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.
JoaquIn I.M. Dias Vs. R.S. Ravonkar and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-1989
Reported in: (1991)IILLJ432Bom
H.H. Kantharia, J.1. The petitioner joined the services as a Clerk on December 18, 1963 with Mormugoa Port Trust (hereinafter referred to as 'the third respondent') whose Chairman is the second respondent. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Cashier on July 28, 1976. From August 1978 he was appointed as Cashier on ad hoc basis and then promoted to the said post on regular basis. Ultimately by an order dated 28th April, 1986 he was promoted to the post of Chief Cashier.2. According to the petitioner in the hierarchy of the services in the Accounts Department of the third respondent, Assistant Cashier-III (in the grade of Rs. 800-1014-EB-1484) is the post from which the next promotional post is that of Cashier/Additional Cashier (in the grade of Rs. 880-982-EB-1542) from which post a promotion to the post of Chief Cashier could be had (in the grade of Rs. 965-1229-EB-1679), And the last promotional post is that of Assistant Accounts Officer (cash) in the grade of Rs. 980...
Ashabai Kate (Sau.) Vs. Vithal Bhika Nade
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-1989
Reported in: 1990(3)BomCR229; (1989)91BOMLR177
Lalit Mohan Sharma, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiff-appellant is directed against the decision of the Bombay High Court dismissing her suit for possession of the properties detailed in the plaint.2. The disputed properties belonged to a joint Hindu family governed By Mitakshara law of which one Bhiku and his son Balu were coparceners Bhiku died on June 6, 1942 leaving behind his widow Parvati, the defendant No. 2 in the present suit, and Balu who died soon after his father's demise on July 24, 1942. In November 1942 Balu's widow Lilabai gave birth to a posthumous daughter who is the present appellant. Sometime later Lilabai remarried and thereupon Parvati adopted Vithal, the first defendant in the present suit, in the year 1949. After attaining majority, appellant Ashabai filed the present suit for a decree for possession of the properties with mesne profits and a decree for money for Rs. 3,000/- as expenses of her marriage. She challenged the power of her grand-mother to adopt the f...
Suresh Vs. Sau. Vandana
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-1989
Reported in: I(1990)DMC578
W.M. Sambre, J.1. Aggrieved by the Judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, on 30-9-1988 in Criminal Revision No. 383/87, arising out of the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Akola, in Misc. Criminal Application No. 413/87 dated 17-11-1987, the applicant has come in revision. 2. It is contended that while filling the application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the non-applicant-wife, has stated that her marriage with the applicant had taken place on 26-4-1985 and the applicant-husband used to beat her and scold her. Ultimately, the applicant drove her out of the house and since then she was residing with her parents. 3. Mr. Haq, learned counsel for the applicant, has contended that the applicant was ready to maintain her and the non-applicant-wife herself has deserted. In support of his contention, he stated that the learned Magistrate has given a finding that the allegations of cruelty were not proved. But in spite of this, the learned Ad...
income-tax Officer Vs. Abbott Laboratories (P.) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-1989
Reported in: (1989)31ITD183(Mum.)
1. In view of contradicting decisions of the Division Benches of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, the President of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has constituted a Special Bench under Section 254(3) of the Act to decide the following issue: Whether the expression 'any period of his employment outside India' used in Sub-clause (i) of Clause (b) of Section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, applies only to cases of employees posted either temporarily or permanently abroad or whether it covers also the cases of employees who merely go on foreign tour in connection with the work of the employer? 2. The assessee is a company. The assessment year is 1979-80 and the relevant previous year ended on 30-11-1978.3. During the relevant previous year, the assessee had sent two of its employees viz., S/Shri R.N. Langrana and A.E. Sequira on a foreign tour for few days. In its return of income, the assessee had worked out disallowance of Rs. 1,05,585 under Section 40A(5)/40(c) of the Act. In t...
Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay Vs. State of Maharashtra and O ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)BomCR123; (1989)91BOMLR900; (1990)IILLJ280Bom
1. The applicability or otherwise of the rigour of the relevant provisions of the Bombay Labour Welfare Fund Act of 1953 is the question that is posed in this proceeding for being answered in the context of the rival contentions. The question so posed no doubt falls in a narrow field, though the contentions canvassed on behalf of both the sides fall in a comparatively expanded field, in it is. The petitioners herein are the Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay which is a statutory Corporation constituted under the provisions of the Major Port Trusts Act of 1963. The second respondent is the Welfare Commissioner being the Officer of the first respondent-State of Maharashtra and exercises powers and functions under the provisions of the Bombay Labour Welfare Fund Act (shortly the Act). The third respondent has also been joined being the Maharashtra Labour Welfare Board. The petitioners are undertaking certain activities which according to the respondents got the label of business or t...
R.B. Rajput Vs. Hiralal Bhagwandas Rajput and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)BomCR310; (1989)91BOMLR869
M.L. Dudhat, J1. The petitioner in this Writ Petition has filed this present writ petition against the order dated 14th July, 1987 passed by the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court at Bombay in Appeal No. 1 of 1987 reversing the judgment and order of the Judge, IV Co-operative Court, Bombay in Case No. CIV/793 of 1985 dated 29-8-1985.2. The dispute in this writ petition is about Flat No. 2, Kismat Building at Colaba, admeasuring about 1100 Sq. feet. The said flat was tenanted by the original landlord to respondent No. 1 who is the brother of the present petitioner. It appears that the whole family of respondent No. 1 the petitioner and their parents and other relations were in occupation of the said flat since the year 1963. On 7-5-1971 the landlord expressed his desire to dispose of the said flat to the existing tenants and in pursuance of that the disputant contended that he paid an amount of Rs. 17,840/- as the total consideration towards the flat and the share certificat...
Renusagar Power Company Vs. General Electric Company
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)BomCR561; (1990)92BOMLR70
Sujata Manohar, J1. This is an appeal from a judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of this Court under which he has held a foreign award dated 16th September, 1986 made in Paris under the arbitration rules of the International Chamber of Commerce as enforceable under the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961. He has accordingly passed a decree under section 6 of the Act. The appellants have challenged his findings and decree.Relevant Facts.2. The appellant---Renusagar Power Company Ltd. is a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. Its registered office is at Renukoot, District Mirzapur in Uttar Pradesh. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Limited ('HINDALCO'). The respondent/General Electric Company is a company constituted under the laws of the State of New York. United States of America and carries on its business, inter alia, at 570. Lexington Avenue, New York, U.S.A.3. By a contract in writing dated 24th August...
Kacharu Lakhu Aher Vs. Masjid Mandwad Deosthan and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-1989
Reported in: 1990(3)BomCR261; (1989)91BOMLR186
Sujata Manohar, J.The petitioner claims to be a tenant of the respondents in respect of Survey No. 227 admeasuring 21 acres and 22 gunthas situated at village Mandwad, Taluka Nandgaon, District Nasik and assessed at Rs. 5.50. According to the petitioner he is cultivating this land as a tenant of the respondents for more than 45 years.2. In 1957 the 1st respondent Shaikh Bashir Shaikh Pathan filed a suit against the petitioner under section 29 read with section 31 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 before the Tenancy Court, being Tenancy Suit No. 121 of 1957, for possession on the ground that he required the lands bona fide for personal cultivation. The Tenancy Mahalkari, Nandgaon by his order dated 29-10-1958 held that tenancy of the petitioner to the extent of 1/4th part of the said survey number should be terminated and possession of this 1/4th portion amounting to 5 acres and 15 gunthas should be handed over to the applicant landlord. The petitioner preferred an ...
Narendra Mafatlal Mehta Vs. Dy. Chief Controller of I and E
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1989
Reported in: 1990(46)ELT36(Bom); [1990]46ITR36(Bom)
1. A short but an interesting question has been posed in this Petition and the answer depends on the harmonious construction of the relevant provisions of the Import and Export Policy for the period April-1982 to March-1983 in the context of other aspects. The facts no doubt are very short but the expansion of the arguments in respect of this interpretation is comparatively lengthy. Nonetheless, in my opinion, even such a construction falls in a narrow field and the situation on the harmonious reading of all the provisions appears to be so clear as not to admit any confusion or scope for any other interpretation.2. Only a few facts, therefore, would be necessary to understand the thrust of the controversy which ultimately formulate the question that has been posed. The Petitioner is carrying on the business of importing rough diamonds and exporting out and polished diamonds in this metropolis. He is duty registered with the Directorate of Small Scale Industries and, according to him, h...
General Labour Union (Red Flag) Vs. K.M. Desai and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1989
Reported in: [1990(60)FLR239]; (1990)IILLJ259Bom
1. This writ petition is preferred by the petitioner-union against respondent No. 2 challenging the order dated 23rd January, 1987, passed by the Industrial Court, Bombay. Few facts which are germane to the main issue are as under :2. The present petitioner-union filed a complaint being Complaint (ULP) No. 692 of 1986 against respondent No. 2 - M/s. Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd., Bombay, respondent No. 3 - M/s. K. M. Alwa & Co., (Canteen Contractors) and respondent No. 4 - M/s. Gambir Catering Services, alleging that these respondents indulged in unfair labour practice under Item No. 6 of Schedule-II and Item Nos. 9 and 10 of Schedule-IV of M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act of 1971 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'the said Act of 1971'). It was averred in the said complaint that respondent No. 2 is conducting a canteen for its employees. Till May 1983, the said canteen was conducted by the department of respondent No. 2, but subsequently both the employees as well as...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »