Mumbai Court August 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.
Bharatiya Kamgar Sena Vs. M/S Consolidated Pneumatic Tool Co. (India) ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1989
Reported in: [1990(60)FLR232]; (1992)ILLJ112Bom
1. This writ petition has been filed against the order dated June 15, 1987 passed by the Member of the Industrial Court at Bombay in Complaint (ULP) No. 148 of 1986.2. The petitioner in this case filed the complaint against respondent No. 1 Company under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognisation of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. It is pertinent to note that in this complaint the present respondent No. 3 the recognised union was not made party to the said complaint. The petitioner contended in the said complaint that respondent No. 1 Company committed several acts prohibited under Items 1(a), (e), 2 (a), (b), 4 (a) and (f) of Schedule II and also Items 5 and 10 of Schedule IV. It appears that before the Industrial Court the present petitioner only argued on items 5 and 10 of Schedule IV and withdrew the complaint in respect of other items. The Industrial Court, after hearing both the sides, rejected the contentions made by the present petitioner. Thi...
Severina Ribeiro @ Cardinho (Mrs.) and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1989
Reported in: 1990ACJ804; 1990(3)BomCR17; 1989MhLJ1101
H.H. Kantharia, J.1. While deciding First Appeal No. 181 of 1976 in case of Union of India and another v. Hardeo Dutta Tirtharam and others, : AIR1986Bom350 this Court was at pains to point out that gone are days when the State can contend that 'The King can do no wrong' in the matter of tortious acts of their servants. We are sorry that we have to hear the burden of the same song once again in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The relevant facts giving rise to this petition are as under:One Anthony Bras Cardinho was working as a Storekeeper in the Mental Hospital, Panjim. He had put in 13 years of service with the State Government out of which 9 years as a Storekeeper. On October 6, 1979 he was arrested by the Panjim Town Police on the allegations that he had misappropriated some hospital utensils and plastic-ware worth about Rs. 1500/-. It is contended by the petitioners who are the wife and two sons of the said-Anthony Bras Cardinho that after his arrest he...
Mrs. Lalita D. Nadkarni and Others Vs. S.G. Punjabi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Bom160; 1990(1)BomCR105; 1989MhLJ1074
ORDER1. One Dr. D.S. Nadkarni was the owner of Plot No. 11-C of Town Planning Scheme II of Andheri and the late Mrs. Y. Ambiya, was the owner of the ajoining plot being Plot No. 11-A of the same scheme. The owners of he said two plots entered into an agreement on 14th May, 1947 under which they leased the said plot on monthly basis to the father of the First Respondent. The Petitioners are the successors-in-title of Dr. Nadkarni and Mrs. Ambiya while the First Respondent is the successor-in-title of his father. The tenancy in favour of the First Respondent in respect of he plot terminated by a notice dated 2nd October ,1970.2. Thereafter on 10th of August, 1971, R.A.E.Suit No. 3866 of 1971 was filed in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay for eviction the First Respondent from the said plots and for possession. The First Respondent was represented by an Advocate in the suit. He filed his written statement. Issues were framed on 22nd July, 1976. It seems that on 28th June, 1977, the advo...
Hareshchandra Maganlal and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Bom34
ORDER1. Petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 are directors of Raghuvanshi Mills Limited, being a company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act. 1956, while petitioner No. 4 is Manager of the company. The company had engaged several workmen in running of the Mills. Under provisions of Section 40 of the Employees 'State InsuranceAct. 1948 the Company is required to pay in respect of every employee both employer's contribution and employee's contribution. The employee's contribution is paid after deducting the amount from the wages payable to the employees. The company is also required to pay a Deposit-linked Insurance Fund in accordance with S. 60 of Employees'Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provi-sions Act. 1952. The company failed to pay its dues both under the Provident Funds Act and Employees' State Insurance Act. Respondent No. 2, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, thereupon issued several show-cause notices to the petitioners to show cause as to why action should not be taken...
Central Bank of India Vs. Smt. Kamalabai and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Bom227; 1990(1)BomCR246
ORDER1. The applicant had filed the Civil Suit for recovery of certain sum against the non-applicants. The suit was fixed for evidence on 21-2-1984. However, on that day, the applicant's counsel asked for an adjournment and the case was accordingly adjourned to 11-4-1984. The representative of the applicant Bank was serving at Nagpur. He could not keep himself present in the Court at Saoner at 11.45 a.m. when the case was first called. According to the applicant, the representative had already left for Saoner, but he could not reach there because he did not get the bus. He could reach there only at about 1.30 p.m. However, on reaching the Court, he came to know that the suit was already dismissed in default. Hence this revision.2. The impugned order is passed under S. 17, R. 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, Mr. Daga contended that as the suit was dismissed in default, the order could not be under O. 17, R. 3, C.P.C. Order 17, Rule3, C.P.C. refers to the decision of the case on merit. He ...
Hareshchandra Maganlal and Others Vs. Union or India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)BomCR328; [1991]71CompCas69(Bom)
M.L. Pendse, J.1. Petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 are directors of Raghuvanshi Mills Ltd., being a company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956, while petitioner No. 4 is manager of the company. The company had engaged several workmen in the running of the mills. Under the provisions of section 40 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, the company is required to pay, in respect of every employee, both the employer's contribution and the employees' contribution. the employees' contribution is paid after deduction the amount from the wages payable to the employees. The company is also required to pay a Deposit-linked Insurance Fund in accordance with section 6C of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The company failed to pay its dues both under the Provident Funds Act and the Employees' State Insurance Act. Respondent No. 2, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, thereupon issued several show-cause notices to the petitioners to sho...
The Workmen of State Bank of India, Garhchiroli Branch Vs. the Presidi ... Overruled
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)BomCR650; (1989)91BOMLR411; (1994)IIILLJ481Bom
Dhabe, J.1. The petitioner union has challenged the award of the Central Government Labour Court No. 1, Bombay answering against it the reference relating to the industrial dispute about the termination of services of Shri P.S. Sadavarte, who was working as a Clerk in the Respondent No. 2 State Bank of India.2. Briefly, the facts are that Shri P.S. Sadavarte was working as a Clerk in the Garhchiroli Branch of the Respondent No. 2 State Bank of India during the relevant time. A departmental enquiry was held against him for certain acts of misconduct in which it was found by the Enquiry Officer that the charges against him were proved. However, the Competent Authority instead of dismissing him from service, decided to condone the misconduct and thus discharged him from service by offering him one month's wages in lieu of one month's notice. Accordingly, by an order dated 9.4.1970, the services of Shri Sadavarte were terminated on payment of one month's wages in lieu of one month's notice...
Chapadgaon Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society and ors. Vs. Collect ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-1989
Reported in: 1989(3)BomCR641; (1989)91BOMLR829
C.S. Dharmadhikari, J.1. As all these writ petitions involve common questions of law and fact they were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.2. Respondent No. 3 in Writ Petition No. 943 of 1988 i.e. Shri Jagdamba Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. is registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred as to the Act) as a Processing Society. It has set up a sugar factory with crushing capacity of 850 m.t. per day. The area of operation of the society extends to Karjat Taluka of Ahmednagar district. At the relevant time the society had 4200 individual members and 26 Co-operative Society members. The said society is a specified society within the meaning of section 73-G of the said Act. In the elections held on 26-3-1983 the Directors of this specified society were elected. One Shri K.R. Deshmukh was elected to the Board of Directors both from Producers constituency as well as from the Co-operative Societies constituency and, therefore,...
Hindustan Lever Limited Vs. Kasargod Devidas Rao and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)BomCR612; (1989)91BOMLR389
M.L. Dudhat, J.1. The present writ petition is preferred against the order dated 30th of October, 1982, passed in Appeal No. 13 of 1982 by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Bombay and Appellate Authority for Maharashtra, Goa, Daman and Diu under the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity 'the Appellate Authority) confirming the decision of the Controlling Authority and Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) II Bombay, dated 31st March, 1982, in Application No. B. ALC-II/36(6)/81. Few facts germane to this petition are as under:2. The petitioner is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act. The petitioner-company has establishment in Bombay. It is specifically contended by the petitioner company that its establishment at Bombay is covered by the provisions of Shops and Establishment Act, 1948, and registered as a 'Commercial Establishment' thereunder. The petitioner further contended that the Bombay Establishment of t...
Mahadeo and ors. Vs. Raghoba and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)BomCR787
M.M. Qazi, J.1. Mr. Bapat appearing for the non-applicant No. 2 has raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the revision. As per the impugned order the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Yavatmal has determined the mesne profits amounting to Rs. 24,540/- holding that the mesne profits shall be paid jointly and severally by the applicants to the Opponent/non-applicant No. 2. Mr. Bapat contended that against the decree of mesne profits only appeal lies and no revision is tenable. He has invited my attention to section 115 of the code of Civil procedure. The portion which is material for our purpose reads thus :---'115(1)ODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908~^. The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeals lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears,............'Sub section (2) reads thus :---'The High Court shall not, under this section vary or reverse/any decree or order against...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »