2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the p et it ion are as follows : The petitioner filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Satara. The Tribunal passed an award in his favour on June 2, 1986, directing the Opponent in the claim application to pay to the Petitioner a sum of Rs. 35,000/-- as compensation together with future interest at the rate of Rs. 12 per cent per annum on that amount and costs. Since the Opponent had no property at Satara, on the applic...
Vasudeo H. Churi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1987
Reported in: (1994)IIILLJ619Bom
H.H. Kantharia, J.1. The petitioner was originally employed as a Clerk in the Western Railway and thereafter promoted as a Guard Grade 'C' in or about December, 1957, in Bombay Division, in the Grade of Rs. 130-225 (Authorised). For the purpose of performing his duties as a Guard, he was periodically medically examined. Thus, in the year 1964, he was declared medically unfit for the post of Guard Grade 'C'. He, therefore, by his letter dated 31st December, 1964, requested the Railway Authorities to give him an alternative employment either as Senior T.N.C. or Senior T.C. or T.T.E., in accordance with his basic pay. His request was considered by a Committee to assess the suitability for alternative employment and he was medically re-examined on 17th December, 1964 and was declared suitable to be absorbed in a clerical post. He was accordingly, by office order dated 5th February, 1965, medically de-categorised from his scale of pay of Rs. 130-225 (A) and was absorbed as a Clerk in the Gr...
Sharda Industries and Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chandraball S/O. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1987
Reported in: 1989(2)BomCR256; (1994)IIILLJ310Bom
H.W. Dhabe, J.1. This is a writ petition arising out of the proceedings Under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act').2. The respondent No. 1 was working as Tongsman in the petitioner's steel industries. He was suspended pending enquiry by an order dated 9.12.1978. He was thereafter dismissed on 4.9.1979. He challenged his dismissal before the competent Labour Court and the order of dismissal was set aside and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated in service with full back wages and continuity of employment. The order of the Labour Court was finally confirmed by this Court.3. The respondent No. 1 thereafter filed the instant application Under Section 33-C(2) of the Act in which his main grievance was that he was not paid the wages of semi-skilled categories fixed under the notification in regard to the engineering industries under the Minimum Wages Act. The period of claim is from 1.1.1978 to 31.12.1982. According to him, the total difference ...
Murlidhar Bhaulal Malu and ors. Vs. Sudhakar Honaji Patil and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Bom256; 1987(3)BomCR550; 1987MhLJ944
Dharmadhikari, Actg. C.J.1. Since all these writ petitions involve common questions of law and fact they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. In these writ petitions the provisions of Section 73FF of the Mah. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 as a whole are challenged on various grounds. However, we are mainly concerned with the provisions of section 73FF(l)(i)(c) and 73FF(l)(vi) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). Section 73FF came to be inserted in the said Act by Maharashtra Act XX of 1986, which came into force with effect from 12th of May 1986. By the said Act Section 78 also came to be amended. Section 73FF deals with the disqualification of membership of the Committee. Since section as a whole is challenged before us it will be worthwhile to reproduce the said section verbatim.'73FF(1) Without prejudice to the other provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder in relation to the di...
Senmogam @ Tiger Muttu Harijan Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1987
Reported in: 1987(3)BomCR368
C.S. Dharmadhikari, Ag. C. J.1. The order of detention issued by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, date the 22nd of April, 1987 under the provisions of the National Security Act is challenged before us on various grounds. It is contended by Mr. Naik, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, that while passing the order of detention the detaining authority in terms has relied upon the earlier detention order dated 15-11-1984 which came to be set aside by the High Court on the 16th of April, 1985 as well as the externment order issued on the 31st of July, 1985 under section 57 of the Bombay Police Act. Though specific reliance is plased on the earlier detention order as well as the externment order and for this reason a copy of the externment order is supplied to the detenu, the copies of the earlier detention order and the judgment passed by the High Court were not supplied to him. Since it was a material on the basis of which the externment order came to be passed an...
Tukaram Kalu Madhvi Vs. P.P. Shrivastav, Deputy Commissioner of Police ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1987
Reported in: 1987(3)BomCR372
V.P. Tipnis, J.1. The petitioner was externed by order dated the 19th of January, 1987 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone IV, New Bombay, from the districts of Thane, (Greater Bombay) and Raigad for a period of two years. The appeal filed by the petitioner to the State Government was also dismissed. The petitioner takes exception to the order of externment and the appellate order by this petition.2. Mr. Chitnis, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that the order of externment is bad in law, inasmuch as the notice issued under section 59 of the Bombay Police Act does not conform to the provisions of section 59 and it does not indicate even generally the material allegations in respect of allegations purporting to be under section 56(1)(a) of the Bombay Police Act. Mr. Chitnis in this behalf heavily placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court reported in Jawahar Pannlal v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate : (1962)GLR1041 as also t...
Haffkine Bio =pharmaceutical Corporation Limited Vs. V.M. Patki and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1987
Reported in: (1993)IIILLJ679Bom
H.H. Kantharia, J. 1. The first respondent joined the services of Haffkine Institute on and from 16th April, 1946. The said institute was a department of the erstwhile Government of Bombay. By a Government Resolution, dated 26th November, 1973, it was converted into two autonomous bodies, viz. (i) Haffkine Institute for Training, Research and Testing and (ii) Haffkine Bio=Pharmaceutical Corporation Ltd. Thereafter, by a Government Resolution dated 30th April, 1975 it was decided that the Haffkine Institute working as a Government department should be closed down and the new institute and the Corporation should start functioning with effect from 1st September, 1975. Thefirst respondent opted to serve under the present petitioners. He was given an appointment letter dated 31st August 1975 by the Managing Director of the petitioners treating him as an employee of the petitioners with effect from 1st September, 1975. He was accordingly discharged from the services of the Government of Maha...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »