Mumbai Court August 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.
Union of India (Uoi) and 2 ors. Vs. Glaxo Laboratories (India) Ltd. an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1988
Reported in: 1989(22)LC497(Bombay)
ORDERS.K. Desai, J.1. After the memorandum of Appeal has been amended as per the Draft handed in, we feel that on the question whether the Vitariiin supplements can be accepted as animal feed and therefore entitled to the benefit of exemption notification, the matter deserves consideration by a Bench. This is despite the decision of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in a Sales Tax matter holding in favour of respondent No. 1 (original petitioner No. 1). Accordingly, Appeal is admitted. Since, however, one adjournment was caused by reason of the defective Memorandum of Appeal, which Memorandum of Appeal was required to be rectified, the appellants will pay to the respondents costs of adjournment fixed at Rs. 100/-. This will be a condition precedent to the continuation of interim relief in the appeal. If costs not paid by 31st October 1988, stay hereinafter granted to stand vacated.2. Shri Lokur for the appellants tenders Draft Notice of Motion. Leave under Rule 141 of the Hi...
Shri Suhas Naik Vs. Planning and Development Authority
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-1988
Reported in: (1988)90BOMLR506; 1989MhLJ245
G.F. Couto, J.1. The petitioner, a holder of Diploma in Engineering recognized by the State Board of Technical Education of the Maharashtra State, challenges by this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the refusal of the respondent to entertain the plans for the construction of a building with a plinth area of 255 square metres, signed by him, and further prays for the withdrawal of the restriction imposed on the engineers in Regulation 5(1) of the Draft Regulations, 1984, framed by the respondent.2. Petitioner is a Licentiate in Civil Engineering from the Victoria Jubilee Technical Institute, which is a Central Technical Institute of the Maharashtra State, being also a holder of a Diploma in Civil Engineering recognized by the State Board of Technical Education of the Maharashtra State. It seems that he had been working as a Section Officer (Junior Engineer) in the Mapusa Municipality from 1972 to 1974, including one year as full-fledged engineer, and thereaf...
Rusi Jehangir Jeejeebhoy and Another Vs. O.D. Mohindra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-15-1988
Reported in: [1990]185ITR636(Bom)
1. What is under challenge in this appeal is an order passed by the learned single judge in a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners were allowed to occupy the suit premises during the pendency of the construction of a new building in which they were allotted two flats. They were supposed to take possession of the new flats after the occupation certificate was issued by the Municipal Corporation. There is no dispute that such a certificate has been issued by the Municipal Corporation and the petitioner/appellants have taken possession of the flats. They had, therefore, no right either as tenants or otherwise in the suit premises. This is also clear from the letter of May 28, 1980, which is exhibit-6 to the petition addressed by them to the secretary of the society, in which they have stated in clear terms as under :'In the circumstances, this is to put on record that except as and by way of temporary alternate accomodation, we have no right, title...
Waman Hari PeThe Vs. Collector of Customs (P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1988
Reported in: (1989)(23)LC70Tri(Mum.)bai
1. All these 11 appeals arise out of and are directed against the order-in-original bearing No. XVII(GC)6-19/80/1183 dated 9.3.1983 passed by the Collector of Customs (P), Bombay.2. As these appeals involve common questions of law and facts they were clubbed together, heard together and hence this common order.3. During the hearing of these appeals Shri Deshmukh brought to my notice that the appellant in appeal No. 63/83 had died on 26.9.87. No application was made within the prescribed time for bringing the legal representatives of the said appellant on record. But then, he has sumbitted that he was one of the partners of the firm.4. Since the firm as well as the other partners were already on record, the challenge if any made by the deceased appellant insofar as the penalty on the firm would still be valid but then his appeal insofar as the penalty on him stands abated and therefore his appeal insofar as it relates to penalty on him personally, is rejected as abated. M/s. Waman Hari...
Premier Education Society and ors. Vs. I.K. Kirpalani and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1988
Reported in: 1988(3)BomCR365; (1988)90BOMLR642
Sujata Manohar, J.1. The 1st respondent I.K. Kripalani is the Head Master of A.M. Kewalramani Premier High School, Sion East, Bombay, 400 022. This school is run by Premier Education Society (the 1st petitioner). This is a society registered under the Society Registration Act as well as under the Bombay Public Trusts Act. The said school was first founded at Karachi (Sind) in 1935. After the partition of the country the school had to be closed down at Karachi. It was started a fresh at Bombay and is established and administered by a minority community of Sindhies . It is an accepted position that this is a private school run by a minority community.2. Under section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Employees of private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 the management of the school as such minority school has notified the names of three persons employed in the school including the Head of the school to the Deputy Director of Education for the purposes of the said Act.3. In Nove...
Manohar Gajanan Joshi Vs. S.B. Kulkarni and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1988
Reported in: 1988(4)BomCR116
Pendse, J.1. The petitioner is resident of Bombay and a social worker and prominent leader of Shiv Sena, a political organization. The petitioner is also a member of Bombay Municipal Corporation and Member of Legislative Council. The petitioner visits various places in State of Maharashtra with a view to propound the philosophy of his organization. The petitioner claims that his organization is acquiring strength in urban as well as rural areas of State of Maharashtra and there is large following, especially of the young people in areas situate outside Greater Bombay. The petitioner's organization contested elections of Aurangabad Municipal Corporation held in the month of April 1988 and Shiv Sena emerged as single largest party with 27 Corporators duly elected. The election of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor of the Corporation caused quite an upheaval as Shiv Sena was unable to get elected their Mayor and Deputy Mayor in spite of being a single largest group. The Congress (I) party was abl...
Jawahar Co-operative Industrial Estate Ltd. Vs. Official Liquidator, H ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1988
Reported in: (1988)90BOMLR635; [1991]70CompCas70(Bom)
G.H. Guttal J.1. The short question in this judge's summons is whether the company which has been ordered to be wound up ceases to hold any interest in the immovable property owned by it as a member of a co- operative society, registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. 2. The applicant, a co-operative society, seeks an order that plots Nos.84 and 85 together with the building standing thereon held by the company as a member of the society, be returned to them along with the structures. The Vibro Chemi Machinery Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the company'), was ordered to be wound up by an order of this court dated June 3, 1985. The applicants claim that the company is indebted to them to the extent of Rs. 2,29,708.03 in respect of the outgoings such as taxes. The society has lodged its claim for this amount with the official liquidator on February 5,1986. 3. Two points are urged by the applicants :(i) The bye-laws of the society provide that any individu...
R.D. Surve, Bombay Vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., Bombay and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1988
Reported in: 1988(3)BomCR709; (1989)ILLJ384Bom; 1987MhLJ1089
Dharmadhikari, J.1. As both these appeals arise out of the order passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1599 of 1985 and Writ Petition No. 2360 of 1985, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The main question, which is raised in these appeals relates to the interpretation of Item No. 1 in Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. Item No. 1 of the said Schedule reads as under :-1. To discharge or dismiss employees - (a) by way of victimisation; (b) not in good faith, but in the colourable exercise of the employer's rights; (c) by falsely implicating an employee in a criminal case on false evidence or on concocted evidence; (d) for patently false reasons; (e) on untrue or tramped up allegations of absence without leave; (f) in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice in the conduct of domestic inquiry or with undue haste; (g) for misconduct of a minor o...
Rajesh Govind Virkar and ors. Vs. S.K. Mahajan and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1988
Reported in: 1988(4)BomCR295
H. Suresh, J.1. For the sins of the management of an educational institution, should the students be made to suffer That is the question which is highlighted in this writ petition.2. The petitioners and respondents Nos. 4 to 17 are the students who joined a polytechnic run by respondents Nos. 1 and 1-A on the strength of certain representation contained in the prospectus issued for the year 1987-88. They also rely on an order passed by this Court in an earlier writ petition filed by the respondents Nos. 1 and 1-A.3. Respondents Nos. 1 and 7-A, husband and wife, are connected with an institution known as Engineering Educational Trust. It appears that the said trust was established in the year 1969 and it is a registered public trust. The said trust started a polytechnic at Dombivli for diploma course in engineering education and sought Government recognition. The Government gave recognition to the institution initially by an order dated June 15, 1984 and subsequently by another order da...
Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. R.D. Surve
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1988
Reported in: (1989)91BOMLR29
C.S. Dharmadhikari, J.1. As both these appeals arise out of the order passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1599 of 1985 and Writ Petition No. 2360 of 1985, they were beard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The main question, which is raised in these appeals relates to the interpretation of Item No. 1 in Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices, Act, 1971. Item No. 1 of the said Schedule reads as under:1 To discharge or dismiss employees--(a) by way of victimisation;(b) by falsely implicating an employee in a criminal case on false evidence or on concocted evidence;(c) for patently false reasons;(d) on untrue or trumped up allegations of absence without leave;(e) in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice in the conduct of domestic inquiry or with undue haste;(f) for misconduct of a minor or technical character, without having any regard to the nature of the particular mi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »