Mumbai Court October 1989 Judgments
Shrikrushna Sadashiv Dhamankar Vs. the Nasik Merchants Co-operative Ba ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-27-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Bom90; 1990(1)BomCR223
ORDERJahagirdar, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to challenge the order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Nasik Division, dismissing the election petition which was filed by the petitioner challenging the election of respondents Nos, 4 to 11 to the Managing Commiitee of the Nasik Merchants Cooperative Bank Ltd., which is respondent No. 1 in this petition. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are the District Collector of Nasik and the Sub-Divisional Officer of Nasik Division -- they having had to discharge certain functions in connection with the election that was held. The election was challenged by the petitioner on a ground which is available under Section 144-I(6) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Respondents Nos. 12 to 14 were joined in the petition because, according to the petitioner, respondents Nos. 4 to 11 have committed corrupt practice during the election for themselves and for respondents Nos. 12 to 14.2. The facts lead...
Tag this Judgment!i.C. Corporation Vs. Daewoo Corporation and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-27-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Bom152; 1990(1)BomCR109; 1989MhLJ1136
ORDER1. This Chamber Summons by the Defendants Nos. 1 and 2, Corporations having their registered offices in Korea, is for the issue of a commission or a letter of request for examining their witnesses by names H. K. Chae and J. B. Lee who are currently residents of Seoul, Korea.2. The question of issuing a commission to examine a witness resident out of India is not always easy. The interests of justice, the Court's power created by the Code of Civil Procedure, the principles which govern the exercise of discretion, and a host of complex factors must enter the final verdict. Yet to begin with the principles which emerge from an analysis of the scheme of the Code of Civil Procedure must form the primary foundation of a decision. A brief analysis of the scheme of the Code of Civil Procedure in regard to the issue of commissions is, therefore, of importance. Commissions are issued to examine any person or to do other acts such as local inspection, examination of accounts, making partitio...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhakar Govindrao Bokade Vs. Mangala Prabhakar Bokade
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-26-1989
Reported in: II(1990)DMC67; 1992MhLJ1098
W.M. Sambre, J.1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Revision No. 2241 of 87 confirming the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, F.C., Nagpur in Misc. Criminal Application No. 23 of 83, the applicant has filed this revision alleging that the order passed by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur is illegal and the same is liable to be quashed.2. Mr. Sirpurkar, the learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the findings of the Courts below are patently incorrect and they are in violation of the principles of natural justice. Even from the evidence of Narayan, he contended that it was clear that the non-applicant No. 1 herself was of bad character and she made to oust the applicant front the house with a specific intention to procure maintenance from the applicant. He contended that the story about the illicit relations with Prabha is nothing but a figment of imagination. He also stated that the evidence of PW 3 Bha...
Tag this Judgment!The Indian Tobacco Co. Ltd. Vs. the Industrial Court and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-25-1989
Reported in: 1990(2)BomCR184; (1990)IILLJ236Bom
1. The petitioner is a Public Limited Company having branches throughout the country. One such branch is also at Nagpur and is registered under the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948. According to the petitioner, the employment of persons in the branch never exceeded seven in number.2. The respondent No. 2 was appointment on probation as a Sales Representative for the establishment at Nagpur under the contract of employment vide order dated 14th February 1984. The relevant terms of the contract are reproduced below :'1. You will be placed on probation in the designation 'Sales Representative' for a period of 12 months commencing from 14th February, 1984 upto 13th February 1985 or for such extended period as may be determined by Management and as advised to you. 2. ............. 3. ............. 4. ............. 5. You will be bound by the terms and conditions of service as contained in the aforesaid annexure I as well as by the Standing Orders applicable to Nagpur Branch, enclos...
Tag this Judgment!The Indian Tobacco Company Limited Vs. the Industrial Court and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-25-1989
Reported in: (1994)IIILLJ459Bom
H.D. Patel, J.1. The petitioner is a Public Limited Company having branches throughout the country. One such branch is also at Nagpur and is registered under the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948. According to the petitioner, the employment of persons in the branch never exceeded seven in number.2. The respondent No. 2 was appointed on probation as a Sales Representative for the establishment at Nagpur under the contract of employment vide order dated 14.2.1984. The relevant terms of the contract are reproduced below:'1. You will be placed on probation in the designation 'Sales Representative' for a period of 12 months commencing from 14th February, 1984 up to 13th February 1985 or for such extended period as may be determined by Management and as advised to you. 2................ 3................ 4................ 5. You will be bound by the terms and conditions of service as contained in the aforesaid Annexure-I as well as by the Standing Orders applicable to Nagpur Branch, ...
