Mumbai Court October 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.
Secretary Communication Ministry Govt. of India Department of Post and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-23-1989
Reported in: 1991ACJ278; 1990(2)BomCR225
D.J. Moharir, J.1. The learned Additional Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nagpur (Dr. S.S. Wagholikar) made an Award in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 68 of 1986, in favour of the respondent No. 1 Ramrao s/o Baliram Koltake. The Award is for payment of a sum of Rs. 42,000/-. This Award is challenged by the original respondents (appellants here). At the same time, the award is also challenged by the successful claimants/petitioner Ramrao on the ground that it needs to be increased and modified accordingly; he has filed cross objections in that behalf.2. The respondent No. 1 Ramrao is a green grocer. On 11-11-1985 at about 5.30 a.m. when the traffic on the road was admittedly very light, he was riding his bicycle on the Netaji Subash Road, in an east to west direction, towards the Cotton Market, on a way to Fule Market for purchase of vegetables and sale thereof also there, as a petty vegetable vendor. Near a place called the Dadaji Dhuniwale Ashram, the respondent No. 1 Ramr...
Secretary, Communication Ministry, Govt. of India, Department of P and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-23-1989
Reported in: II(1991)ACC103
D.J. Moharir, J.1. The learned Additional Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nagpur (Dr. S.S. Wagholikar) made an award in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 68 of 1986 in favour of the respondent No. 1, Ramrao s/o Baliram Koltake. The award is for payment of a sum of Rs. 42,000/-. This award is challenged by the original respondents (appellants here). At the same time, the award is also challenged by the successful claimant-petitioner Ramrao on the ground that it needs to be increased and modified accordingly; he has filed cross-objection in that behalf.2. The respondent No. 1 Ramrao is a green grocer. On 11.11.1985 at about 5.30 a.m. when the traffic on the road was admittedly very light, he was riding his bicycle on the Netaji Subhash Road, in an east to west direction, towards the Cotton Market, on his way to Fulc Market for purchase of vegetables and sale thereof also there, as a petty vegetable vendor. Near a place called the Dadaji Dhuniwalc Ashram, the respondent No. 1 Ram...
The Secretary Communication Ministry Govt. of India and ors. Vs. Ramra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-23-1989
Reported in: I(1991)ACC365
D.J. Moharir, J.1. The learned Additional Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nagpur (Dr. S.S. Waghiolkar) made an Award in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 68 of 1986, in favour of the respondent No. 1 Ramrao s/o Bahrain Koltake. The Award is for payment of a sum of Rs. 42, 000/-. This Award is challenged by the original respondents (appellants here). At the same time, the Award is also challenged by the successful claimants/petitioner Ramrao on the ground that it needs to be increased and modified accordingly; he has filed cross objections in that behalf.2. The respondent No. 1 Ramrao is a green grocer. On 11.11.1985 at about 5.5.30 A.M. when the traffic on the road was admittedly very light, he was riding his bicycle on the Netaji S ubhash Road, in an east to west direction, towards the Cotton Market, on a way to Fule Market for purchase of vegetables and sale thereof also there, as a petty vegetable vendor. Near a place called the Dadaji Dhuniwale Asram, the respondent No. 1 ...
Jaidabai Vs. Mohammad Shafi Mohammad Ismile and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-1989
Reported in: II(1990)DMC14
W.M. Sambre, J.1. Aggrieved by the Judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Buldaua in Criminal Revision Application No. 119 of 87 allowing the revision application and quashing the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mehkar in Misc. Criminal Cage No. 70 of 86 granting maintenance to the applicant wife at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month, the applicant-wife has filed this application alleging that the order passed by the Sessions Judge is liable to be quashed and set aside.2. The main contention of the applicant-wife is that the order of the Sessions Judge even on the basis of the Judgment cited i.e. : AIR1961Bom121 is prima facie wrong. She has further contended that the order of the learned Magistrate granting alimony at the rate of Rs. 150/-per month is liable to be sustained.3. It is pertinent to note that the learned Magistrate has granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month to the applicant-wife which was challenged in revision ...
Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-1989
Reported in: 1990(47)ELT213(Bom)
Desai, J.1. There is no return filed, Shri Desai appears and states that he cannot support the impugned order.2. In this matter Rule was issued by us on 5th September 1989. This was after hearing Shri R. V. Desai who appeared and waived service. Return was to be filed before 21st September 1989. Although we are in October and more than one month has passed since the date allowed for filing the return, no return has been filed.3. This Writ Petition bears out the useless and unsatisfactory manner in which officers of the Excise Department carry out their duties and it does not matter whether the officers are attached to this division or that. The purpose of their orders appears to be to classify the product under the heading which will attract the maximum duty irrespective of whether that is the proper classification or not and also without taking into account the decisions of the Tribunal or of the Appellate Collector. Discipline would require that they would be bound by it but the para...
Utrane Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari (V) Socy. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Laxm ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)BomCR217; 1989MhLJ1125
Sujata Manohar, J.1. The 1st petitioner Society is an agricultural co-operative credits Society, registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. Elections to the Managing Committee of the 1st petitioner Society were held on 27-9-1987. The Elections were for the years 1987-1990. Petitioners No. 2 to 7 were elected to the managing Committee of the 1st petitioner Society as a result of this election. Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 who are members of the Society, out of whom respondent No. 3 had contested this election and lost, challenged the election by filling a dispute under section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The Co-operative Court, Nasik, by its judgment dated 4-4-1989 declared the election as null and void and ordered fresh election under the supervision and control of an officer of the Co-operative Department. The petitioners preferred an appeal from this order before the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court at Bombay being Appeal No. 99 of 198...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Shyamrao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-1989
Reported in: I(1990)ACC418
W.M. Sambre, J.1. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Order of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 2, Nagpur, on 4-5-1988, in criminal case No. 296/ 83, acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304A and 337 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant-State has filed this appeal.2. The main contention of the appellant-state is that the accused-respondent, who is the driver of the truck bearing No. MHS-1062, was driving the said truck in a rash and negligent manner at about 10.00 A.M. on 22-8-1983 and gave a dash to a girl named Aparna aged about 12 years who sustained injuries and subsequently expired, and also gave a dash to one Murlidhar, a cyclist, who also sustained injuries. The matter was reported to the Police Station, Sitabuldi, Nagpur and after completion of the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against the accused.3. The prosecution examined in all give witnesses and learned Trial Court, relying upon the evidence of P.W. 3...
Raisaheb Rekhchand Mohota Spinning and Weaving Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. Empl ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-1989
Reported in: [1990(60)FLR842]; (1993)IIILLJ271Bom
Moharir, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in First Appeal No. 4/77 decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court, confirming the dismissal of an applications made by the appellant, under Section 75(g) of the Employees State Insurance Act, seeking certain declarations.2. The said application under Section 75(g) of the Employees State Insurance Act was filed by the appellant in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Hinganghat as the Employees State Insurance Court. The application came to be dismissed on 15.6.1976. The application was dismissed for want of prosecution. The applicant filed the First Appeal under Section 82(2) of the Employees State Insurance Act, the prayer being that the order of the lower court dated 15.6.1976, dismissing his application be set aside and the case be remanded to the said Court for a proper and fair adjudication according to law. In the First Appeal, however, the order passed was that the point which was...
Deepak Nathuram Ambekar Vs. V.K. Saraf (Shri), Commissioner of Police ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)BomCR175
R.A. Jahagirdar, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus has been filed by the petitioner and he challenges the order dated 24th of May, 1989 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, under section 3 of the National Security Act. As the order mentions, the petitioner has been detained with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. Along with the order of detention, the grounds of detention on which the order of detention is based have also been furnished to the petitioner. The petitioner, however, has made a grievance that some of the documents on which the detaining authority necessarily relied before arriving at the subjective satisfaction leading to the passing of the order of detention have not been furnished to him. This is the first line of attack adopted by Mr. Gupte, the learned advocate appearing in support of the petition, though sever...
The Ichalkaranji Co-operative Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs. Deccan Co-operat ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-1989
Reported in: (1991)ILLJ220Bom; (1995)IIILLJ405Bom
M.L. Dudhat, J.1. The present writ petition is filed against the order dated 3rd September 1986 passed by the Industrial Court at Kolhapur in Complaint (ULP) No. 68 of 1983.2. Respondent No. 1 filed the aforesaid complaint under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1971' for the sake of brevity). The main contention of respondent No. 1 union was that a number of employees are employed as badlies and casuals by the petitioner-society for years together only with the idea to deprive them of the benefits of permanency and by doing this act the present petitioner-society has committed an act of unfair labour practice under Schedule IV item 6 and item 9. After going through the affidavits filed by both the sides, the Industrial Court came to the conclusion that out of 1500 employees employed by the petitioner - society only about 385 are permanent and the rest are badlies or casuals. The indus...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »