Mumbai Court January 1988 Judgments
C.S. Mehta and ors. Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1988
Reported in: AIR1988Bom274; (1988)90BOMLR66; 1988MhLJ219
Lentin, J.1. Property vesting in the Bombay Municipal Corporation for the purpose of the BEST Undertaking cannot be disposed of or trifled with to confer a private benefit. Such is the ratio of this judgment.2. Hereunder the facts : --(A) The respondent 3 is Mr. P. B. Kerkar. For 14 years he was the General Manager of the BEST (the 2nd respondent), an Undertaking of the Bombay Municipal Corporation (the 1st respondent). He retired on 1-10-1985 after putting in an all-told service of 34 years with the BEST.(B) The 3rd respondent is the allottee of a flat in a co-operative housing society at Ghatkopar of which he is a member. However during his tenure as General Manager, he occupied the General Manager's quarters atBEST Marg, Bombay, which indeed he was entitled to do.(C) On 8thAug. 1985 while he was General Manager, the respondent 3 made an application to the 2nd respondent that as he would have to vacate his official residence at BEST Marg on retirement and as it would be inconvenient ...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Vs. Hirabai Vithal Nikam and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1988
Reported in: AIR1988Bom199
Guttal, J.1. The Division Bench consisting of Dharmadhikari and Vaze, JJ. during the hearing of this appeal came to the conclusion that there is a conflict between the Judgment in Nasibdar Suba Fakir v. Adhia and Co., : AIR1984Bom1 , hereinafter referred to Nasibdar's case, and the view expressed by another Division Bench in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Abdul Munaf Majur Hussain Momin First Appeal No. 1012 of 1980 decided by Sawant and Tated JJ on 17th August 1984. These appeals have been referred to us for the purpose of revolving the conflict. We formulate the question arising for determination as under : --'Where, a passenger is carried in a goods vehicle for hire or reward and the terms of the contract of insurance do not provide for such carriage, is the insurer liable for the death or bodily injury to such passenger?'2. This appeal and, therefore, the question formulated by us arises out of these facts.The Respondent No. 8 Balasaheb Chavan was, at about 9 a.m. on 3rd July 1...
Tag this Judgment!Merwanjee F. Desai and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1988
Reported in: AIR1988Bom271; 1988(2)BomCR277; (1988)90BOMLR124
Sawant, J.1. The question that falls for consideration before us is whether the State Government has a right to prefer an appeal against the order of the Competent Authority under the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.2. The relevant facts necessary to appreciate the point may be taken from Writ Petition No. 1080 of 1955. In that case the plot of land belonging to the State Government bearing C.S. No. 1A-1/241 of Byculla Division, Bombay was leased out to the petitioner Company, and was in their occupation since 1968. Since the Government wanted the plot for a public purpose, the Competent Authority issued a show cause notice to the petitioner under Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act on 26th Nov., 1979. After hearing the petitioner, the authority came to the conclusion among other things that the plot was not needed for the public purpose and dropped the proceedings by its order of Dec. 15, 1980. Against the said order the State ...
Tag this Judgment!Rukhminibai Wd/O Govindrao Shinde and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1988
Reported in: 1988(4)BomCR432; 1989MhLJ969
H.W. Dhabe, J.1. This is a writ petition arising out of the proceedings under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (for short the Ceiling Act). Holding that there was family unit in the instant case, the surplus Land Determination Tribunal (for short the S.L.D.T.) determined the total holding of the family unit as 82.34 acres and after excluding the post-kharab land allowing the family unit to retain the land to the extent of the ceiling limit, the learned S.L.D.T. determined the surplus land belonging to the family unit as 26.25 acres. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (for short the M.H.T.) affirmed the aforesaid order of the learned S.L.D.T. Feeling aggrieved the petitioners have preferred the instant writ petition in this Court.2. The first question raised in this writ petition is that there was no family unit on 2-10-1975 i.e. the commencement date and, therefore, the surplus land cannot be determined in the instant case on the basis of the total holdi...
Tag this Judgment!Ecoplast Private Limited and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1988
Reported in: 1988LC123(Bombay); 1988(34)ELT446(Bom)
S.C. Pratap, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Respondents appear and waive service.2. The differential amount of duty amounting to Rs. 74,000/- has been already paid by the petitioners albeit under protest and without prejudice to their rights and contentions in their pending appeal before the Tribunal. What remains is only the penalty amount which is Rs. 20,000/-. The Tribunal itself in its own order found no apprehension at all qua the petitioners' capacity to pay the said amount if it so becomes necessary. The Tribunal has also observed that there is a prima facie case.3. Now, in the facts and circumstances, when a prima facie case is found to exist, when the differential amount of duty has been already fully paid albeit under protest and when an appeal is preferred to the Tribunal, more fair and reasonable order would have been not to deprive the petitioners of having their appeal heard on merits and in accordance with law only because the penalty amount is not deposited, all the m...
Tag this Judgment!U.P. State Brassware Corporation Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1988
Reported in: (1988)(36)ELT184Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the order-in-appeal bearing No. S/49-1237/ 82-M, dated 20-4-1983 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.2. The appellants' claim for refund of duty on shortages was rejected by the Assistant Collector of Customs (MCD) for non-production of Bombay Port Trust's short landing certificate and Customs' examination report. On appeal, the Collector (Appeals) also rejected the appeal holding that the Customs examination report had not been produced. The plea that it had been produced along with their letter dated 2-2-1982 was unsubstantiated.3. Though initially Shri Kedia requested/ for an adjournment for production of acknowledgement from the Department to evidence the production of the documents when told by the Bench that adjournment cannot be granted, he argued that except the Customs' examination report all other documents have been produced besides the documents which is in the custody of the department viz. duplicate Bi...
Tag this Judgment!Ambica Jewellers Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1988
Reported in: (1990)(46)ELT103Tri(Mum.)bai
1. All these five appeals arise out of and are directed against Order-in-Original bearing No. 92/Addl. Collr./198 dated 29-11-82 passed by the Additional Collector of Ahmedabad.2. As these appeals involved the common questions of law and facts and as they are directed against an order, they are clubbed together, heard together and hence this common order.3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are : On 17-1-81, during the preventive round, the Customs Officers of Surat stopped a person, namely Kadarbhai Umerbhai Memon (in short Kadarbhai) who was proceeding on a bicycle. On suspicion this person was searched in the presence of Panchas as well as his other belongings which he was carrying on his bicycle. The search resulted in recovery of silver rods, old silver coins, totally weighing 20.956 kgs valued at Rs. 37,270/-. The statement of Shri Kadarbhai was recorded. He stated inter alia that silver rods and coins belonged to M/s. Ambica Jewellers and he was carryi...
Tag this Judgment!Prakash Kothari Vs. Regional P.F. Commissioner, Maharashtra and Goa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1988
Reported in: 1988(4)BomCR585; [1990(60)FLR315]; (1990)IILLJ217Bom; 1989MhLJ825
V.A. Mohta, J.1. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Maharashtra and Goa passed order dated March 3, 1987 under Section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provision Act. 1952 (the Act) determining Rs. 24,282.90 as the amount from M/s. Jaswala Tiles and Pipes Works. Chandrapur (the employer) for the period January 1983 to September, 1986 and issued a demand notice dated April 20, 1987 on that basis. Aggrieved thereby the present petition has been filed.2. Undisputed position seems to be that the employer was given Code No. MH/22116 under the Act. A summons to appear at Bombay on October 7, 1986 was issued for the purposes of determining the amount due under the Act. Repeated applications for adjournments were made from time to time by the employer. Enquiry was last fixed on March 3, 1987. None appeared even on that date. Evidence of Smt. N. P. Satghar. Provident Fund Inspector, was recorded. On the basis of her evidence, the returns submitted by the employer, and ...
Tag this Judgment!Airplast Pvt. Ltd. Vs. D.N. Gawade and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1988
Reported in: (1995)IIILLJ571Bom
Sawant. J.1. These two cross petitions are directed against the order of the Industrial Tribunal passed under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1942 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), rejecting the application for approval of the dismissal of the workman. The employer has filed writ petition No. 853 of 1983 against the impugned order because the approval application was rejected on the ground of short payment of notice pay whereas the employeehas filed writ petition No. 2735 of 1983 against the finding recorded by the Tribunal that he was aware of the ex-parte inquiry held by the employer on December 14,1979.2. The relevant facts leading to both the petitions are as follows:-The workman, according to him, was a member of the internal factory committee before a Union named the Janata Mazdoor Union came into existence in the company's establishment. After the Union came into existence, the workman joined it w.e.f. January 1,1978. It appears, that in the meanwhile, the U...
Tag this Judgment!Construction Employees' Union and Ors. Vs. the Indian Hume Pipe Co. Lt ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1988
Reported in: (1994)IIILLJ898Bom
Sawant, J.1. These are two cross-petitions one filed by the Union of Workmen (Writ Petition No. 543 of 1983) and the other filed by the employer-company (writ petition No. 1301 of 1983), challenging the Award of the Industrial Tribunal dated September 30, 1981 in reference (IT) Nos. 431 and 443 of 1975). The dispute relates to the payment of Bonus for the year ending June 30, 1974.2. We are concerned with the following four terms of disputes, in Writ Petition No. 543 of 1983:-(a) Pipe laying expenses of Rs. 7,10,240/-;(b) Temporary loans of Rs. 1,80,288/-;(c) Foreign tours expenses of Rs. 1,29,252/- and(d) Exchange loss of Rs. 3,42,289/-. (a) Pipe-laying expenses : In the balance sheet, the Company has made a provision for Rs. 7,10,240/- as pipe-laying maintenance expenses treating them as an ascertained expenditure. It is the contention of the Company that although the amount is not actually spent, it is set aside every year as an ascertained percentage in respect of such pipe-laying ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »