Mumbai Court September 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.
Kusum Baburao Dhemre Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-1988
Reported in: 1988(4)BomCR397
H.W. Dhabe, J.1. The main grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that she was not given the legitimate promotions to her in her service in the Department of Public Health and Medical Education of the State Government.2. The facts are that the petitioner who is a Scheduled Caste Candidate passed 3 1/2 year Diploma Course in General Nursing and Midwifery in 1967. She also passed an additional Diploma Course in Auxiliary Nursing and Midwifery in 1960. She was registered with the Nursing Council of the State of Maharashtra, originally under the provisions of the C.P & Berar Nurses Registration Act on 5-1-1967, and thereafter under the Maharashtra Nursing Council Act. She was then appointed as a Staff-Nurse in the pay-scale of Rs. 125-5-145 in the District Hospital, Akola, by the order dated 4-3-1967. During her service, she was deputed for B.Sc. (Post-Basic) Degree Course in Nursing on 26-6-1970. She obtained the said degree in 1973. After obtaining the said degree, she was a...
Satara Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Bom53; 1988(4)BomCR303; (1988)90BOMLR485
Sawant, J.1. By its judgment of December 16, 1987, a Division Bench of this Court had referred the first of the above Writ Petitions, namely, Writ Petition No. 5913 of 1987 to Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constituting a Larager Bench in view of what it considered to be a conflict between the view taken consistently by the Division Benches at Bombay and the views expressed by the Division Bench Aurangabad in Writ Petition No. 22 of 1987. (The Division Bench has also stated in its referring judgment that the view expressed in Writ Petition No. 22 of 1987 (before the Aurangabad Bench) is in conflict with the view expressed by a Bench at Bombay in its decision reported in : AIR1987Bom248 , Rahuri Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd v. State). The Hon'ble the chief Justice has therefore referred the said Petition to a Full Bench.Four other Petitions, i.e. Wirt Petitions Nos. 1811, 1890, 1901 and 1913 of 1987 pending before the Aurangabad Bench on the same point were also subsequently transferred ...
Mohibali Roashanali Naser Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Bom237; (1989)91BOMLR506; 1990(25)ECC263
ORDER1. This petition seeks to challenge the order dated the 8th Sept. 1986 passed by the Assistant Director. Enforcement (FERA), the respondent No.2 purporting to be one under S. 33(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act . 1973. By an amendment to the petition it further seeks to challenge the order of adjudication dated the 20th June 1988 passed under Sec. 63.2. The petitioner is a Travel Agent carrying on business in the firm name of Alshaya Nassar Travels. Respondent No. 1 is the Union of India and the respondent No.2 is the Assistant Director (Enforcement) Respondent No.3 is a Bank authorised by the Reserve Bank of India to deal in foreign exchange.3. The petitioner, in the course of his business, in the month of June/July 1986 has arranged the passage of two groups of passengers to Hai. The first such group consisting of 200 passengers were scheduled to travel on the 20th July 1986 and the second group of 269 passengers on the 27th July 1986. On the 8th July 1986 the petition...
Harish Dwarkadas Gandhi Vs. G.B. Yadav and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1988
Reported in: 1988(3)BomCR331; 1988(18)ECC287
ORDER1. While dealing with this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution read with S. 482, Criminal P.C., 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for quashing of process issued by the learned Chief Matropolitan Magistrate, Bombay, in Criminal Case No. 472/CW/1988, at the admission stage, I am reminded of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Champalal Punjaji Shah, : 1981CriLJ1273 as under :'It is one of the sad and distressing features of our criminal justice system that an accused person, resolutely minded to delay the day of reckoning, may quite conveniently and comfortably do so, if he can but afford the cost involved, by journeying back and forth, between the Court of first instance and the superior Courts, at frequent interlocutory stages. Applications abound to quash investigations, complaints and charges on all imaginable grounds, depending on the ingenuity of client and counsel. Not frequently, as soon as a court takes cogniz...
Ramesh Sippy and Etc. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Bom250; 1988(3)BomCR642; (1988)90BOMLR578; 1989MhLJ165
1. As all these writ petitions involve common questions of law and fact they wee heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The petitioners are proprietors of video game parlous at Bombay and Sangli. The said parlours have number of mechanical, electro-mechanical and electronic games. It is the case of petitioners that video games were introduced for the first time in the year 1980. At that time the said games were a great novelty and attracted considerable public interest, as a consequence of which the takings from operation of the said machines were quite higher. However thereafter public interest in the said games has declined sharply, with a corresponding marked decline in the profits. It is then contended by them that the actual taking in the case of a particular shop and for a particular machine would very greatly depending upon the number of factors such as, the area or locality in which the games parlour is located, whether the machine in question is a ...
Govind Raghe Khairnar and anr. Vs. Khan Wahid Ali Maddan Khan and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1988
Reported in: 1989(1)BomCR434
A.D. Tated, J.1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and section 482 Cri.P.C. has been filed for quashing the process issued by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 38th Court, Ballard peir, Bombay, on 24th September, 1987 in case No, A-38/ Misc. of 1986 against the petitioners-accused for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 I.P.C.2. The petitioner No. 1-accused No. 1 in the year 1986 was working as Senior Ward Officer on special Duty (Removal of Enchroachment), Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, and the petitioner No. 2-accused No. 2 was a police constable attached to the Bombay Police Force and was deputed as bodyguard to the accused No. 1 The case of the accused is that the accused No. 1 was required to perform by the nature of his duty a number of acts which were fully legal but unpalatable to persons unconnected with those duties. The accused No. 1 as Ward Officer on Special Duty had jurisdiction all over Bomba...
Ramlal Son of Mohanlal Maraskolhe Vs. the Commissioner Workmen's Compe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1988
Reported in: [1989(59)FLR61]; (1993)IIILLJ33Bom
V.A. Mohta, J. 1. During the course of employment with respondent No. 2 M/s. Ajaipal Mangal and Company-civil contractor-a female coolie Ku. Ratulabai daughter of Mohanlal Maraskolhe met with an accidental and instantaneous death on 17th May 1983. A sum of Rs. 16,800/- was deposited by way of compensation to be paid to the legal heir on 12th October 1984 with the Commissioner, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (the Act). Sole legal heir of Ratulabai-her younger brother Ramlal, the petitioner - filed an application under Section 8 of the Act on 10th March 1987, claiming the amount, interest and penalty for delayed deposit at the rate of 50% from the second respondent. The second respondent resisted the application inter alia, on the ground that the employee was insured against such a claim, the Insurance Company was moved in the matter and the delay was on the part of the Insurance Company. The petitioner thereafter applied for amendment and joined the insurance company-respond...
Ramlal Vs. the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation Act and Ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1988
Reported in: 1(1989)ACC296
V.A. Mohta, J.1. During the course of employment with respondent No. 2 M/s. Ajaipal Mangal and Company, a civil contractor, a female coolie Ku. Ratulabai daughter of Mohanlal Marasokole met with an accidental and instantaneous death on 17th May 1983. A sum of Rs. 16,800/- was deposited by way of compensation to be paid to the legal heir on 12th October 1984 with the Commissioner, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (the Act). Sole legal heir of Ratulabai, her younger brother Ramlal, the petitioner filed an application under Section 8 of the Act on 10th March 1987, claiming the amount, interest and penalty for delayed deposit at the rate of 50% from the second respondent. The second respondent resisted the application, inter alia, on the ground that the employee was insured against such a claim, the Insurance Company was moved in the matter and the delay was on the part of the Insurance Company. The petitioner thereafter applied for amendment and joined the Insurance Company resp...
M.S. Shastri Vs. Hilla M. Batliwalla and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1988
Reported in: 1989(1)BomCR138
Sharad Manohar, J.1. The main question involved in this writ petition is nothing but arithmetical calculation. There are other questions involved, but the petition is capable of being decided even without deciding those questions. However, it is also true that if those question are decided in favour of the respondent landlady, then on these questions as well, all by themselves, the present petition is capable of being decided against the present petitioner.2. I will first state the skeletal facts necessary for formulating the questions arising in the petition.(A) The dispute relates to a three bed-room Flat, admeasuring about 1500 sq.ft. It includes also a garage on the ground floor. There is no dispute that the flat is in a building belonging to the Co-operative Housing Society and that it belongs to the respondent (who will be referred to hereafter as the Landlady). Admittedly M/s. Kailas Castings Pvt. Ltd., (who will be referred to as defendant No. 1) entered into agreement of leave...
Hiralal Anandji Maru Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1988
Reported in: 1989(1)BomCR135
S.N. Khatri, J.[The following portion of the judgment is reported as per the directions of His Lordship]1.-30. xxx xxx xxx31-A. Before parting with the evidence on recoveries made by the police in consequence of information given by the accused, we would like to make some observations on the omission of the learned Sessions Judge to carefully dissect from the rest, the portion of the accused's statement which would attract section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The panchnama in question are Exhibits 90 and 80. Exhibit 90 relates to the statement made by the accused at about 4.00 p.m. on 22nd August, 1984, offering the police to take to the shops of the jewellers where he had pawned the silver anklets and the Mohanmal (articles 15 and 16). Exhibit 80 is the panchnama of the accused's statement made by him on the same day at 8.15 p.m. offering to lead the police to the shop of the jeweller with whom he had pawned the gold chain Article 17. A perusal of these two panchnamas will show that...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »