Mumbai Court October 1988 Judgments
Union of India Vs. Shakti Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-31-1988
Reported in: 1989(39)ELT509(Bom)
ORDERLentin, J.1. Duty was sought to be levied on a product at the intermediate stage in the process of manufacture of the final product, namely varnish. The product at the intermediate stage is nothing but a brown viscous sticky mass in an unfinished condition, incapable of being marketed in that condition. To that end there is the affidavit of one Dr. S. P. Potnis, the relevant excerpts where of are as under :-'10. For a product to be resin it must be identifiable by way of its melting/softening points, chemical properties like acid a value, sap value, iodine value and molecular weight as determined by intrinsic viscosity. The product under question which is a solution/dispersion in M-oresol and is in form of 'brown sticky mass' cannot be characterised as resin as is generally known by any of the above properties. The separation of whatever resin which is present in this brown sticky mass is possible only through elaborate processing steps and it is not possible by simple techniques ...
Tag this Judgment!Dina Naik and anr. Vs. Kadamba Transport Corpn. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-31-1988
Reported in: [1989(58)FLR807]; (1995)IIILLJ13Bom
Couto, J.1. The petitioners challenge in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the decision of the Government not to refer the dispute raised by the first petitioner to the Industrial : Tribunal, communicated by letter dated 11th August, 1987 of the Under Secretary, Industries and Labour.2. Petitioner No. I was in the service of the first respondent, discharging duties as a driver. By an order bearing number KTC/T /83-84/880, issued by the depot manager of the first respondent, he was suspended from service on the ground that he had participated in an illegal strike, with effect from I5th April, 1984, and had, thereafter, indulged in various acts of violence. It was further stated in the said order that a detailed charge-sheet would be issued. Accordingly, a charge-sheet dated 14th June, 1984, was issued to the petitioner whereby some acts were imputed to him. The petitioner filed his reply, and thereafter, an inquiry was held, and ultimately, the general m...
Tag this Judgment!Baburao Laxman Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-28-1988
Reported in: 1989(1)BomCR238
B. Lentin, J.1 On 6th July, 1955 the petitioner joined the police force. On 1st September, 1960 he was promoted to the post of Head constable. On 12th September, 1979 he was promoted to the post of PSI. 7- years later, by an order dated 12th March, 1987, he was reverted to the post of Head Constable with immediate effect. The petitioner's representation dated 9th June, 1987 evoked no response. Hence the present petition for setting aside the reversion order 12th March, 1987.2. There is considerable force in the petitioner's grievance that the principles of natural justice have been violated inasmuch as the impugned reversion order was passed without giving him a hearing and without any reason being stated in the order for the reversion.3. No affidavit-in-reply has been filed. However, the respondents learned Counsel Mr. Patil assails an explanation, such as it is, across the Bar that the petitioner's reversion was by reason of the fact that he had been promoted to the post of PSI merel...
Tag this Judgment!Ramjitayappa Chavan Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-28-1988
Reported in: 1988(4)BomCR623; (1989)91BOMLR11
B. Lentin, J.1. To equate public interest with Govt. convenience is a mistake. Such is the ratio of this judgment.2. The petitioner joined the Police Force as a police constable on 1st October, 1955. In due course of time he was promoted to Head Constable. On 29th April, 1987, an order of compulsory retirement was passed against him. Hence the present writ petition.3. The impugned order is passed under sub-clause (b) of sub-rule (4) of rule 10 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. By this order, the petitioner is compulsorily retired on the ground that he has completed 52 years of age and as such, has completed 31 years of service. Hence he is compulsorily retired for the purpose of convenience of Government.4. No affidavit in-reply has been filed.5. The impugned order is on the face of it bad in law. It does not conform to the provisions of Rules 10(4)(b). That rule empowers the authority to compulsorily retire Government servants if it is in the public interest to ...
Tag this Judgment!Shridhar Daji Tawde Vs. Food Corporation of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-28-1988
Reported in: 1988(4)BomCR73
Ashok Agarwal, J.1. If one has regard to the finding arrived at in the Department inquiry and in the Appeal, in my view, it will have to be held that the extreme penalty of dismissal from service is unconscionable and the same serves to be struck down.2. The petitioner at the material time was employed in the capacity of Assistant Manager (Depot) with the Food Corporation of India, the respondent No. 1. He was in charge of several Depots including the Rampur Depot at Jabalpur. In October 1982 an employee of the respondent No. 1 Shri R.K. Oswal applied to the Assistant Manager (D) of the respondent No. 1 Jabalpur for issue of four serviceable tarpaulins for his personal use, on the undertaking that the same would be returned before the 28th of October, 1982. On that application, the petitioner passed an endorsement directing the issued of the said tarnaulins after observing of usual formalities. On the aforesaid endorsement being made, one Shri Paranjape who was in-charge of the depot i...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hukumchand Mills Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-27-1988
Reported in: [1990]185ITR60(Bom)
S.K. Desai, J.1. On perusing exhibit 'E' which is the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal rejecting the application under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, we find that the Tribunal has not indicated the basis of the rejection in the said order. In para 3 of the order, however, the Tribunal has referred to its earlier order for the assessment year 1972-73 and stated : AHEX'for the reasons given in the earlier order for the assessment year 1972-73, the present application is also rejected.' We must, therefore, have before us the reasoning process of the Tribunal in refusing a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, before we can hold that the process is erroneous and direct a reference under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act. The Department ought to be in the know of the earlier order and indeed should have annexed it to the Income-tax Application. That was not done and for four years thereafter the same state of affairs has continued. This clearly indi...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Assaram Raibhah Dhage Vs. Executive Engineer and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-26-1988
Reported in: 1988(4)BomCR158; (1988)90BOMLR511; [1989(59)FLR336]; (1990)ILLJ48Bom
Lentin, J.1. The services of an employee, be he permanent or temporary, cannot be terminated with retrospective effect. Such is the ratio of this judgment.2. On June 7, 1980. The petitioner, a project displaced person was appointed as a Mustering Assistant in the Work Charge Establishment at a monthly salary of Rs. 200. Thereafter he worked continuously without break in service till March 1986, when by a letter of termination dated March 11, 1986 his services were retrospectively terminated with effect from March 1, 1986. Hence this writ petition.3. The petitioner's learned Counsel Miss Purohit is perfectly justified in making a grievance that it is unthinkable that an employee's services can be terminated with retrospective effect, as done in the present case. We join learned Counsel in her astonishment. For that matter, one of the conditions in the letter of appointment is that if the petitioner desired to resign he was liable to pay one month's salary or give one month's notice. It ...
Tag this Judgment!Lalitprashad Balaprashad Jaiswal Vs. Nandkishore Chhaganrao Khardekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-26-1988
Reported in: 1988(4)BomCR516
B.N. Deshmukh, J.1. This appeal is filed by plaintiff who filed a suit for cancellation of agreement of sale dated 21-10-1974 Exhibit 49 and subsequent sale deed dated 24-12-1974 Exhibit 50.2. The property involved is a godown which consists of two parts namely southern and northern parts. The northern part consists of constructed shops while the southern part consists of tin shed. The constructed shops in northern side are in occupation of tenants. There is no dispute that the plaintiff was owner of both the parts; southern as well as northern part. The agreement dated 21-10-1974 relates to the southern part while the sale deed dated 24-12-1974 relates to the whole godown including southern and northern parts.3. Agreement dated 21-10-1974 is executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant regarding southern part while the sale deed is executed by him also in favour of defendant on 24-12-1974. The plaintiff had challenged these two documents on the ground of misrepresentation and ...
Tag this Judgment!The Western India Football Association Bombay Vs. Bombay District Foot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-25-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Bom189; (1989)91BOMLR439
1. The Bombay District Football Association (Respondent/Plaintiff) had its first innings against . The Western India Football Association (Appellant/Defendant1) in the Bombay City Civil Court at Bombay. I thought it was a draw, for that is the order. Apparently the Plaintiff-Association is satisfied with the result. Not so. Western India Football Association, the Appellant. Hence this second innings. The main contest is on the question who should have the right to organize and conduct the prestigious Court, so in games, it is all a matter of rules and regulations.' For when the one Great Scorer comes to write against your name . He marks not that you won or lost But how played the game'But before that a bit of history and certain essential facts:2. The game of Football is organized in this country, on a three tier basis as per the guidelines issued by the Central Government . At the apex is the All India Football Federation (Respondent 4) . It is a Society duly registered under the Soc...
Tag this Judgment!Naraindas Mathuradas Narielwala Vs. Mukesh and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-25-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Bom262
1. This is a plaintiffs appeal against an order returning the plaint to the plaintiffs. Which plaint will have to be ultimately presented to the same Court.2. The plaintiffs filed this suit in the year 1972 as against the defendants for a mandatory injunction direction the defendants to remove themselves, and things and articles belonging to them from the suit premises and for certain other consequential reliefs. At that time they had valued the suit for mandatory injunction at Rs. 300/- and for the arrears Rs. 6,659/-.3. However, something in the year 1987, the plaintiffs were advised to amend the plaint and seek relief of possession also and naturally they had to value the premises for the purpose of the said relief and they valued the said relief at Rs. 30,390/-. The amendment was allowed and carried out.4. When the suit reached for hearing, the defendants though that they could take up a contention that the Bombay City Civil Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »