Mumbai Court December 1990 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.
H.H. Wagh Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1990
Reported in: 1991(1)BomCR206; 1991CriLJ1243; [1991(62)FLR836]
ORDER1. The petitioner who is the Secretary of the Anglo French Drug Co. (Eastern) Limited, having office in Bombay, challenges the order of issue of process, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Dadar, Bombay in Criminal Case No. 1004/8 of 1986, on a complaint filed by Shri Y. D. Nikam, Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Commerce Centre, Tradeo, Bombay. The complaint was for violation of the provisions of S. 33(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. The complainant in his complaint stated that he has been authorised to make a complaint by the Government of Maharashtra in Industries, Energy and Labour Department, Bombay, being the appropriate authority by its order dated 6th March 1986 as contemplated by the provisions of sub-section (1) of S. 34 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.3. He stated that the accused who is the petitioner in this case is the Secretary of the Company viz., Anglo French Drug Company (Eastern) Ltd. which is a Public Limited Company manufacturing p...
Halya Wajya Kurmuda Vs. R.D. Tyagi, Commr. of Police, Thane and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1990
Reported in: 1991(2)BomCR331; (1991)93BOMLR83; 1991CriLJ1240
S.W. Puranik, J.1. The petitioner impugns the order of detention dated 19th June 1990 passed by the 1st respondent against him under the National Security Act. Even though the petitioner-detenu raises many grounds to challenge the said order of detention, yet, however, Shri S. R. Chitnis, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, restricted his submissions only to the ground of delayed consideration of the representation of the petitioner-detenu.2. We have heard Shri S. R. Chitnis, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri S. G. Page, learned Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1 and the State of Maharashtra, and Shri M. K. Patwardhan, learned Counsel for the Union of India, respondent No. 3.3. On the ground of delayed consideration of the representation of the petitioner detenu, Shri S. R. Chitnis, relying on the averments in the petition and the counter-affidavits by the respondents, has stated the following relevant dates in support :-19-6-1990 :- The order of detention. 20-8-19...
M.M. Wagh, Bombay Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1990
Reported in: (1992)IILLJ118Bom; 1991(1)MhLj144
1. The petitioner who is the Secretary of the Anglo French Drug Company (Eastern) Ltd. having office in Bombay, challenges the order of issue of process, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Dadar, Bombay, in Criminal Case No. 1004/S of 1986, on a complaint filed by Shri Y. D. Nikam, Asst. Commissioner of Labour, Commerce Center, Tardeo, Bombay. The complaint was for violation of the provisions of Section 33(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. The complaint in his complaint stated that he has been authorised to make a complaint by the Government of Maharashtra in Industries, Energy and Labour Department, Bombay, being the appropriate authority, by its order dated March 6, 1986 as contemplated by the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 34 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.3. He stated that the accused, who is the petitioner in this case, is the Secretary of the Company viz., Anglo French Drug company (Eastern) Ltd. which is a Public Limited Company manufacturing...
Shri D.i.M. Sarpal Vs. Canara Bank
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1990
Reported in: (1990)92BOMLR676
Sujata Manohar, J.1. In this writ petition the disciplinary proceedings, which were instituted against the petitioner by the Canara Bank (respondent No. 1) have been challenged. The petitioner is an erstwhile employee of Lakshmi Commercial Bank Ltd. Under a Scheme of Amalgamation sanctioned by the Reserve Bank of India in exercise of powers conferred on it under Sub-section (1) of Section 45 of the Banking Regulation Act, the Lakshmi Commercial Bank Ltd. has been amalgamated with the Canara Bank. The Notification in that connection is dated 23rd August 1985. Under Clause (2) of the notification all rights, powers, claims etc. as well as properties of the transferor bank, that is to say, Lakshmi Commercial Bank Ltd. have been transferred to the Canara Bank. It also provides that as from the prescribed date all the liabilities, duties and obligations of the transferor bank shall be and shall become the liabilities, duties and obligations of the transferee bank.2. Pursuant to this Scheme ...
Nanasaheb Vs. Dattu and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1990
Reported in: AIR1992Bom24; 1991(3)BomCR548; (1991)93BOMLR775; 1991(1)MhLj689
ORDER1. A question of general importance has been raised in this revision application as to whether a defendant in a suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff can be granted injunction restraining the plaintiff from obstructing his alleged possession and enjoyment of the property.2. It is the case of plaintiff that he has purchased 2 Acres area out of Block No. 196 which in all measured 16 Acres and 28 Gunthas situated at village Nipani, Taluka & District Aurangabad, from defendant No. 5 under a registered sale-deed dated 5-9-1986. Along with this land he has purchased half share in the water of the well located in the land purchased by the plaintiff. It is his case that the defendant Nos. I to 4 have no share in the well and since they are obstructing plaintiff's right to get the water from the said well, he was constrained to file the suit for perpetual injunction. He applied for a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing plaintiff's enjoyment of the well wat...
K.R. Singh Vs. Smt. A.G. Thakare and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Bom296; 1991(2)BomCR658; (1990)92BOMLR623
1. This writ petition filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order dated 19-6-1989 passed by an Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes at Bombay. The dispute is within a very narrow compass in so far as the present Petitioner has contended before this Court that having regard to the exceptional facts and circumstances and the background of the present case that the impugned order of the Court of Small Causes at Bombay is not only erroneous but would have to be characterised as perverse and, therefore, would have to be interfered with. The facts, as will be enumerated by no, disclose a most distressing and unsatisfactory state of affairs.2. The present Petitioner claims to be residing in a flat on the first floor of a building by the name of 'Clerk House', situated at 8, Warehouse Road, Bombay-400839. The Petitioner claims to be in possession of the flat in the capacity of an obstructionist, and present Respondent No. 1 claims to be an occupant in...
Commander Ranvir Kumar Sinha Vs. the Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1990
Reported in: 1991(2)BomCR28; 1991CriLJ1729
Daud, J.1. This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution impugns the verdict of the Court Martial (CM), later confirmed with a modification by the Chief of Naval Staff (CNS) vis-a-vis the charges found established against the petitioner.2. Petitioner was in command of the Indian Naval Ship 'Karwar' which ship was commissioned at Riga in Soviet Union of 14th July 1986. The said ship set sail from Riga on 21st July 1986 and arrived at Bombay on 17th October 1986. An incident took place on 23rd October 1986 in which the petitioner was involved. On the basis of the happenings at that incident, a Board of Inquiry (BOI) was convened. The said Board interrogated a number of persons, some, more than once in between 26th December 1986 to 5th March 1987. While this enquiry was in progress, Pathak, Kishorilal and Tiwari, who were borne on INS Karwar were transferred to different establishments. Pathak was transferred to INS 'Deepak'. The Executive Officer of INS Deepak, which post is equivalen...
Forbes Forbes Campbell and Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1990
Reported in: 1991LC398(Bombay); 1993(63)ELT23(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith.Mr. Bulchandani waives service on behalf of the respondents.Heard.The petitioners are shipping agents for foreign shipowners in Bombay. In the month of October 1990 they have been served by the respondents with 93 show-cause notices. These show-cause notices pertain to about as many vessels which discharged cargo at Bombay between the years 1982 to 1989. The show-cause notices state that the relevant outturn reports of the Bombay Port Trust indicate shortlanding. A satisfactory explanation is called for within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice, failing which the matter would be decided without further reference to the petitioners. The petitioners applied for extension of the period of two weeks. They pointed out that they had received a large number of notices within a short period covering vessels which had touched Bombay between 1982 and 1989. Below the application they were given the extension of one month and it is their allega...
Mohan Madhukar Ghate and ors. Vs. N.D. Rathod and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1990
Reported in: 1991(2)BomCR376; (1993)IIILLJ384Bom
D.R. Dhanuka. J. 1. The petitioners are employees of M/s. Glindia Ltd., Respondent No. 5 in this petition. The petitioners are members of Glaxo Laboratories Employees' Union, a Union duly recognised under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, hereinafter referred to as 'the 1971 Act'. On 16th September 1988, a settlement was arrived at between the Union and Respondent No. 5 in the course of conciliation and was duly signed and endorsed by the Conciliation Officer, Respondent No. 1. The said settlement covered several demands which were made by the Union on the management earlier. By the said settlement the management conceded part of the demands of the union.2. The petitioners, in this petition, have impugned the validity of the said settlement dated 16th September 1988 on various grounds. If the petitioners would have merely challenged the validity of the said settlement without anything more and without contendi...
Forbes Forbes Campbell and Co. Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Collector of Customs an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1990
Reported in: 1992(42)LC181(Bombay)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith.2. Mr. Bulchandani waives service on behalf of the respondents.3. Heard.4. The petitioners are shipping agents for foreign ship-owners in Bombay. In the month of October 1990 they, have been served by the respondents with 93 show-cause notices. These show-cause notices pertain to about as many vessels which discharged cargo at Bombay between the years 1982 to 1989. The show cause notices state that the relevant outturn reports of the Bombay Port Trust indicate shortlanding. A satisfactory explanation is called for within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice, failing which the matter would be decided without further reference to the petitioners. The petitioners applied for extension of the period of two weeks. They pointed out that they had received a large number of notices within a short period covering vessels which had touched Bombay between 1982 and 1989. Below the application they were given the extension of one month and it...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »