Mumbai Court February 1990 Judgments
Smt. Sumatibai Vinayak Deo Vs. Nandkumar Deshpande and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)BomCR271; 1990CriLJ2136; 1990(1)MhLj708
1. This appeal by special leave takes exception to the acquittal of respondents 1 and 2 hereinafter referred to as 'Deshpande' and 'Tawasalkar' respectively, who were prosecuted for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The admitted position is that Deshpande was the Editor and owner of a Marathi daily 'Yugant' published from Alibag in District Raigad. Tawasalkar was a Sub-editor of the said paper. Appellant-complainant, hereinafter referred to as 'Sumatibai' was the subject of an article published in Yugant dated 18 July, 1977. To be brief, the article accused her of being authoritarian, arbitrary, extortionist, misappropriator of bowls and donations, making false reports to the Police, greedy, rude and insulting, and using the school started by her institution as a milch cow. After reading this item, Sumatibai addressed a notice to Deshpande calling upon him to publish an apology and also pay damages of Rs. 5000/-. The communication was...
Tag this Judgment!Sarjerao Unkar Jadhav Vs. Gurindar Singh and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1990
Reported in: 1990ACJ719; 1990(3)BomCR314; [1991(62)FLR315]; (1992)ILLJ156Bom; 1990(1)MhLj790
1. The appellant is the original applicant. He has challenged the judgment and order dated May 10, 1984 in application No. (WCA)659/C-118 of 1979 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bombay.2. Main grounds of challenge are :(1) Loss of earning capacity estimated by the Commissioner at 20 per cent is very much on the low side. The loss of earning capacity should have been judged not with reference to physical incapacity but with reference to the loss of earning capacity and that too in the context of the nature of the job he was engaged in. In support of the contention, reliance was placed on a Supreme Court decision in the case of Pratap Narain Singh Deo. v. Shrinivas Sabata, : (1976)ILLJ235SC . (2) Penalty of Rs. 250/- awarded was grossly inadequate. The defence put up by his immediate employer, i.e. the contractor, respondent No. 1 herein and opposite party No. 1 before the Labour Court, was not bona fide. Reliance in this regard was placed on the Supreme Court deci...
Tag this Judgment!Jnana Prabodhini Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1990
Reported in: 1990(1)BomCR763; 1993LC317(Bombay); 1991(54)ELT193(Bom)
Sharad Manohar, J.1. Three questions arise in this petition -The questions involved in the petition(a) whether the petitioner-trust is entitled to the refund of the excise duty which they paid to the Excise Department under a mistake of law which they claim to have realised in the year 1982.(b) whether the writ petition filed by it in the year 1986, after the expiry of three years, should be entertained by this Court in view of certain intervening proceedings to which the petitioner was directed by the respondent-Department itself.(c) whether, in the peculiar facts of the case, this Court would be justified in ordering refund in favour of the petitioner-public trust or whether this would amount to the petitioner's unjust enrichment disentitling the petitioner to recover the refund for themselves.2. The relevant facts stated chronologicallyThe facts relevant for the purpose of this petition may be briefly stated as follows:- The petitioner is a public charitable trust as also a society ...
Tag this Judgment!Sargeras Unkar Jadhav Vs. Gurindar Singh and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1990
Reported in: I(1991)ACC270
T.D. Sugla, J.1. The appellant is the original applicant. He has challenged the judgment and order dated l0th May 1984 in Application No. (WCA)659/C.118 of 1979 paised by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bombay.2. Main grounds of challenge are: (1) loss of earning capacity estimated by the Commissioner at 20 per cent is very much on the low side. The loss of earning capacity should have been Judged not with reference to physical incapacity but with reference to the loss of earning capacity and that too in the context of the nature of the job he was engaged in. In support of the contention reliance was placed on a Supreme Court decision in the case of (Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Shrinivas), : (1976)ILLJ235SC .(2) Penalty of Rs. 250/- awarded was grossly inadequate. The defense put up by his immediate employer, i.e. the Contractor, respondent No. 1 herein and opposite party No. 1 before the Labour Court was not bonafide. Reliance in this regard was placed on the Supreme Court...
Tag this Judgment!Vd. Prashant Vs. Dean, Govt. Ayurvedic College and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)BomCR44; (1990)92BOMLR277
M.B. Ghodeswar, J.1 The petitioners have challenged the selection 1st prepared by respondent No. 1 to on 29-9-1989 for admission to Post Graduate Courses in the subjects of Kaya Chikitsa and Ras Shastra in the Government Ayurved College at Nagpur. Both the petitions involve common questions of facts and law and, therefore, they can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment.2. The respondent No. 1 gave advertisement on 31-8-1989 of filling in 10 seats-four in Ras Shastra and six in Kaya Shastra. Out of these 10 seats, five seats were reserved for backward classes, two for Scheduled Casts, one for Scheduled Tribe, one for Nomadic Tribe and one for O.B.C. The last date for receipt of the application forms was 15-9-1989. Both the petitioners have applied as per this advertisement. After scrutiny the respondent No. 1 prepared a provisional selection list showing the allocation of seats and waiting list of candidates in the subjects concerned. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2729/...
Tag this Judgment!M.R. Bhansali and Co. Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Cegat and
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1990
Reported in: 1992(38)LC438(Bombay)
Pendse, J.1. Both the counsel agreed when the Motion reached hearing before me on the last occasion that the main petition should be taken up for hearing as the grant of interim relief would make the main Petition redundant. Accordingly main Petition is set down for hearing along with the Motion.2. The issue in this petition stands squarely covered by the decision dated December 16,1988 recorded by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4445 and Civil Appeal No. 4446 of 1991 (33) ECR 669. The petitioners had secured licence in die year 1977-78 and in consequence thereof were entitled to make import. The petitioners imported Palm Stearin and Crude Palm Oil. The Assistant Collector of Customs confiscated the goods and imposed the penalty. The order was carried in appeal and ultimately before the Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the order confiscating the goods and imposing penalty. The Tribunal permitted clearance of goods on payment of redemption fine. The order passed by Tribunal on Sep...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise and Vs. Tubular Packaging Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1990
Reported in: (1991)(33)LC617Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Vadodara against the Order-in-Appeal bearing No. GSM-468/89BD dated 28.2.1989 by the Collector (Appeals) Bombay, allowing the appeal of the respondents with regard to their refund claim in respect of duty paid on paper tubes and cones during the period from 26.7.1986 to 21.1.1987.2. They have filed the refund claim on 5.2.1987 based on the Board's Tariff Advice contained in the Telex holding that these products are not chargeable to duty. The Assistant Collector rejected the refund claim on the ground that the revised classification list claiming the assessment at Nil rate of duty was not filed. When the matter was taken up before the Collector (Appeals), he observed that the revised classification list has already been filed by the respondents on 22.1.1987 and approved by the Assistant Collector and hence the refund claim should be entertained. Against the order of the Collector (Appeals) the Department has ...
Tag this Judgment!ideal Printers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1990
Reported in: (1990)(49)ELT559Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal directed against the Order of the Collector (Appeals) bearing No. SKM-1855/89-BI dated 12-9-1989 rejecting the appellants' appeal on the ground that the refund claim is not legally sustainable, since under Section 11B the same is barred by time.2. Shri J.R. Khanvilkar, the learned consultant for the appellants, stated that in this case the duty payment has been made during the period from 6-3-1986 to 13-3-1986. While filing the RT-12 Return for the month of March 1986, the appellants have pointed out the excess payment in the RT-12 Return itself seeking for refund. However, the RT-12 Return was assessed on 17-5-1987 with the remarks that they should file refund claim separately. As per the direction of the Supdt.contained in the Assessment order, refund claim came to be filed by the appellants on 14-8-1987. The order of assessment having been received by them on 17-5-1987. He contended that as per the provision of Rule 173-I(2) they are entitled to seek for credit...
Tag this Judgment!Ravikant Patil Vs. the Director General of Police, State of Maharashtr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1990
Reported in: 1990ACJ1060; 1990(2)BomCR242; (1990)92BOMLR173; 1991CriLJ2344
Jahagirdar, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with a murder of one Ganesh Kolekar, which took place in Solapur on 2nd of August, 1989. The petition seeks to censure the 3rd and 4th respondents for the action which they have taken against the petitioner, described hereinafter in greater details. The 1st respondent is the Director General of Police, while the 2nd respondent is the State of Maharashtra. We will not refer to these two respondents in this judgment because ultimately what we are called upon to decide is whether the action of the 4th respondent is such as to merit censure and also such as to result in the payment of compensation to the petitioner. The 3rd respondent is the Superintendent of Police. According to the petitioner, the acts complained of by the petitioner against the 4th respondent were at the instance of the 3rd respondent. After going through the material on record,...
Tag this Judgment!R.B. Girap Vs. M/S. the Borivali Ganjawala Co-operative Housing Societ ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1990
Reported in: [1990(60)FLR653]; (1990)IILLJ558Bom
1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging legality of order dated 2nd September, 1989 passed by the Presiding Officer, 5th Labour Court, Bombay, rejecting the application filed by the workman under Rule 26 of the Industrial Disputes Rules. The facts giving rise to passing of the order are not in dispute and are required to be briefly stated to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner.2. The petitioner sought reference from Government of Maharashtra seeking reinstatement in service and back wages from Respondent No. 1. The Government made reference No. 488 of 1987 to the Labour Court. The Labour Court had fixed 3rd December 1987 as the date for filing statement of claim. The next relevant date is 26th April 1988. The matter came before the Labour Court on 27th April, 1988 and on that day neither the petitioner nor his advocate were present. Consequently the Labour Court dismissed the reference. The petitioner claims that he...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »