Mumbai Court March 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.
Prahladrai Dalmia Lions College of Commerce and Economics and ors. Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1988
Reported in: 1988(3)BomCR564
S.P. Kurdukar, J.1. These two writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India were heard together and they can be disposed of by this common judgment. They arise out of an award/order passed by the Presiding Officer, College Tribunal, Bombay, in Appeal No. 1 of 1985 field by Shri A.N. Rangparia, Professor of P.D. Lions College of Commerce and Economics, Malad---hereinafter referred to as 'the said College', challenging the legality and correctness of termination of his service vide letter dated 15th November, 1985 issued by the Authority of the said College.2. Writ Petition No. 3129 of 1986 is filed by the 5 petitioners against Shri A.N. Rangparia, Professor of P.D. Lions College, who is respondent No. 1. The petitioners are (1) Prahladrai Dalmia lions College of Commerce and Economics; (2) Principal of the said college; (3) Chairman of the Governing Council of the said College; (4) Secretary of the Governing Council of the said college; (5) Trustees of Lion's Club ...
K.E.C. International Limited Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-1988
Reported in: 1988(17)LC30(Bombay); 1988(36)ELT31(Bom)
1. The petitioner is a Limited Company having a factory at Bombay where it manufactures parts of transmission towers from raw materials such as sections, angles or plates made of steel and zinc supplied to it by its customers. The customers include, for example, the Gujarat State Electricity Board. The manufacture of the parts of the transmission towers from the raw material supplied, as above, by the customers is done under a contract entered into by the Company with its customer. In the absence of a notification, to which a reference will be made shortly, excise duty will be leviable on the product which emerges from the factory of the petitioner under Item 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. However, by Notification bearing No. 119/75, dated 30th of April, 1975, certain exemption was given to a factory of the type of the petitioner which manufactures articles of what can be called job work basis. The second respondent t...
Voltas Limited and Another Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-1988
Reported in: 1988(17)LC47(Bombay); 1988(36)ELT15(Bom)
1. The first petitioner is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 while the second petitioner is an official of the said Company. The first petitioner will hereinafter be referred to, for the sake of convenience, as 'the Company'. The Company is engaged, among other things, in the manufacture of airconditioners and water-coolers at a factory situated at Thane near Bombay. By an order dated 28th of July, 1972 the Superintendent of Central Excise, Range I, Thane, informed the Company that the Industrial Fans (Blowers) manufactured by the Company in its factory for use in its airconditioners and water-coolers attracted duty under Tariff Item No. 33(2) after taking into consideration the various points which had been urged on behalf of the Company in reply to a notice issued to it earlier by the said authority. The Company was, therefore, asked to obtain L4 licence for the same and pay duty for the period from 29th May, 1971.2. The Company preferred an appeal an the Appellate C...
Balmer Lawrie and Co. Ltd., Bombay Vs. Balmer Lawrie Employees' Union ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-1988
Reported in: 1988(3)BomCR230; [1989(58)FLR91]; (1989)IILLJ97Bom; 1988MhLJ716
1. Writ Petition No. 131 of 1984 is filed by Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. which is a public sector undertaking in respect of an award dated 7th October 1983 given by the Industrial Tribunal, Maharashtra, Bombay, in reference (IT) No. 307 of 1981. The reference was in respect of wages claimed by the workmen of this company during the strike period namely 18th October 1978 to 17th May 1979, both days inclusive. The Industrial Tribunal declared the strike to be illegal under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It, however, awarded to the workmen 35% of their wages during this period. Writ Petition No. 131 of 1984 challenges this award.2. Writ Petition No. 727 of 1984 is filed by Balmer Lawrie Employees' Union, Bombay challenging the same award, in so far as it holds that the strike was illegal. It seeks a declaration that the strike was legal and justified and prays that full wages for the strike period should be given to the workmen.3. In or about August 1975 the workmen ter...
Bhor Chemicals and Plastics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-1988
Reported in: 1988(17)LC143(Bombay)
Sujata Manohar, J.1. At all material time the petitioners carried on the activity of preparing a solution known as Poly Vinyl Alcohol Solution (hereinafter referred to as PVA Solution) by mixing duty paid PVA powder with water and other additives. Pursuant to notices received from the Excise Department, the petitioners were required to file a classification list and pay excise duty on PVA Solution. For the period 10.8.1976 to 17.7.1977 the petitioners have paid duty on PVA Solution under Tariff Item 68 while for the period 18.7.1977 to 31.3.1979 the petitioners have paid duty under Tariff Item 15A. By a notice dated 24.10.1979 the Collectorate of Central Excise clarified that the process of making a solution of PVA Powder, either by adding water or water with other additives etc. was not 'manufacture' as in both the processes there was no chemical reaction. It further stated, 'Even if the said change were to be taken, for the sake of argument, to amount to a 'manufacture', it would be ...
Suresh Chandra Verma and ors. Vs. the Chancellor, Nagpur University, B ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Bom111; (1988)90BOMLR219
Shah, J.1. IN Writ Pent. No. 1876 of 1984 Dr. Harihar Bhakre v. Chancellor of Nagpur University which was decided on Dec. 7 (reported in 1985 LIC 1481), by a Division Bench of this Court at Nagpur (Paunikar & Deshpande, JJ). Wherein the legality of the employment notice issued by the Nagpur University under s. 57(4) (a) of the Nagpur University Act , 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ') vis--vis reservation for the backward classes was under challenge, amongst various other points involved in the said petition. The Division Bench took the classes in respect of the posts of Professors, Readers and Lecturers adverted was not necessary, but that it is enough, if the posts reserved are mentioned numerically out of the total posts to be filled in. the Division Bench further held that having regard to the provisions of S. 57 (4) (d) and (e) such reservation could be made by the Executive Council under S. 57 (4)(e) even after the selection by the Selection committee on merit under S. 5...
Municipal Corporation for Greater Bombay and ors. Vs. Monopol Chemical ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1988
Reported in: AIR1988Bom217; 1988(3)BomCR197
Jahagirdar, J.1. This appeal has been placed before the Full Bench by the learned Chief Justice on the recommendation made by a Division Bench (Pendse and Kotwal, JJ.), which was inclined to differ from the view taken by another Division Bench (Bharucha and Daud, JJ.) in the letter's judgment in The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Forage and Co. AIR 1987 Bom 321, hereinafter referred to as ('the Forage and Co.'s case'). Some provisions of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', are the subject-matter of interpretation over which there is a differences of opinion between the two Division Benches. Before proceeding to notice the relevant provisions of the Act, it is, naturally, necessary to mention the facts involved in this appeal.2. Writ Petition No. 898of 1981 (see 1985 Mah LJ 114 was filed by Monopol Chemicals Pvt. Ltd, praying for a writ of mandamus requiring the respondents in the writ petition, namely, the Municipal Corporation ...
Meherbai Kari Khandalawala and ors. Vs. Competent Authority Under the ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1988
Reported in: 1988(2)BomCR127
S.N. Variava, J.1. By this petition, the petitioners are challenging the scheme sanctioned under section 21(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 and the action of Respondents Nos. 1 to 6 in granting permission to construct on Plot Nos. 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 22, 28, 50, 51, 84, 85 and 114 in Koregaon Park Area, Pune, on the grounds set out hereinafter.2. The facts briefly stated are that the petitioners are all residents and owners of house properties situated in Koregaon Park, Pune. The petitioners are also active members of an Association known as Koregaon Park Residents' Association.3. It would seem that in or about 1920, Koregaon Park area was formed as a model colony with an area of approximately 208.7 hectares divided into 122 plots. The plots were given out to various parties on leases in perpetuity. All the leases are identical. Clauses 6 and 8 of the Lease Deeds provide as follows:'6. The lessee shall after the said land has been included within the limits of the su...
Dinkar Krishna Kharade Vs. Jyotiram Tukaram Kharade and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1988
Reported in: 1988(2)BomCR438; (1988)90BOMLR637; 1988MhLJ339
P.B. Sawant, J.1. The short question involved in this petition is whether the learned Judge while trying the election petition under section 15 of the Bombay village Panchayats Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) could have resorted to the procedure prescribed by second proviso to sub-clause (b) of sub-section (5) of the said section. In the present case.2. The elections to the Grampanchayat were held on December 23, 1986 and the counting of votes polled took place on December 2, 1986. The petitioner and respondent No. 1 were the rival candidates contesting from Ward No. 1. At the time of the counting of votes, respondent No. 6-Election Officer found that both had got equal number of votes viz. 93 each. As required by the Rules, he therefore drew the lots and declared the petitioner elected to the Grampanchayat from the said Ward.3. Respondent No. 1 thereafter filed an election petition under the said section 15, challenging the validity of the election of the petitioner on ...
Bomi Munchershaw Mistry Vs. Kesharwani Co-operation Housing Society Lt ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1988
Reported in: 1988(3)BomCR238
V.V. Vaze, J.1. To no man we shall deny justice', promised King John at Runnymede, beside the River Thames, on 14th June, 1215 which promise along with others became the great Chapter of English liberty. The spacious promise drafted in general terms opened the doors of the English Court to each and every person but like all over-inclusive promises, this one from the Monarch could flood the courts with frivolous and vexatious claims resulting in the abuse of the process of Court. To stem such a possible tide, the courts of Record assumed to themselves certain powers to block at the early stages plaints which if allowed to proceed to trial would result in abuse of the process of the Court which power was continued by Article 215 of the Constitution as respects High Court. It is one such exercise of the power to order a plaint to be struck out that forms the subject matter of this appeal.2. Munchershaw Pherozeshaw Mistri was one of the Settlers as well as a Trustee of a Deed of Settlement...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »