Mumbai Court July 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.
Vaman Maruty Gharat and Others Vs. M.P. Apte and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-1988
Reported in: (1989)ILLJ134Bom
1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been placed before me for final hearing in accordance with Rule 15 of Chapter 17 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960. There is a difference of opinion between the two Judges who constituted the Division Bench which originally heard this petition. Hence resort to the above mentioned provisions of the Appellate Side Rules.2. The petition was filed by the two petitioners, who were members of a trade union known as Association of Chemical Workers and who were working at the relevant time in the factory of the 3rd respondent, hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent'. The respondent is a dyeing unit covered by the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. The facts leading to this petition ought to be necessarily stated, atleast briefly, before proceeding to consider the point that has arisen in this petition.3. On or about 2nd of May 1978, there was a strike which was resorted to by the ...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Usha Vinayak Bal (Mrs.) and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-1988
Reported in: 1989(1)BomCR286
A.P. Tated, J.1. The State preferred this appeal against the order of acquittal of the respondent-accused punishable under section 7(i) & (v) read with section 2(i-a), (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, read with section 16(1)(a), (i) of the said Act, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dapoli, on 16th February, 1984 in Regular Criminal Case No. 71 of 1982.2. The respondents-accused were prosecuted for having sold adulterated milk on 4th February, 1982. The learned Judicial Magistrate found that the complainant Food Inspector did not comply with the provision of Rule 9(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955, in not sending a copy of the report of the public analyst to the accused after launching the prosecution. The said Rule (9)(a), as it stood before the amendment effected in 1982, required that a copy of the report of the public analyst should be sent to the accused immediately after launching the prosecution. This is necessary to afford ...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Muzzaffar HussaIn SaifuddIn and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-1988
Reported in: 1989(1)BomCR308
S.C. Pratap, J.1. This appeal seeks to challenge the order of acquittal recorded in favour of the accused by the learned trial Magistrate in a prosecution under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.2. The facts and circumstances leading to the prosecution have been set out by the trial Magistrate in second paragraph of his judgment. It is needless to repeat the same. The acquittal was on several grounds. As seen from the impugned judgment, there are several infirmities in the case of the prosecution. As held by the trial Magistrate, even the panchanama was not produced before the Court. Then again despite several opportunities no panch was examined. Moreover, what was sold was not besan flavour but vatana flour. The reports exhibits 96 and 97 of the Public Analyst also do not support the prosecution. There has also been infraction of Rules 9(j), 16(b), 17 and 18 of the Rules framed under the Act. The impugned judgment gives good and sound reasons in support of the acquittal. The lea...
Balkrishna Mahadeo Apte Vs. Dhanaram Netaji Choudhari and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-1988
Reported in: 1989(1)BomCR412
S.C. Pratap, J.1. Hearing Mr. V.D. Hon'ble learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. R.M. Agarwal, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 accused, and going through the impugned judgment and the record of the case, we are satisfied that this is not a case warranting interference with the impugned acquittal of the accused in a prosecution under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short 'the Act').2. Taking up first the case against accused No. 2, the fatal infirmity is that copy of the report of the Public Analyst was not served upon him. There is nothing on the record to show such service. Indeed, the complainant admits that he cannot say whether accused No. 2 has received copy of the report of the Public Analyst. The acquittal of accused No. 2 well deserves to be upheld on this short ground.3. As regards accused No. 1 we find considerable discrepancy between the evidence of the complainant before the Court and the recitals in the panchanama prepared on the spot. The panc...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Vasudeo Shivlingappa Takawade and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-1988
Reported in: 1988(3)BomCR207
A.D. Tated, J.1. The State preferred Criminal Appeal No. 173 of 1982 for enhancement of sentence and the accused Preferred Criminal Appeal No. 289 of 1987 against their conviction for the offence punishable under section 7(v) read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954, and the sentence of fine of Rs. 1000/- imposed on the accused No. 1 firm and the sentences till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine Rs. 1,000/- each, or in default, R.I. for three months imposed on the accused Nos. 2 and 3, by the order dated 19th December, 1981 passed by the Joint Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangli, in Criminal Cause No. 3624 of 1978.2. The accused No. 1 firm and its partners, accused Nos. 2 and 3, were prosecuted under section 7(v) read with sections 16 and 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 ('the Act', for short) for having sold adulterated Dhania (dry coriander). The learned trial Judge, on considering the evidence adduced by the ...
Gumphabai (Sou.) Vs. Laxman Vithal Makle and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-1988
Reported in: 1988(4)BomCR113
S.M. Daud, J.1. This is the wife's petition taking exception to the dismissal of an application moved by her for maintenance under section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.2. The petition gives rise to questions which have to be considered in the following backdrop:''Petitioner was married to respondent 1 in the year 1979. In about the year 1982 there took place certain events and from that time onwards the petitioner is not regularly residing at the marital home. According to the petitioner, in the year 1982 respondent 1 started saying that he did not like her and that he wanted to get rid of her. Several efforts by her and her relations to make respondent 1 mend his ways were of no avail. Eventually she was driven away from the marital home and thrown out when she tried to effect a re entry. Respondent 1 had not cared to provide her for maintenance and having regard to his means, she was entitled to an order directing him to pay her Rs. 400/- per month. The 1st respondent disp...
Roplas (India) Limited and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-1988
Reported in: 1990(25)ECC30
Sawant, J.1. The 1st Petitioners are a company engaged, inter alia in the manufacture of Fibreglass Reinforced Plastic (F.R.P.) bodies for motor vehicles. According to them, the said F.R.P. bodies did not fall within any of the specific entries in the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and therefore fell for classification under the residuary entry, namely, Item No. 68 of the Schedule which provides for all other goods. By Notification No. 118/75 dt. April 30, 1975, the 1st Respondent-Union of India exempted goods falling under the said Item No. 68 manufactured in the factory and intended for use in the factory in which they were manufactured, from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon. Since the F.R.P. bodies manufactured by the Petitioners were fitted to motor vehicles within the premises of the Petitioners' factory, although according to the Petitioners the said F.R.P. bodies fell under Item 68, they paid excise d...
Migs Express Company Vs. Assistant Collector of Central Excise
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1988
Reported in: 1991(31)ECC86; 1988(37)ELT489(Bom)
1. Petitioner No. 2 S. G. Mittal is the sole proprietor of petitioner No. 1, namely, Migs Express Company. The petitioner entered into six leave and licence agreements dated 31-8-1980 with six different persons whose names are set out in the Order of the Collector of Central Excise dated 5-7-1982. These leave and licence agreements are identically worded. Under each of these agreements the owner of the power-looms in question as set out in each agreement, gave to the petitioner leave, and licence to use the powerlooms and to operate a powerloom factory. The agreements provide that the petitioner would be in charge of the entire management and working of the powerlooms. He along would purchase yarn and other stores, spares and accessories. He would manufacture textiles. The property in the goods would vest in the petitioner. The petitioner also had the right to dispose of these goods. Under the agreements, the owner had no right, title or interest in the goods so manufactured. The petit...
indarjeet Singh and Co. Vs. Kamal Prakash Pawar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Bom325; 1988(3)BomCR274; (1989)91BOMLR552; 1988MhLJ863
P.S. Shah, J.1. This appeal is preferred by original Opponent 3, a partnership firm Inderjeet Singh and sons which carries on a transport business against the judgment and order dt. April 9, 1984 passed by the Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Pune ( hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal ') in Application No. 120 of 1981 filled by Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 against the appellant and Respondents Nos 5 to 7. Respondents 5 and 6 are original Opponents 1 and 2 and Respondent 7 is the Insurance Company which was Opponents 4 in the application, The tribunal passed an award directing the Appellant and Respondents 5 to 7 to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- by way of compensation together with future interest thereon at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of the application till realization together with the costs of the application. The liability of the Insurance Company was restricted to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-.2. The accident took place on Jan. 15 1981 at about 4.35 p.m. on Range Hills...
Smt. Navalben Mohanlal Sanghani Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-1988
Reported in: 1989(39)ELT400(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. This joint Secretary to the Government of India by order dt. February 18, 1988 Passed in exercise of powers conferred by S. 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 directed detention of Vasantrai Mohanlal Sanghani with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange. The order of detention was served on April 14, 1988 and the grounds of detention were furnished.2. The grounds recite that one Smt. Girija Kuppaswamy of M/s. Marcopolo Travels, Bangalore, was leading a group of 120 pilgrims to United States and Europe. Mrs. Kuppaswamy was in need of foreign exchange as she had sought service of M/s Travel Corporation of India, Bombay and the travel Corporation agreed to render services abroad at a rate of United States $ 1065 per passenger. Each of the passenger secured foreign exchange of United States $ 980/- from the Reserve Bank and for the Balance Smt. Kuppaswamy r...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »