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.
Association of Engineering Workers Ghatkopar (East), Bombay Vs. Automo ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1988
Reported in: 1988(2)BomCR393; (1989)ILLJ390Bom; 1988MhLJ821
Dharmadhikari, J.1. Writ Petition No. 1776 of 1986 is filed by the Association of Engineering Workers, a trade Union against the order passed by the Industrial Court, Bombay dated 10th of February, 1986 accepting the request of respondent-Automobile Products of India Employees Union for registration as a recognised union under Section 14 of the Mah. Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner-trade union filed an application on 12th January, 1977 under Section 11of the Act for being recognised as a recognised union in the Undertaking of the respondent No. 1-Automobile Products of India. By an order dated 30th of March, 1977 the Industrial Court, Thane granted the said application and ordered that it may be recognised as a recognised union in the said Undertaking. Accordingly a certificate of recognition was also issued in favour of the petitioner-union. It is the case of the petitioner-union that t...
Ashish Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. S. Mukhopadhyay and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-1988
Reported in: [1989]74STC293(Bom)
Parekh, J.1. It is the petitioners' case that the petitioners buy condemned barges and dismantle the same and sell the scrap. That in view of this operation, the excise authorities issued a show cause notice, inter alia, calling upon the petitioners to show cause as to why the petitioners should not pay excise duty on the waste, scrap and other articles derived from such operation. The petitioners have hence come to court challenging the show cause notice.2. At the hearing of this petition, which has now come up for admission, Mr. Kakodkar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, argued that in breaking up a barge, the petitioners were not engaged in any 'manufacture', and that the resulting scrap and waste was only a consequence of the breaking up operation. That since no manufacture of any product was involved, it was not competent for the excise body to issue any show cause notice. That the said show cause notice was clearly without jurisdiction, and the same was liable to be struc...
Kanhaiyalal S/O Babulal Srivastava Vs. Bapurao S/O Ganpatrao Nandanwar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-1988
Reported in: 1988(3)BomCR89; 1988MhLJ388
M.S. Deshpande, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal by the landlord is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1388 of 1982, by which the learned Single Judge allowed the tenant's petition and reversed the orders passed by the Rent Control authorities granting permission to the landlord to determine the lease of the tenant under Clause 13(3)(vi) of the C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rent Control Order').2. The appellant filed two application before the Rent Controller the first on 21-2-1974 and Clause 13(3)(i), (ii) & (vii) and the other on 18-9-1976 under Clause 13(3)(i), (ii) & (vii) of the Rent Control Order. In the first application, arrears of rent for 52 months were claimed, while in the second arrears of rent from March 1974 onwards were claimed. There were some disputes about the actual amount of rent, the landlord alleging that the rent was Rs. 45/- per moth and the tenant saying t...
Rambhau Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-1988
Reported in: 1988(4)BomCR511
H.W. Dhabe, J.1. This is a writ petition arising out of the proceedings under the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 (for short, 'the Restoration Act'). It is not necessary to state the facts in detail for the purpose of the decision in the instant writ petition. Suffice it to say that the learned authorities under the Restoration Act directed restoration of the field Survey No. 4/1 admeasuring 0.75 acres and the field Survey No. 18 admeasuring 1.48 acres, both of village Mohali Tukum, to the respondents 2 to 4, i.e. the tribal transferors, from the petitioner, i.e. the non-tribal transferee.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has first urged before me that before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (for short. 'the MRT'), the Deputy Collector, Chandrapur, appeared and represented the State and in that capacity also supported the order passed by the learned trial Court. It is his submission that the petitioner was not allowed to be represented through a l...
Laxman Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1988
Reported in: (1989)75CTR(Bom)76; [1988]174ITR465(Bom)
V.A. Mohta, J.1. The petitioner, Laxman Joshi, was a clerk in Savatram Mills, Akola. On September 9, 1974, he filed returns of his income for the assessment years 1968-69 to 1975-76, prior to the issuance of a notice to him under section 139(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). The assessment for the assessment year 1974-75 was completed on April 24, 1977, and for the rest of the years on March 10, 1978. All the returns excepting for the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74 were accepted by the Income-tax Officer. For the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74, the valuation of the building then under construction shown in the returns was not accepted due to the different valuation made by the authorised surveyor. Some additions were made only on that basis. In appeals, some relief was granted. No penalty proceedings for concealment of income were initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. But, for late filing of the return and for not filing the estimate of advance tax, penalt...
Sulochana W/O Madhukar Joshi Vs. Gurubachansingh S/O Saransingh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1988
Reported in: 1988(3)BomCR284
B.N. Deshmukh, J.1. This first appeal is filed by the claimant who has filed an application for claiming compensation under section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act on the ground that her husband Madhukar met with the accident which resulted in his death in Gevrai town on 10-1-1984 at about 7.30 p.m. According to her, the accident was caused because of the dash given by the Driver of Vehicle M.W.A. 5389 which is a Tanker. She maintained that Driver of Tanker was driving the Tanker in a very high speed and was also driving negligently and rashly.2. The learned trial Judge of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissed the petition of the claimant on the ground that the said accident to deceased Madhukar is not caused by the Tanker bearing No. 5389.3. The award passed refusing the claim of the claimant is challenged in this appeal. In this appeal, one Civil Application No. 88 of 1987 was filed on behalf of the appellant -claimant for adding Oriental Fire & General Insurance Company Ltd., ...
Sulochana W/O Madhukar Joshi Vs. Gurubachansing S/O Saransingh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1988
Reported in: 1988(4)BomCR485
B.N. Deshmukh, J. 1. This first appeal is filed by the claimant who has filed and application for claiming compensation u/s 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act on the ground that her husband Madhukar met with the accident which resulted in his death in Gevrai town on 10-1-1984 at about 7.30 p.m. According to her, the accident was caused because of the dash given by the Driver of vehicle MWA 5389 which is a tanker. She maintained that Driver of Tanker was driving the Tanker in a very high speed and was also driving negligently and rashly.2. The learned trial Judge of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissed the petition of the claimant on the ground that the said accident to deceased Madhukar is not caused by the Tanker bearing No. 5389.3. The award passed refusing the claim of the claimant is challenged in this appeal. In this appeal, one Civil Application No. 88 of 1987 was filed on behalf of the appellant-claimant for adding Oriental Fire & General Insurance Company Ltd. as respondent...
Laxman Son of Sakharam Balsare Vs. Municipal Council, Warud and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1988
Reported in: 1988(4)BomCR576
M.S. Ratanparkhi, J.1. A mandate has been sought from this Court directing the quashing of the resolution passed by the Municipal Council, Warud on 20th January, 1988 cancelling the representation of the petitioner Mr. Belsare and sending Mr. Gulhane, respondent No. 4, as their representative to the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Warud. A declaration has also been sought to the effect that the petitioner continues to be the Member of the Managing Committee of the said Agricultural Produce Market Committee.2. Facts giving rise to this litigation may be briefly stated as follows; An Agricultural Produce Market Committee, a creature of Maharashtra Act No. XX of 1964, has been established at Warud. It has been constituted in pursuance of section 13(1) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). As the Municipal Council is existing at Warud a representative elected by the Municipal Council was sent to the Market C...
Sulochana Vs. Gurubachan Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1988
Reported in: II(1990)ACC238
B.N. Deshmukh, J.1. This first appeal is filed by the claimant who has filed an application for claiming compensation under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act on the ground that her husband Madhukar met with the accident which resulted in his death in Gevrai town on 10-1-1984 at about 7.30 p.m. According to her, the accident was caused because of the dash given by the Driver of vehicle MWA 5389 which is a Tanker. She maintained the Driver of Tanker was driving the Tanker in a very high speed and was also driving negligently and rashly.2. The learned Trial Judge of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissed the petition of the claimant on the ground that the said accident to deceased Madhukar is not caused by the Tanker bearing No. 5389.3. The award passed refusing the claim of the claimant is challenged in this appeal. In this appeal, one Civil Application No. 88 of 1987 was filed on behalf of the appellant-claimant for adding Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd. as r...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›