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.
Harihar Ramchandra Sansthan Vs. House Allotment Officer and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1987
Reported in: 1989(3)BomCR160
H.W. Dhabe, J.1. This is a writ petition arising out of the proceedings under the provisions of Chapter III of the C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (for short the Rent Control Order). The suit premises were allotted to the respondent No. 2 by the House Allotment Officer under Clauses 23 and 24 of the Rent Control Order as per the impugned order dated 26-4-1985, the respondent No. 2 being the Government servant. The petitioner has challenged in this writ petition the aforesaid order of allotment passed by the House Allotment Officer. By the judgment in the case of (Vidharbha (Rent Control) Bhadekaru Sangh, Akola v. State of Maharashtra) 1986 Mh.L.J. 882, this Court has struck down the provisions of Chapter III containing clauses 22 to 27 of the Rent Control Order as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The impugned order is, therefore, illegal, incompetent and void as it is passed under Clauses 23 and 24 of Chapter III of the Rent Control Order.2. It i...
Khudabax Davalsad Kamtikar Vs. Sub-division Magistrate Solapur and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)BomCR56
V.P. Tipnis, J.1. The petitioner challenges the Order of Externment dated 26th August, 1986, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Solapur Division, Solapur.2. Shri Katikar, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, contended that the petitioner is a law abiding citizen and that he is actually doing business and as such, the allegations made are totally false and the order is passed mala fide. Shri Katikar further contended that in the notice purporting to be under section 59 issued by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Solapur City, only two pending cases, namely, 246/79 and 158/85, are mentioned, the third being proceedings under section 110 whereas in the notice dated 9th May, 1986, issued under section 59 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Solapur Division, Solapur, several general allegations are made. In the final Order of Externment, the Externing Authority mentioned that since the last five years the petitioner has committed several acts mentioned in sub-paras (a) an...
Namdeo Zipa Desale Vs. M.V. Chitale, Dy. Commissioner of Police and an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1987
Reported in: 1987(3)BomCR370
C.S. Dharmadhikari, Ag. C.J.1. The order of externment issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Kalyan dated 10th February, 1986, which is challenged in this writ petition must get vitiated on a short ground that the externing authority has relied upon the material which was neither referred to nor incorporated in show cause notice issued under section 59 of the Bombay Police Act.2. The allegations made in the show cause notice read as under :---'1. Since November 1980, January 1982, August 1984 and in the year 1985 onwards in the localities of Ulhasnagar Camp. No. 3 Azadnagar Police Station, Thane Dist. your acts and movements are causing harm, alarm and danger to the residents of the afore said localities and areas in that.2. That you assault the residents of the aforesaid localities and areas either suspecting them of giving information to the police about your illegal activities which offences are punishable under Chapter XVI of the Indian Penal Code.3. That since November, 198...
Mangalore Chemicals and Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-1987
Reported in: (1988)(34)ELT676Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The revision application filed before the Government of India against the order-in-appeal bearing No. S/49-699/79-Air, dated 28th January, 1980, passed" by the . Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay statutorily stood transferred to the Tribunal for being heard as an appeal.2. The appellants M/s. Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. imported one package containing Cumbria Kit, Peripheral Seal Kit and Valve Gland Kit and sought clearance under OGL under App. 10(4) of the Import Policy AM 79 as spare parts of machinery. The customs after examination objected to the clearance on the ground that the goods imported are not spares and, therefore, not permissible to import under OGL. The Asstt.Collector of Customs who adjudged the confiscation after affording personal hearing ordered confiscation but allowed redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 12,000/-.3. Feeling aggrieved by the order, the appellants herein preferred an appeal before the Collector (Appeals) unsuccessfully. Hence ...
Nagpal Printing Mills and anr. Etc. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Great ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Bom91; (1988)90BOMLR133; 1987MhLJ1093
Bharucha, J.1. These four appeals may be disposed of by a common judgment because they raise the identical questions.2. We narrate the facts of only the first appeal. The appellants therein are doing the business of dyeing and printing at Industrial Estate, Kandivli, Bombay. They had originally an 1/2 inch water connection. In 1971 they applied to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (the first respondent) for a larger connection. In June 1975 they were given an 1/2 inch connection. It is the case of the Corporation that, on 24th September 1975, it fixed a water quota for the appellants in the figure of 27,18,000 litres per month. This is disputed by the appellants, but we shall proceed upon the basis that this quota was fixed.3. Water Charges Rules effective from 1st April 1976 came into force and we are concerned with the vires of Rule 3(d)(i) thereof. This rule provides, 'In case of industries for which a quota of water has been fixed, if the recorded or computed consumption ...
The Gammon India Limited Vs. the Engineering Mazdoor Sabha and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-1987
Reported in: (1993)IIILLJ188Bom
H.H. Kantharia, J. 1. The first respondent-union was registered as a recognised union under Section 12(2) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices 5 Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by an order dated 6th Jan., 1976 passed by the President of the Industrial Court in Application (MRTU) No. 19 of 1975. The petitioner-company made an Application (MRTU) No. 14 of 1980 in the Industrial Court, Bombay for cancellation of the said recognition under Section 13 of the Act. It was alleged by the company that during the calendar months Feb. to July, 1980, the total number of employees employed in their establishment was 255 out of which only 58 were the members of the first respondent-union and, therefore, their membership fell below the minimum as required under Section 11 of the Act, for a continuous period of six months.2. On consideration of the evidence adduced before him, oral and documentary, the second respondent by his order ...
Moula Abdul Rahiman Hundekari and ors. Vs. Home Minister of State, Man ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)BomCR712
V.P. Tipnis, J.1. These writ petitions filed by three different petitioner's challenge the Orders of Externment passed against them by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Solapur Division, Solapur.2. In the Orders of Externment we find specific mention to the effect that the petitioners are habitual drunkards and that they are committing offences related to ladies and girls who walk on the roads. These material allegations considered and relied upon by the Externing Authority are not mentioned even generally in the notices issued under section 59 of the Bombay Police Act. That has obviously resulted into denying the petitioners their right to give proper explanation to the notices and it also amounts to consideration of extraneous matters while passing the Orders of Externment. This must vitiate the Externment Orders.3. Accordingly, the Orders of Externment in all the three petitions are quashed and set aside. The rule is made absolute....
R. Parthasarathy, Asst. Collector of Central Excise and Another Vs. Di ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-1987
Reported in: 1988(15)ECC416; [1988]173ITR497(Bom); 1987MhLJ900
R.A. Jahagirdar, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Kalyan Division, and the Union of India against the decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Alibag, in Special Civil Suit No. 21 of 1980. They will hereinafter be referred to as 'the defendants'. The respondents in this appeal were the plaintiffs in the said suit. Plaintiff No. 1 is a limited company, while plaintiff No. 2 is the managing director of the said company.2. The plaintiffs are engaged in the manufacture of what are called padding solutions. Between July 5, 1972, and March 31, 1974, the defendants called upon the plaintiffs to pay and the plaintiffs did pay a sum of Rs. 1,68,212.78 by way of excise duty on the goods manufactured by them, namely, padding solutions. Subsequently, in April, 1977, the Excise Collectorate issued a trade notice bearing No. 82 of 1977, clarifying that the padding solutions manufactured by the plaintiffs were not subject to excise duty ...
Bharat Dwarkadas Thakkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)BomCR57
C.S. Dharmadhikari, Acg. C.J.1. The Order of Externment dates 26th September, 1985, passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Police Zone, II, Thane must get vitiated for the reason that the alleged activities of the petitioner on which the said order is based were not referred to even generally in the show cause notice issued under section 59 of the Bombay Police Act. In the show cause notice three offence were referred to. Now it is admitted in the affidavit filed by the Dy. Commissioner of Police that in one offence. i.e. under sections 147, 148, 149 and 307, I.P.C., the petitioner was acquitted. Similarly, it is admitted that in respect of C.R. No. I-11/85, the petitioner was never prosecuted as there was not sufficient evidence against him. Thus , only one offence survives which is also pending trial in the Court of few. In spite of this, in the show cause notice, it is recited that in the offences referred to in the show cause notice, he was convicted, which recital is obviously wrong an...
Baban Dagadu Patil Vs. K.P. Gaikawad, Deputy Commissioner of Police Zo ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-1987
Reported in: 1987(3)BomCR652
V.P. Tipnis, J.1. All these petitions are filed challenging the Orders of Externment dated 1st October, 1986, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-II. Thane, against the petitioners.2. Shri Chitnis, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, firstly submitted that the Orders of Externment are bad in law on the ground that in the notices issued under section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, there is no averment to the effect that witnesses are not coming forward to depose in public due to fear of danger to their person or property. Secondly, it was contended that the orders are passed not in good faith and is mala fide exercise of power inasmuch as they are not passed on the grounds and for the purpose of section 56 of the Bombay Police Act but are passed only to nullify the effect of the order of bail passed in favour of the petitioners in Case No. 86 of 1986 in which all the petitioners were released on bail on 2nd August 1986 by the Sessions Court. Mr. Chitnis furthe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »