Mumbai Court February 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.
State of Maharashtra and Others Vs. Ramanlal Pvt. Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-1989
Reported in: [1989(59)FLR120]; (1989)IILLJ349Bom
S.K. Desai, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order of the Writ Judge giving interim relief in the Writ Petition. We need not repeat the facts as they have been fully set out in the order of the Single Judge. However, a few points may be noted. The petitioner before the Writ Judge, Who will be referred to as 'the employer', made an application before the 7th Labour Court, Bombay, under Sections 78, 79 and 97 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, which application was numbered as Application (LCB) No. 12 of 1988. In the application, a declaration was sought regarding an alleged strike resorted to by the workman in the employer's Mills from 27th October, 1988 as illegal. An application for interim relief was filed purportedly under Section 119-D of the said Act. On 28th October, 1988. Fourfold interim relief was granted by the Labour Court. The employer asked for police assistance in carrying out the order of the Labour Court. The police did not assist the employer or to ...
Deokumari and anr. Vs. Ramkhilawan Jagdeo Singh (Deceased) by His Heir ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-1989
Reported in: 1989(1)BomCR583
Sharad Manohar, J.1. The only question that arises for decision in Writ Petition No. 190 of 1982 which is the main petition is whether the payments of monthly rent or monthly compensation made by the tenant satisfies the testes of reasonable punctuality laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Mohan Laxman Hede 1988 MhRCJ 313 : 1988(3) Bom.C.R. 260 or whether the petitioner is such a recalcitrant tenant that he cannot avail of the extended protection given to tenants in general by the said judgment.2. The relevant facts, about which there is no dispute, are as follows :-(a) The premises consist of a cattle shed divided into 25 adjacent portions. Each portion is called a 'Khila', that is to say a nail to which a buffalo is tethered. Each of the khilas is looked upon as an independent tenement, satisfying the definition of the word 'premises' an contemplated by the Bombay Rent Act. It is the petitioner's case that they are the tenants in respect of a much larger area consisting of m...
Kaliram and Etc. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)BomCR475
Deshpande, J.1. Accused 1 Kaliram and accused 2 Bansilal were convicted by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati under Ss. 302 and 376 read with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to death. Confirmation Case No. 2 of 1988 arises out of the reference made by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge in respect of the sentence of death while Criminal Appeals Nos. 244 and 245 of 1988 have been filed by the accused 1 and 2 respectively questioning their conviction and sentence.2. The incident out of which the prosecution arose, occurred in the night between February 15 and 16, 1988 in the village Surali jungle in the field belonging to one Vishnupant Bhujade. The accused No. 1 Kaliram was employed as Vishnupant Bhujade's agricultural servant. Accused 1 Kaliram and his wife used to reside in Vishnupant's house in a separate room. Vishnupant had a hut in his agricultural land in the outskirts of the village. The accused 1 met Ramu Mawasi about 5 days before the incident and introduce...
Prabhakar Mahadeo Pokale Vs. State of Goa and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)BomCR107; (1989)91BOMLR124; 1990CriLJ1610
Kamat, J.(1) This is a habeas corpus petition for quashing and setting aside an order of detention bearing No. 14/11/88-HD(G) dated 25th November, 1988 where under Mangaldas Gajanan Kanekar has been taken under detention in the exercise of the powers by the State Government under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 with a view to preventing him from abetting the smuggling of goods. The Petition has been instituted by Prabhakar Mahadeo Pokale styling himself as a friend of the detenu Mangaldas Kanekar on the averment that he is interested in the life, welfare and personal liberty of the detenu.(2) The detention order dated 25th November, 1988 was served on the detenu pari passu with the grounds of detention by the requirement of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India on 2nd December, 1988 and the detenu is in detention since that at Central Jail at Aguada. The grounds, Annexure 'B' to the Petition mention that sometim...
Shamkant Tukaram Naik Vs. Smt. Dayanabai Shamsan Dighodkar and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-1989
Reported in: 1989(1)BomCR554; 1989MhLJ857
1. By this petition the petitioner seeks action against respondents 1, 2 and 2-A under the Contempt of Courts Act for having committed wilful breach of the undertaking dated the 26th November 1986 given by respondent 1 to this Court in Writ Petition No. 4805 of 1985.2. The petitioner being the landlord of a one room premises admeasuring about 18 ft. x 13 ft. had filed Suit No. 61 of 1976 against respondent 1 under the Rent Act for possession. By a judgment and decree dated the 13th September 1982 a decree for possession was passed against respondent 1. She challenged the said decree by filing Appeal No. 151 of 1982, but that appeal was dismissed on the 21st September 1985. Being aggrieved, she preferred in this Court Writ Petition No. 4805 of 1985 and that petition met the same fate and was rejected on the 7th November 1985. However, time to vacate the suit premises was granted up to 6th December 1986 on her giving an undertaking which she gave on the 26th November 1986. By this undert...
Mansukhlal Chhaganlal Desai, Bombay Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-1989
Reported in: 1989(40)ELT314(Bom)
ORDER1. In these two petitions, the question is whether Foley Balloon Catheters are suction catheters and are, therefore, covered by Serial No. 32 of a notification which grants total exemption from the customs duty. This question had arisen earlier and the matter was considered by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as 'the CEGAT', in P.R. Parekh v. Collector of Customs, Bombay (Appeal No. CD(SS) A. No. 437/84-C) and by a judgment dated 29th of June 1984, the Tribunal held that Foley Balloon Catheters are covered by the expression 'suction catheters' and are, therefore, eligible for duty exemption as per the notification referred to above. There are in fact two notifications. One is Notification No. 208/81 dated 22nd of September 1981 and another is Notification No. 265/82 dated 30th of November 1982. While so holding, the CEGAT took into account the opinion given by the Director General of Health Services. The opinions of other persons w...
Roussel Pharmaceuticals (India) Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-1989
Reported in: 1989(25)LC315(Bombay); 1989(42)ELT374(Bom)
ORDER1. By this writ petition the petitioners are challenging the validity of a notification dated 3rd November, 1988 issued by the Government of India under which the Government of India, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Section 26A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, hereinafter referred as 'the Act', has banned the manufacture of fixed dose combination of corticosteroids with any other drug for internal use.2. The petitioners are manufacturers of a drug called 'Cartasmyl', which is a fixed dose of combination of corticosteroids and bronchodilators. They contend that this drug is of great benefit to asthma patients. They also contend that the ban imposed by the aforesaid notification has been done without being properly satisfied, as required under Section 26A of the Act.3. Few facts need to be mentioned. Sometime in the year 1980 the question of the rationality or otherwise of the various fixed dose combinations then available in the market began to exercise the mind o...
Shakuntala Vs. Mahesh Atmaram Badlani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-1989
Reported in: AIR1989Bom353; 1989(1)BomCR515; (1989)91BOMLR154; I(1990)DMC270
1. The appellant-wife and the respondent-husband were married under Hindu rites on 25th Sept. 1974. On 24th Sept., 1975 the husband filed a petition (being M.J. Petition No. 7405 of 1975) in the City Civil Court at Bombay for annulment of the marriage on the ground of the wife's relative inportency. A petition for divorce on the ground of desertion was thereafter filed by the husband (being M/J. Petition no. 427 of 1983).2. Consent terms were taken on 10th January, 1984 in the petition for annulment. By CI.(1) thereto the petition for divorce was agreed to be heard immediately and the evidence of the husband recorded in the petition for annulment was agreed to be read as evidence therein, by CI.(2) the wife stated that she did not desire to contest the petition for divorce and had no objection to it being made absolute. By CI (3) the wife agreed not to challenge the legality or validity of the husband's second marriage. Clauses(4) and (5) read thus.;' (4) Parties to address the Hon'ble...
Vasant Digambar Kamble Vs. Sou. M.B. Deshmukh and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-1989
Reported in: [1989(59)FLR92]; (1995)IIILLJ227Bom
Pendse, J. 1. The dispute in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is about the inter se seniority between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 in the services in the College run by respondent No. 3 The relevant facts which led to the filing of this petition are as follows:2. The petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in the Senior College at Barsi on July 30, 1973 and the petitioner was taking Lectures in the subject of English. The appointment of the petitioner was in a permanent vacancy caused by resignation of Prof. Mr. Pitake and the duration of this appointment was for a period of one year. The appointment of the petitioner was approved by the Executive Council of Shivaji University to which Barsi College is affiliated. The service of the petitioner was continued for academic year 1974-75 also and on March 14, 1975, the petitioner was informed that his services are not required from June 15, 1975 onwards. By appointment order dated March 31, 1975, the ...
Vidarbha Metallica Vs. First Labour Court and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-1989
Reported in: [1989(59)FLR167]; (1993)IIILLJ554Bom
H.D. PateI, J. 1. The above petitions arise as a consequence of two contradictory findings on the same matter in the same establishment in respect of the workmen employed at the same place by the two different Presiding Officers of the Labour Court exercising the same jurisdiction. To clarify further a bunch of applications were filed by individual employees under Sub-section (2) of Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming difference in the wages paid and payable under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The bunch of applications were allotted to the two different Presiding Officers of the Labour Court at Nagpur. The proforma of the applications filed was identical. Only the names of employees, length of service rendered and amount claimed were different. The learned Presiding Officer of the IIIrd Labour Court, who decided the applications earlier was of the opinion that the minimum wages as fixed for the employment in the engineering industry were not applicable to the w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »