Mumbai Court January 1989 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.
Shaik Haroon Vs. Anand Mahadev Naik and 4 ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-1989
Reported in: 1(1989)ACC509
G.F. Couto, J.1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 31st January, 1985, whereby the learned Presiding officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Margao, dismissed the application for compensation filed Under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act by the appellant.2. On 30th June, 1982, an accident took place on the Margao-Vasco road. The appellant sustained injuries in that accident. He was travelling on that particular date in the bus GOT-2366 and proceeding from Margao to Vasco, when the vehicle reached Senaulim and at the turn of a road, pick-up boaring registration No. GDZ 5447 came in opposite direction. The appellant was sitting on the driver's side and on the last seat at the rear of the bus. It appears that, at the time of crossing each other, the vehicles were too near to one another, and therefore, there was an impact between the rear part of the bus and the body of the pick up, and in the process, the appellant got some injuries to his right arm which re...
New Plastomers India Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1989
Reported in: 1989(23)LC89(Bombay); 1989(42)ELT223(Bom)
1. The dispute in the petition is whether the consignments which the petitioners seek to clear from warehouse are Polyphenylene Oxide as described by Item No. 3 in exemption notification dated March 1, 1987 issued under sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Customs Act and in notification issued under sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules in respect of countervailing duty Shri Jayakar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the various consignments were imported and were deposited in the warehouse and from time to time were cleared by the Customs authorities on accepting the claim of the petitioners that the goods imported are Polyphenylene Oxide. The grievance of the petitioners is that in respect of the last consignment to be cleared the respondents have raised objection that exemption notification are not available and the ad valorem duty should be paid. Shri Jayakar complains that neither any notice was given not the petitioners were furn...
Krishna G. Naik Borkar and anr. Vs. Kadamba Transport Corpn. Ltd. and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1989
Reported in: [1989(59)FLR28]; (1993)IIILLJ22Bom
Kamat, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to quash the communication dated 18th September, 1986, made by the Under Secretary, Industries and Labour Department of the Government of Goa, whereby the Government has refused to refer the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner and his Union, the second petitioner, for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and, in our view, this petition can be disposed of by a short order.2. The petitioner had been the driver with respondent No. 1, Kadamba Transport Corporation. On 19th June, 1985, he was driving the bus belonging to respondent No. 1 between Margoa and Gaodongri. It is alleged against the driver that he had permitted one Tulsidas Nagvenkar, who was otherwise the conductor of that bus, to drive the bus and at the relevant time, the petitioner stood behind his back guiding him in the matter of driving that bus. Respondent No. 1 considered this as miscond...
H.M. Date Vs. Ramaji Son of Bholaji Bind
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)BomCR150
M.S. Ratnaparkhi, J.1. The order passed by the Additional Judge Court of Small Causes Nagpur on 17-10-1987 below Exhibit-1 in M.J.C. No. 92/86 rejecting the petitioner's application for restitution has been challenged in this revision.2. The facts in this case are admitted. The respondent Ramaji Bind instituted a suit for eviction of the petitioner in the Court of Small Causes at Nagpur. It was Civil Suit No. 1146 of 1983. The suit came to be decreed on 16-10-1984. Civil Revision Application No. 1096 of 1984 was filed against that judgement in this Court and it was dismissed on merits on 15-2-1985. Regular Darkhast No. 817 of 1985. While the Darkhast was pending a pronouncement reported in 1986 Mh.L.J. 882 1 declaring the notificating issued under Clause 30 of the Rent Control Order and Part III of the said order ultra vires was made. This pronouncement was made on 29-8-1986. In the Darkhast the plaintiff- respondent obtained a warrant of possession from the Court and the property cove...
Bhagwat Anantrao Deshmukh Vs. Suresh Balbhim Lale and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1989
Reported in: 1989(1)BomCR569; (1989)91BOMLR705
Sharad Manohar, J.1. The question in this petition relates to the validity of 5 ballot papers recording or, rather, purporting to record votes in favour of the present petitioner, who was contesting the election of the village Ghatane Gram Panchayat. The respondent was the other candidate. Including the impugned 5 ballot paper, the petitioner received 54 votes, whereas the respondent undisputedly, received 52 votes. This evidently means that even if 3 out of the 5 impugned ballot papers are held to be invalid, the result emanating from the judgment of the lower Court shall have to be upheld. If only two of them are rejected, then it shall be equality of votes and hence the election will have to be held by the spin of the coin. It is only if the present petitioner succeeds in establishing that at least 4 out of the 5 impugned ballot papers cannot be invalidated that he can succeed in this petition and can be declared as elected.2. Let me straightaway go to the question of the nature of ...
Smt. Misribai Ramkuvar Pandit and anr. Vs. Chandrahas Narayan Shetty a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1989
Reported in: 1989(1)BomCR564
Sharad Manohar, J.1. Neither law or equity can justify interference with the impugned order passed by the lower Court.2. The facts are very simple.The present petitioners are original defendants Nos. 1 & 2. They are the owners and builders of some property. The original plaintiff is present respondent No. 1. He claims to have entered into agreement for purchase of one of the flats in the building which was being constructed by original defendants Nos. 1 & 2. But his case is that he did not enter into agreement for such purchase directly with defendants Nos. 1 & 2, but with defendant No. 3, who, the plaintiff claims, was acting as the agent of the builders, defendants Nos. 1 & 2. Present respondent No. 3, who was original defendant No. 4, was the person who had purchased the self same suit flat from defendants Nos. 1 & 2. Evidently, his interest is the same as that of defendants Nos. 1 & 2.The plaintiff's contention was that he had entered into an agreement with defendant No. 3 as agent...
Parle Bottling Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Regional Dir. Employees' State In ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-1989
Reported in: [1989(59)FLR320]; (1995)IIILLJ394Bom
Sawant, J. 1. The Insurance Inspector in the present case had noticed some vouchers presented by the salesmen in the employment of the appellant company. These vouchers included charges for hiring casual coolies from the road/street as an extra help for unloading the crates from the trucks of the company at various places where the bottles were to be supplied. There is no dispute that the salesmen were given the assistance of two permanent loaders for doing the job. However, the coolies hired by the salesmen were by way of an additional help to the said loaders. On the basis of the hiring charges of the said coolies mentioned in the said vouchers, the Insurance Inspector issued a notice to the appellant company to show cause as to why an additional contribution towards employees' insurance be not recovered from it in respect of the coolies so hired. The company replied-stating that the coolies so engaged were casual helpers picked up on the spot whenever salesmen found it necessary to ...
The Superintendent of Customs (Preventive) Vs. Abdulla Mohammed Gani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-1989
Reported in: 1989(24)ECC37
H. Suresh, J.1. These two applications, made by the Superintendent of Customs, are for the purpose of cancellation of the order of anticipatory bail granted to each of the respondents on December 26, 1988.2. It appears that on or about November 10, 1988 the custom authorities confiscated about 750 gold bars of ten tolas each, contained in an unaccompanied baggage at the Sahar Airport. When the customs authorities started investigation, the respondents came to this Court and made an application that they apprehended that they would be arrested by a customs authorities and that, therefore, they be released on anticipatory bail.3. The learned Judge, who heard these applications, observed that there was nothing to connect them with the discovery of the said suit-case containing the contraband and that, therefore, in those circumstances he passed an order that if they are arrested they shall be released on bail in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 each with one surety each.4. But, the customs authori...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›