Mumbai Court January 1988 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.
The Podar Mills Ltd. Vs. J.K. Synthetics Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-1988
Reported in: AIR1988Bom203
Sujata Manohar, J.1. The present appeal is from an order dismissing Judge's Summons taken out by the appellants for stay of all further proceedings in Company Petition No. 352 of 1983 and for restraining the respondents from taking any further steps in the Company Petition.2. On 23rd June 1983 the respondents filed a petition for winding up the Appellant Company. On 14th September 1983 consent terms were filed in Company Petition under which, inter alia, the Appellant Company admitted the claim of the respondents and agreed to pay the claim amount by monthly instalments. Under Clause 4 of the consent terms it was provided as follows :'4. In the event of the company failing to pay any three instalments or the last instalment on its due date as mentioned hereinabove the petition do stand admitted and the petitioners to give advertisement thereof in the 'Free Press Journal', Bombay Samachar and Maharashtra Government Gazette. The petition to be made returnable four weeks alter the last ad...
Firth (India) Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Industrial Court and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-1988
Reported in: (1994)IIILLJ469Bom
H.W. Dhabe, J. 1. This is a writ petition arising out of the proceedings under Sections 78 and 79 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (for short the B.I.R. Act). Briefly the facts are according to the petitioner-employer, the conditions for laying off its employees existed in its factory at Nagpur in October 1982, for which the permission of the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Nagpur, as required by Section 25(m) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the I.D. Act) was sought. However, the said permission was refused by him by his order dated 9.12.1982, which order in the absence of any further challenge was final. It is the case of the petitioner that there was an oral understanding between the petitioner and the elected representatives of the employees, according to which instead of paying the workers without work, they were to be given cleaning work in the factory. Accordingly the petitioner gave the cleaning work to the employees who were to be laid off. It is the ...
Ashok Steel ChaIn Mfg. Co. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-1988
Reported in: 1988(14)LC570(Bombay)
1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the orders passed by the authorities below and annexed to the petition at Exhibit A dated 26/31.10.1983, at Exhibit 'B' dated 18.8.1984 and at Exhibit 'E' dated 30.9.1985. The last order dated 30.9.1985 is the order passed by the Revisional Authority.2. There is no dispute that the petitioners have exported part of the goods on 23rd December 1980 and remaining goods on 13.2.1981. According to the petitioners, they exported steel chains. The petitioners executed a bond in the form B-l for Rs. 24,000'- with a cash security of Rs. 1200/-. The said bond was accepted by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise (Refunds), Bombay and registered at Serial No. 594/80 on 18.12.1980. According to the petitioners, they produced the necessary documents with the concerned authorities evidencing the fact of actual export of steel chains. On 16th August 1983, the Superintendent of Central Excise (Refunds) Bond Se...
N.L. Mehta Cinema Ent. P. Ltd. Vs. Vijay G. Shivgan and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-1988
Reported in: (1993)IIILLJ351Bom
H.H. Kantharia, J. 1. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners-employers, and award dated 7th January, 1985, made by the learned Presiding Officer, Second Labour Court, Bombay in Reference (IDA) No. 955 of 1980, has been impugned. By the impugned award the learned Labour Judge has granted relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and full backwages to the first respondent-workman.2. On perusing the record placed before me and hearing the learned Counsel on both the sides, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned award. The record shows that the workman here was employed by the petitioners as a Booking Clerk from 1st October, 1979 to 8th May, 1980. During this period he was also made to work in another theatre called 'Barkha'. His monthly wages were Rs. 315/-. On 9th May, 1980 he was paid his wages upto 8th May, 1980 and was told by the Manager of the petitioners by name Yatin Desai that his services were terminated w...
Datwani Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-1988
Reported in: 1988(2)BomCR95
S.P. Kurdukar. J.1. The petitioners by this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seek to challenge the two orders (i) dated 9-4-1985 (Ex. D) and dated 24-6-1986 (Ex. N.). Both these orders are passed by the third Respondent the Commissioner of Police, Bombay.2. It is needless to set out the averments in the petition in detail since this writ petition can be disposed of only on the short ground that the impugned orders suffer from non-observance of principles of natural justice being arbitrary and in total disregard to the procedure prescribed by law. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, I may mention few facts which are necessary for disposal of this writ petition.3. It is no more in dispute that the petitioners are purchasers of a running business from one Ghanashyam Sevakramani and Vijay Sevakramani under the consent terms filed in a suit pending in this Court sometime in the year 1982. On 11th February, 1984 the 2nd petitioner wrote a letter (Ex. A) ...
Jagdish Harikisanlal Chhabade Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-1988
Reported in: 1988(4)BomCR173; 1988MhLJ805
H.W. Dhabe, J.1. This is a writ petition arising out of the proceedings under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (for short, 'Tenancy Act'). By the impugned order dated 12-8-1983, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Amravati (for short, 'the S.D.O.'), the management of the field survey No. 8, area 7.74 hectares of village Mhasla, Tahsil and District Amravati, was assumed by the State Government under section 80-A of the Tenancy Act on the ground that the petitioner/landholder to whom the said field belongs had kept the entire area of his aforesaid holding fallow for more than two consecutive years i.e. from 1978-79 to 1982-83.2. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order of the learned S.D.O. on various grounds and in particular upon the ground that section 80-A of the Tenancy Act is unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution of India, relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Gulabrao v. M.T. ...
Ram Prasad Sharma Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-1988
Reported in: 1988(4)BomCR188
A.A. Desai, J.1. These applications under section 401 read with section 397 and further read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are directed against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge releasing the non-applicants on bail. The facts as apparent on the record make explicitly clear that for want of requisite measures of proper care and caution by the Presiding Officer facilitated the accused to abuse the process of law.2. The non-applicants in these applications are sons of one Ramjilal Sharma who is brother of applicant Ram Prasad. There had been a dispute since last twenty years between these two brothers regarding certain properties. On 28th March, 1987 at Kamptee, District Nagpur at 10.30 A.M. in broad day light in a busy locality like market place, one Chiku Sharma, son of the applicant Ram Prasad was assaulted with knife and he sustained 16 injuries. The non-applicants came to be arrested immediately for the offence punishable under section 302...
thermo Plastic Industries Vs. U.O.i.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-1988
Reported in: 1991(51)ELT629(Bom)
ORDER1. Rule, returnable forthwith Mr. Parekh appears for the respondents and waives service.2. Against the impugned order dated 23rd December, 1986 at Exhibit E to this petition, the petitioners preferred appeal to the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). Along with the appeal, the petitioners had also filed an application for stay of the impugned order under appeal. This was on 28th September, 1987. Even while the application for stay was pending along with the appeal before the Collector of Central Excise, the Assistant Collector directed the petitioners by his letter dated 30th October, 1987 to deposit the impugned demand, in default whereof coercive measures were threatened.3. Now, it is difficult to appreciate the threat of coercive measures in default of deposit particularly when appeal against the impugned demand has been filed and pending and all the more when an application for stay has already been made and is pending before the Appellate Authority. As indicated, the said ...
Chandrakant Chhaganlal Shah Vs. Laxmidas Chhaganlal Shah and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-1988
Reported in: 1988(2)BomCR217
S.M. Daud, J.1. By this petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cri.P.C.) and Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner wants the quashing of a Magisterial direction under section 156(3) of the Cri.P.C.2. Petitioner and respondent 1 are brothers having four more brothers, named Manmohandas, Navinchandra, Jaindas and Rasiklal. The business of the family was to trade in cloth. They were doing business under different names in which they and/or their sons and daughters were and are partners. The offices of all the firms were at 34, Navi Galli, Mulji, Jehta Market and 439/3, Kalbadevi Road, Bombay. In the latter half of 1986 disputes arose between the brothers and in September 1986, the brothers came to a settlement. This was that the Bank accounts of the six firms would be operated for the purpose of control of funds only by cheques drawn jointly by the petitioner-hereinafter referred to as 'the accused' and a family friend Natwarlal M. Shah. The sales and collect...
Harnam Singh and Diljit Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-05-1988
Reported in: 1988(16)LC395(Bombay)
ORDERS.C. Pratap, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr. Sethna appears for the respondents and waives service.2. The article in question was first listed as an OGL item. By public notice dated 26th September, 1986 it was removed from OGL list and transferred to Canalised List. On 27th September, 1986 the petitioner opened the letter of credit. This was thus on the very next day of the public notice. The public notice actually came to the knowledge of the petitioners including the trade some time in the first week of October, 1986. It was not the contention of the respondents that there has been on the part of the petitioners any deliberate opening of the letter of credit on 27th September, 1986. Reasonable inference is that the petitioners opened the same without knowledge of the public notice issued the previous day and knowledge whereof in turn was received by the petitioners and the trade some time in the first week of October, 1986. In all the circumstances fine of Rs. 20,000/-impos...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »