Mumbai Court November 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 State of Maharashtra Vs. L.D. Kanchan and Others Etc.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-03-1988
Reported in: [1989(58)FLR707]
ORDER1. The neat question of law that arises for consideration in this group of criminal revision applications is, whether employees of nationalised banks are 'public servants' within the meaning of Cl. 12(b) of S. 21 of the I.P.C.2. Brief facts giving rise to these revision applications are as under :-In special case Nos. 44 and 50 of 1978 accused 1, L. D. Kanchan, who was working as Branch Manager of the Indian Overseas Bank, Byculla Branch, Bombay, was prosecuted in the Court of the Special Judge, Greater Bombay, Bombay, along with others, by the Central Bureau of Investigation, on the allegations that in the months of April to July, 1977 he entered into criminal conspiracy with others for committing offences of cheating the Indian Overseas Bank by allowing the other accused persons to open bank accounts in the names of fictitious firms and in pursuance of the said conspiracy, forged promissory notes and bogus purchase bills and allowed them to obtain large amounts of loans on the s...
State of Maharashtra Vs. L.D. Kanchan and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-03-1988
Reported in: 1989(1)BomCR59; [1991]72CompCas632(Bom)
H.H. Kantharia J.1. The neat question of law that arises for consideration in this group of criminal revision applications is, whether employees of nationalised banks are 'public servants' within the meaning of clause (12)(b) of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The brief facts giving rise to these revision applications are as under : In special Cases Nos. 44 and 50 of 1978, accused No. 1, l. d. Kanchan, who was working as branch manager of the Indian Overseas Bank, Byculla branch, Bombay, was prosecuted in the Court of the Special Judge, Greater Bombay, Bombay, along with others, by the Central Bureau of Investigation, on the allegations that in the months of April to July, 1977, he entered into a criminal conspiracy with others for committing offences of cheating the Indian Overseas Bank by allowing the other accused persons to open bank accounts in the names of fictitious firms and in pursuance of the said conspiracy, forged promissory notes and bogus purchase bills and allowe...
M.S. Malathi Vs. the Commissioner, Nagpur Division and ors. and
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-03-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Bom138; 1989(2)BomCR194; (1988)90BOMLR532; 1988MhLJ1041
C. Mookerjee, C.J. 1. Their Lordships the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohra and the Hon;ble Mr. Justice Ratnaparkhi ,jj., have refereed the Writ Petition No. 5164 of 1988 (transferred from Nagpur Bench Writ Petition No. 16 of 1984) to the Full Bench for determination of the following point:' Whether the term in relation to the State in Art 341(1) of the Constitution ensures to the benefit of the Schedule Caste only within territorial area of that State , or whether a declaration of Scheduled Caste under, the Constitution order ensures to the benefit of Scheduled Castes for whole of the country and not restricted to the particular State'.Mohta and Ratnaparkhi jj. Were unable to agree with the view taken by an earlier Division Bench if this Court in the case of Wasudeo v. Union of India . 1973 Mah LJ 994 : 1974 Lab IC 141 regarding the interpretation of the said expression 'in relation to the State' in Art . 341(1) of the Constitution C.A,. No. 5069 of 1988 has been heard along with the full Ben...
State of Maharashtra Vs. L.D. Kanchan I.O.B. Bombay and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-03-1988
Reported in: (1989)ILLJ446Bom
1. The neat question of law that arises for consideration in this group of criminal revision applications is, whether employees of nationalised banks are 'public servants' within the meaning of clause 12(b) of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Brief facts giving rise to these revision applications are as under :-In special case Nos. 44 and 50 of 1978 accused No. 1, L. D. Kanchan, who was working as Branch Manager of the Indian Overseas Bank, Byculla Branch, Bombay was prosecuted in the Court of the Special Judge, Greater Bombay, Bombay, along with others, by the Central Bureau of Investigation, on the allegations that in the months of April to July, 1977 he entered into criminal conspiracy with others for committing offences of cheating the Indian Overseas Bank by allowing the other accused persons to open bank accounts in the names of fictitious firms and in pursuance of the said conspiracy, forged promissory notes and bogus purchase bills and allowed them to obtain large amounts...
Vijay S/O Pundlik Band and ors. Vs. Amravati University Through Its Vi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-03-1988
Reported in: 1989(1)BomCR364
S.W. Puranik, J.1. The petitioners are the original plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No. 683/86 filed by them against the respondent sole-Amravati University. The said civil suit was filed by the petitioners for a declaration that the award passed by Land Acquisition Officer on 19-9-1986 was not communicated to the petitioners within two years of the coming into force of the amended section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act and hence the entire acquisition proceedings and the award had lapsed.2. In the said suit, the petitioners also claimed the interim relief of injunction against the Amravati University restraining it from disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land pending disposal of the suit.3. In the trial Court, the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, granted ad interim injunction against the University.4. The original defendant, Amravati University therefore, preferred Misc. Civil Appeal No. 124/86 before the District Judge, Amravati. The said appeal after h...
Kum. Tanuja D/O Maganlal Rajpal Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-03-1988
Reported in: (1988)90BOMLR541; 1989MhLJ99
C.S. Dharmadhikari, J.1. In this petition the petitioner has challenged the decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee holding that the petitioner has failed to prove that she belongs to Bawa tribe which is notified as a Nomadic Tribe in the State of Maharashtra. The petitioner has also challenged the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Bombay, the appellate authority, confirming the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee.2. Initially this writ petition was placed for hearing before the Division Bench. But in view of an apparent conflict in the decisions of this Court and a contention raised that the decision in Vijay Shrichand Daulatnni v. State of Maharashtra requires reconsideration, the matter came to be referred to a larger Bench. This is how this petition came to be placed before this Full Bench.3. On the basis of the arguments advanced before the Division Bench as well as before us, the following questions arise for our consideration :(a) Whether 'Bawas' f...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Indian Farmers and Fertilizers
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-1988
Reported in: (1989)(41)ELT488Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the Order-in-Appeal bearing No. V-2 (14HH) 2845/81/4177, dated 8-3-1983 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are not in dispute. The respondents are the manufacturers of fertilizers. They manufacture in two different units one situated at Kandla and another at Kalol. They were permitted to avail exemption under Notification No.198/76, dated 16-6-1976 in respect of Indian Farmers Co. Ltd. As required by the Notification and orders issued in connection with such Notification, the respondents have applied for approval of the base clearance of both the units separately. Co-ordinating Assistant Collector approved the base clearance in respect of each factory vide his letter dated 11-2-77. On the basis of approval so given, the respondents herein began availing the benefit of the Notification No.198/76 in respect of each unit. On this basis they filed their RT-1...
Sukhadeo Vishwanath Garaje Vs. M/S Food Corporation of India and Other ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-1988
Reported in: [1989(59)FLR422]; (1989)IILLJ277Bom; 1989MhLJ236
1. By Writ Petition No. 2052 of 1986 the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 7th August, 1986 passed by the Chairman of the Food Corporation of India (FCI) Departmental Canteen, Sewri, Bombay-400 033 passed in the appeal of the petitioner whereby the petitioner was discharged from service.2. The petitioner at the material time was employed in the Canteen of the FCI Department in 'C' Shed, Sewri, Bombay-400 033 as a Coupon Clerk. On 30th October 1985 the services of the petitioner were sought to be terminated with effect from 28th October 1985 on the ground that the petitioner had participated in a strike on 28th October, 1985. On 16th November 1985, the aforesaid order was withdrawn and the petitioner was placed under suspension. Being aggrieved the petitioner on 17th December 1985 filed Writ Petition No. 2544 of 1985 challenging the order of suspension. On 13th January 1986, Rule was issued and an interim order was passed direction the Respondents to pay full salary to the p...
Hindustan Lever Mazdoor Sabha Vs. Hindustan Lever Limited and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-1988
Reported in: [1989(58)FLR413]; (1989)ILLJ459Bom
1. These are a group of three Petitioner seeking to challenge the Award dated the 18th of December 1985 of Shri B. N. Dongre, Industrial Tribunal, Bombay. The Award has adjudicated upon the demands of the Management and the Workers of M/s. Hindustan Lever Limited, Bombay. It has conceded the demand of the Management for placing a ceiling on the dearness allowance on basic pay over Rs. 500/- It has granted certain demands of the workers such as revision of pay scales, grant of special allowance, Social Security Allowance and ad hoc allowance, demand for automatic promotion, etc. The first two petition are filed by workers and the third by the Management.2. The first question that can be taken up for consideration is in regard to the demand of Management for creating a ceiling on the dearness allowance. The impugned Award has granted this demand and has placed a ceiling on the dearness allowance on basic pay over Rs. 500/-. Mr. Menon, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the worker...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›