Tag this Judgment!M.B. Impex Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-24-1989
Reported in: (1990)LC206Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-original No.S/10-72/89-Gr.I MC114/89 passed by the Collector of Customs on 8-6-1989 confiscating the consignment of 49896 kgs imported as "seeds of Almonds non-peeled quality" under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, giving option to pay fine of Rs. 18.00 lacs in lieu of confiscation and also imposing personal penalty of Rs. 2.00 lacs under Section 112 of the Act on the appellants.2. The appellants imported 2200 bags containing 49896 kgs of Soft Shell Almonds non peeled quality, and claimed clearance against REP import licence dt. 24.7.87, issued under Export Product Gr-G2(i)(a) for fresh fruits, vegetables and flowers. The import was claimed against entry (d) in Column 4 of G2(i)(a) as "Seeds". The authority however found the goods as not importable under the said licence, as the goods imported were "soft shell Almonds" which were direct consumer agricultural product ready for consumption as "dry fruits". Further, the almonds were cover...
Tag this Judgment!Holiram Vs. Yashodabai and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-24-1989
Reported in: I(1990)DMC565
W.M. Sambre, J.1. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 11-5-1988 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No. 7/85 reversing the Judgment and Order passed by the 4th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and J.M.F.C., Gondia, the applicant has filed this criminal revision, on the ground that the applicant was ready and willing to maintain the non-applicant No. 1 and, as such, it was improper on the part of the learned Additional Sessions Judge to grant maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month to the non-applicant No. 1 reversing the Judgment and Order passed by the learned Trial Court. 2. Mrs. Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the applicant, has contended that the applicant never deserted the non-applicant No. 1 wife. On the other hand, she herself deserted and went away to live with her parents. She further contended that the evidence which is placed on record has not been properly appreciated by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. She further contended...
Tag this Judgment!Ramnivas Mahaveerprasad Gupta Vs. Govinddas Bharubakas Karnani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-24-1989
Reported in: (1989)91BOMLR211
M.M. Qazi, J.1. The applicant is the landlord. He initiated the proceedings before the Rent Controller, Akola, for permission to terminate the tenancy of the non-applicant/tenant. The Rent Controller, Akola, granted permission vide order dated 23.11.1972. In pursuance of that permission, the landlord terminated the tenancy of the tenant vide notice dated 1.12.1972 with effect from 31.12.1972 and thereafter filed Civil Suit No. 2 of 1973 for ejectment in January 1973. The tenant Challenged the order of the Rent Controller by way of an appeal before the Resident Deputy Collector, Akola. While the appeal was pending before the Resident Deputy Collector, the landlord withdrew the civil suit on 24.7.1973. The Resident Deputy Collector dismissed the appeal of the tenant on 29.8.1973. The tenant filed a review petition, but the same also came to be dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 25.2.1974. Writ petition was filed thereafter which came to be dismissed on 30th September 1980.2. The lan...
Tag this Judgment!State of Maharashtra Vs. Mahavirohan and Mohanlalji and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-24-1989
Reported in: I(1990)ACC430
W.M. Sambrej, J. 1. Aggrieved by the Order dated 10.2.1984 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, 8th Court, Nagpur, discharging all the four non-applicants-accused of an offence punishable under Sec 408 of the LP.C. the State has filed this revision.2. Main contention of the State is that the non-applicants have filed an application forgetting them discharged from the alleged offence punishable under Section 408 of the I.P.C. on the ground that the jurisdiction of the Court is ousted. It is contended by the non-applicants that the transaction had taken place at Burhanpurand, as such, the Court at Nagpur has no jurisdiction to try the instant case. The complainant Amolak Singh who carries on the business of transport who is the partner of M/S. Janata Road Lines, was entrusted with the goods to be delivered to the non-applicant No. 2 - accused No. 2 for delivering it to its consignee. The goods were to be delivered on submitting bilty by them, but instead of that the accused No....
Tag this Judgment!Prabhavati Sahakari Soot Girni Vs. Collector of Cus. and C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-23-1989
Reported in: (1990)(48)ELT522Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal directed against the order of the Addl. Collector bearing F.No. V(52.03)15-72/Adj/87 7440, dated 20-2-1989. Under the aforesaid order of the Addl. Collector, he has imposed the duty amounting to Rs. 20,822.85 on a quantity of 1,42,325 kgs of cotton yarn on the ground of mis-declaration of counts of yarn produced and cleared and another demand of Rs. 1,02,922.60 on 88,661 kgs of cotton yarn alleged to have been suppressed and not accounted in the R.G.-I register. The Addl. Collector in the impugned order has also demanded central excise duty on a quantity of 110 kgs. of cotton yarn of 40 counts not accounted for by the appellants. The appellants were also imposed with a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- under Rule 9(2) read with Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules.2. The brief facts for the purpose of disposal of this appeal can be stated as below: The appellants' Spinning mills were visited by the Headquarters Preventive Officers of Aurangabad Collectorate on 27-6-1987. O...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »