Mumbai Court July 1988 Judgments
Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. All India Insurance Employees' ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1988
Reported in: 1988(4)BomCR254; [1989(58)FLR149]; (1995)IIILLJ797Bom; 1988MhLJ928
1. The petitioners are the Life Insurance Corporation of India while Respondents No. 1 and 2 are All India Insurance Employees' Association and All India LIC Employees' Federation, respectively. 2. The petitioners have challenged in this writ petition an Award dated 31.1.1986 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1 Bombay in Reference No. CGIT-11 of 1983. Under an order dated 29.10.1983 the Central Government in exercise of powers under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. l, Bombay constituted under Section 7A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The reference was: 'Whether the action of the management of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay in closing the cadre of Superintendent (Admn.), Superintendent (Typing pool), Superintendent (Adrema) and Superintendent (Machine) and in denying promotional avenues to the section Heads/Higher grade assistants in all th...
Tag this Judgment!His Holiness Shrimat Sudhindra Thirth Swamiji of Samsthan Kashi Math V ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1988
Reported in: 1988(4)BomCR636
Sharad Manohar, J.1. As will be presently pointed out, the question arising out of this petition betrays a picture of a battle between tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee. A meaningless Appeal was filed by the present respondent to the Deputy Collector almost 12 years after the order by which he was aggrieved. He need not have filed the appeal at all. The question could have been well agitated by him in the suit which, I am told, he has already filed, because the question which was urged by him in the proposed appeal filed long after the expiration of the limitation was a neat question of jurisdiction of the trial Court which could have been and can be agitated in a civil suit. Without considering the question of limitation the Deputy Collector entertained and allowed the Appeal for a meaningless exercise of remanding the matter back to the Tahsildar. The same order is passed by the Revenue Tribunal purporting to make a slight modification which is more apparent than real.The original responde...
Tag this Judgment!PravIn K. Singhal Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1988
Reported in: 1988(4)BomCR65
M.L. Pendse, J.1. By our judgment dated July 12, 1988, P.K. Singhal, the contemner, was found guiltily of criminal contempt within meaning of section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-. The contemner had remained absent, inspite of bailable warrant being served upon him, and a day prior to the date of hearing appeared in the Court and informed us that he is not going to remain present. The contempt held proved is in respect of pamphlet issued by the contemner in which false and serious allegations are made to scandalize judicial administration in City of Bombay. The character and integrity of the sitting Judges are assailed in roud language and even the chief Justice of India is not spared.2. In accordance with our judgment, the contemner was taken in custody on July 19, 1988. Before the contemner was taken in custody, the contemner did not think it fit to make application that ...
Tag this Judgment!Niranjana Mohanlal Kapadia and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1988
Reported in: 1989(1)BomCR332; (1988)90BOMLR576
B. Lentin, J.1. In a deadlock between a landlord and the tenants, the Repaid Board, a statutory body, cannot be prevented from carrying out its statutory duty and obligation cast on it by the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 to carry out repairs of building within its purview. Such is the ratio of this judgment.2. Who shall carry out the repairs to the appellants' building Shall it be the landlord- appellants or the respondent-tenants or the Repaid Board Such is the gravamen on which this appeal filed by the landlords revolves.3. Indisputably the building owned by the appellants is in a ruinous condition, constructed as it was nearly 70 years ago. It is situate in the busy Kalbadevi Locality. The building in its present condition is a danger to life and safety. Indisputably it requires immediate repairs. By consent of parties we took on record 28 photographs of the building produced by the appellant's learned Counsel Mr. Shroff. They have to be seen to guage the dilap...
Tag this Judgment!Atmaram S/O Sukhdeo Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1988
Reported in: 1989(2)BomCR244
V.A. Mohta, J.1. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Khamgaon declared 126 acres 7 gunthas of land as surplus with the land-holder Atmaram Patil (the petitioner) under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (the Act). 9 acres 8 gunthas was allowed as potkharab and was not, therefore, calculated in the total holding. The petitioner had claimed exclusion of 35 acres 19 gunthas on that count. Aggrieved by the inclusion of 26 acres 7 gunthas in the total holding, the landholder filed an appeal under section 33 of the Act before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and applied for stay of further proceedings before the S.D.O. The Tribunal granted limited stay of delimitation of 26 acres and 7 gunthas and permitted the S.D.O. to limit the remaining area of 100 acres declared as surplus with the landholder with his consultation. Aggrieved by that interim order to stay permitting delimitation of 100 acres, the land-holder filed a writ petition which was heard, by the learned Si...
Tag this Judgment!Prithdayal Chetandas and ors. Vs. Jamnadas Ghanshamdas Tuliani and anr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1988
Reported in: 1989(3)BomCR1
Sharad Manohar, J.1. These two petitions arise out of the decree for eviction passed by the Court of Small Causes in the suit for eviction filed by the landlord in these petitions (who is the common respondent in both these petitions). Writ Petition No. 3417 of 1987 is filed by Original defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 5, who are admittedly the heirs of the original tenant in respect of the suit premises in addition to original defendant No. 4. Though decree for eviction has been passed also against Original Defendant No. 4, viz. Jairamdas Chetandas, he does not figure either as petitioner or respondent in this writ petition. This fact has a bearing upon the very maintainability of this writ petition. Writ Petition No. 3313 of 1987 is filed by original defendant No. 6 who claimed and claims to be a sub tenant in respect of the suit premises as from 1-4-1967. His claim to valid sub-tenancy may perhaps have some kind of legitimacy after the advent of Maharashtra Act No. 18 of 1987, which came in...
Tag this Judgment!Lt. Col. Narendra Kumar Kakkar (Retd.) Vs. Nissar Khan Ibrahim Khan an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1988
Reported in: 1988(4)BomCR475; 1989MhLJ38
P.S. Shah, J.1. The facts giving rise to this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution are these. On December 20, 1985, general elections of Deolali Cantonment Board respondent No. 2 herein were held. The first respondent Nissar Khan Ibrahim Khan was one of the contesting candidates and he was elected. The election of the first respondent was challenged by the defeated candidate by filing Election Petition No. 12 of 1985 before the District Judge, Nasik, provided under Rule 43 of the Election Rules framed under the Cantonments Acts, 1924. The challenge to the election of the first respondent was on the ground that he was disqualified for being choosen as a member of the Board since he had incurred prior to the election a disqualification under section 28(2)(h) of the Cantonments Act, 1924 (hereinafter called 'the said Act'). The alleged disqualification is on the ground that the first respondent had failed to pay his dues of the Board prior to his filling of the nomination and wa...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Lead Private Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1988
Reported in: 1989(19)ECC209; 1989(23)LC561(Bombay); 1988(38)ELT23(Bom)
Ashok Agarwal, J.1. The short point that arises for determination in this appeal relates to the construction of the Notification No. 33/81, dated the 1 st March 1981 issued under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. A few facts which have given rise to the filing of the present appeal may be stated.2. The appellants who are the original petitioners are manufacturers of lead products. In the course of their business, the appellants imported large quantities of lead scrap consisting of whole drained scrap batteries, battery plate scrap and cable lead scrap. By the present Notification dated the 1st of March 1981 the Central Government in exercise of its powers conferred by Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 exempted from duty of excise waste and scrap of copper, zinc, aluminium and lead as detailed in the said Notification. During the period 1st March 1981 and 4th of November 1981 the appellants imported various consignments of the above-mention...
Tag this Judgment!Chandrakant Narayan Chavan Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-1988
Reported in: 1988(3)BomCR361; (1989)91BOMLR12; 1988MhLJ965
Khatri, J.(1 to 12. x x x x).13. We were distressed to note in the present case that the lower Court has not effectively controlled the cross-examination and allowed the defence to indulge in pointless and grilling cross-examination. Numberless contradictions - mostly in the form of omissions - flood the record. The learned Judge gives the impression of having completely abdicated his responsibility under the Explanation to S. 162, Cr.P.C., to determine whether a particular omission was material enough to amount to a contradiction. This Explanation in express terms provides that an omission amounts to a contradiction, only, and only, if the same appears to the Court significant and otherwise relevant, having regard to the context in which it occurs and further the question whether or not any omission amounts to a contradiction in a particular context is a question of fact. Obviously it is the duty and obligation of the Court to decide this question, by applying the above test. The ambi...
Tag this Judgment!Wipro Products Limited and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra and An ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-1988
Reported in: [1989]72STC69(Bom)
V.S. Kotwal, J.1. Challenge to the vires of section 13AA of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 as introduced by Maharashtra Act No. 28 of 1982 essentially based on the main plank of legislative competency as also in the context of article 301 of the Constitution of India is the centre of controversy generated in all these three petitions, which in turn revolves around the construction of the said provision in the context of other provisions of the Bombay Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') as also item No. 92-B of the Union List and item No. 54 of the State List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution as prescribed under article 246 thereof.2. Since identical contentions are raised in all the petitions as also same grounds were canvassed at the hearing and the controversy falls and can be resolved entirely on the common pattern, it is obviously justified and appropriate to dispose of all these three petitions by the common judgment. Writ Petitions Nos. 2114 of 198...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »