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.
Narendra Mafatlal Mehta Vs. Chief Controller of Imps. and Exps
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1989
Reported in: 1989(25)LC91(Bombay); 1989(44)ELT36(Bom)
1. The petitioner had filed an earlier writ petition in this court being O.O.C.J. Misc. Petition No. 1458 of 1979. It was made absolute by Pendse J. on 26th November 1982. He directed the respondents 'to issue to the petitioner the Export House Certificate under the Import Policy April 1978-March 1979 within a period of one month from today. The grant Export House Certificate would entitle the petitioner to seek certain facilities as provided by paragraph 174 of the Scheme'. The scheme that was referred to was the scheme for the registration of export houses provided for by Chapter XIX of the Import Policy April 1978 to March, 1979.2. The petitioner was furnished with the requisite export house certificate. In terms thereof, he applied for the issue of an additional licence. On 18th January 1983 the additional licence was issued, but under the 1982-83 policy. The petitioner protested and asked for the correction of the licence so that it should be valid under the 1978-79 policy. By an ...
Union of India Vs. Amar Enterprises
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1989
Reported in: 1992(61)ELT218(Bom)
S.K. Desai, J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of the writ Court given on June 10, 1987 in Writ Petition No. 423 of 1981. It speaks volumes of the efficiency of the Central Government Advocate that the belated appeal which was lodged on 9th December, 1987 came up for admission sometime in August, 1989. Even before the single Judge the respondents to the petition, i.e., the appellants before us had remained absent. We asked the learned Advocates for the appellant the reason why a motion was not taken out before the single Judge or other appropriate Judge for setting aside the ex parte order on the writ petition (on showing sufficient cause for the absence) and for obtaining a rehearing of the same. The only explanation we have been given is that this course was not followed on the advice of the Deputy Legal Advisor, Ministry of Law. Obviously this advice had to be given because the appellants did not take out a Motion within the period allowed or because there was no sufficient ca...
Malshiras Taluka Rashtriya Sakhar Kamgar Sangh Vs. Saswad Mall Sugar F ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1989
Reported in: [1989(59)FLR725]; (1992)ILLJ677Bom
Jahagirdar, J.1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging the order dated July 31, 1984 passed by the Industrial Court at Pune in Appeal (BIR/IC) No. 10 of 1983. The said appeal had been filed by the 1st respondent in this petition, which is a limited company, carrying on the business of the manufacture of sugar in Malinagar of Malshiras Taluka in Solapur District. The petitioner is a union being the representative union for the sugar industry in the area in which the factory of the 1st respondent is working. The second respondent is this petition is the State of Maharashtra through the Additional Registrar under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 for Pune Region. The significance of adding the Additional Registrar as party respondent will be clear when we proceed to narrate the facts of this case.2. As already mentioned above, the appeal had been preferred before the Industrial Court by the 1st respondent. For the sake of convenience, we will refer ...
Union of India Vs. M/S. Ajit Mehta and Associates, Pune and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Bom45; 1989(3)BomCR535
ORDERSawant, J.1. These five appeals arise out of the decision of the trial Court by which the trial Court has disposed of five suits and five objection petitions.Respondent No. 1 in all the appeals is a contracting firm (hereinafter referred to as the firm). In First Appeal No. 21 of 1987 and First Appeal No 25 of 1987 the firm is M/s. Ajit Mehta and Associates while in the rest of the appeals it is Ajit Construction Company. There are three partners in M/s. Ajit Mehta and Associates who are also the partners in M/s. Ajit Construction Company which has Tour partners. First Appeal No. 21 of 1987 is concerned with the contract for the construction of what is known as Married Accommodation at Jamnagar; First Appeal No. 22 of 1987 is concerned with the contract of the construction of buildings at Dhrangadhra in Gujarat State; First Appeal No. 23 of 1987 is again concerned with the construction of the married accommodation at Dhrangadhra; First Appeal No. 24 of 1987 is concerned with the c...
Mohinidevi Choraria and Another Vs. Apsara Cinema Pvt. Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1989
Reported in: [1990]69CompCas233(Bom)
G.H.Guttal J.1. The applicants are the shareholders of Apsara Cinema Pvt. Ltd., respondent No. 2 hereinafter referred to as the company. For the sake of convenience, the applicants are referred to as petitioners. Petitioner No.2, Balchand Choraria, is the constituted attorney of petitioner No. 1. Respondents Nos. 2 to 16 are also shareholders. The two sets of shareholders represent rival groups. company Application No. 136 of 1988 of s1988 are also addressed to VIP Enterprises and REK Exhibitors respectively because certain reliefs affecting their contracts of exhibition of movie films in Apsara Cinema are sought. In these judge's summonses taken out under section 402 of the Companies Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', the applicants seek an order that the agreements dated March 20, 1987, and February 12, 1987, with VIP Enterprises and REK Exhibitors be set aside and an administrator for the company be appointed.2. The facts out of which these applications arise are, briefly, t...
Carmichael Shikarkunj Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Union of I ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1989
Reported in: (1989)79CTR(Bom)219; [1991]189ITR441(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. This writ petition is filed to impugn the notice dated November 14, 1977, issued under section 269D(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the letter dated February 15, 1983, requiring the petitioners to appear before the Competent Authority in connection therewith. It concerns land and a building thereon at Carmichael Road, Bombay.2. Prior to January, 1966, the land and the building then standing was owned by Messrs. Sahu Brothers (Saurashtra) Pvt. Ltd. The building was occupied by tenants. By an agreement dated January 7, 1966, Sahu Brothers agreed to provide each original tenant with a flat and garage in a new building to be constructed on the land, with an option to him to purchase the same on ownership basis. On March 10, 1966, Sahu Brothers entered into an agreement to sell the land and building to Carmichael Properties Pvt. Ltd. The provision of flats and garages to the original tenants was a term of the agreement for sale. On April 4, 1966, Carmichael Propertie...
J.T. Chanral Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Naturam Tukaram Bhandale and anr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1989
Reported in: [1990(60)FLR293]; (1993)IIILLJ630Bom
Dudhat, J. 1. The petitioner company filed the present petition against the order dated 30th of December, 1986, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, First Labour Court, Thane, in Complaint (ULP) No. 137 of 1980. Few salient features of this case are as under:2. The petitioner is the company wherein the respondent No. 1 was employed as a charge-man. His last drawn pay was Rs. 750/- per month. It appears from the record that his attendance in the petitioner - company showed lot of absentism and, therefore, on 3rd of April, 1979, vide Exh. A the petitioner - company gave warning to respondent No. 1. In the said warning about his absentism during the years 1978-79 was specifically mentioned. He was also asked to give explanation and was ultimately warned that if he continued to remain absent, his services would be terminated. The petitioner -company again gave him a second warning on 30th of November, 1979, wherein also it was shown about his absence in the company in the year1979 and ...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Narbheram M. Parekh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1989
Reported in: 1990(3)BomCR76; 1990LC378(Bombay); 1989MhLJ926
Sharad Manohar, J.1. This petition is filed by the State of Maharashtra at the instance of the Direction of Enforcement against the order passed by the Chairman of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Court allowing the respondent's Appeal against the order of the Adjudication Officer under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 imposing a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- upon the respondent on the ground that he has failed offer for sale the foreign exchange of the worth of 3000 pounds in contravention of the provisions of section 14 of the said Act.2. There is practically no dispute about the facts which are stated quite precisely by the Court in its judgment which is appealed from:---The respondent is a person carrying on business in Ethiopia. He started doing so way back in 1938 and there is no dispute that since that year he has been carrying on business in Ethiopia. His wife, however, became ill. Hence, he came back to India in 1975. Before that between 1964 and 1974 he did have o...
K.G. Popley and Sons Vs. Collector of Customs (Prev)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1989
Reported in: (1989)(44)ELT661Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants in Appeal No. GC(T) Bom. 10/82 have filed the present application seeking permission to produce certain documentary evidence comprising of charge sheet, judgments and depositions of witnesses etc.in the Criminal Proceedings initiated against the appellants for an offence under Sec. 85 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, for the same incidence which is the subject matter in the appeal.2. During the course of arguments, Shri K.M. Desai, the learned senior counsel for the applicants, submitted that even assuming that the charge and judgment of the criminal case, cannot be admitted as evidence in these proceedings, we should atleast permit admission of the deposition of the panch witnesses, and the seizing officer, recorded in the Magisterial Court.3. It is a settled position of law that the proceedings in the criminal court and those before the adjudicating authority are distinct in themselves, and being not inter dependent the judgments and other connected documents in cr...
S.G. Pharmaceuticals Division of Ambala Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1989
Reported in: (1989)91BOMLR922; [1990(60)FLR318]; (1990)IILLJ430Bom
Deshpande, J.1. This letters patent appeal by the original non-applicant is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge affirming the finding rendered by the Third Labour Court, Nagpur, in I.D.A. No. 20 of 1981 holding that the respondent No. 2 is a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.2. The appellant is a manufacturer of modern drug products while the 2nd respondent is employed by it as a Medical Representative on a monthly salary of Rs. 1,150 by the letter of appointment dated 10th March, 1977. On 28th January, 1981, the 2nd respondent filed an application before the Labour Court, under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, claiming bonus under the provisions of the Bonus Act for claiming the years 1977-78 to 1979-80 amounting to Rs. 2,250. The Labour Court held upon a preliminary issue raised by the appellant, by its order dated May 28, 1982, that the 2nd respondent was a worker within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Di...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »