Mumbai Court July 1990 Judgments
General Employees Association Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1990
Reported in: [1991(61)FLR382]; (1992)ILLJ242Bom
1. The petitioner-Union represents the workmen employed at the canteen of respondent No. 4, Suvidha Catering Service, in the establishment of respondent No. 3, the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. The said canteen is maintained under the provisions of Section 46 of the Factories Act. The petitioner-Union raised a dispute on behalf of the workmen working in the fourth respondent canteen with the third respondent-Corporation as under :'The Union hereby demands that the workmen working in the canteen of your industrial establishment of Refinery at Mahul, Bombay, be extended basic salary, dearness allowance, other allowance and all other service conditions applicable to them under the long term settlement dated April 12, 1983 currently in force on and from the dates on which the said workmen were employed.'Their demand having not been conceded to the petitioner-Union approached the office of the second respondents, the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central)-I of the Regional Labour Co...
Tag this Judgment!S.S. Sambre Vs. Chief Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Nagpur an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1990
Reported in: 1991(2)BomCR698; [1991(62)FLR157]; (1992)ILLJ684Bom
Deshpande, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges the order dated March 2, 1981 discharging him from his employment without payment of compensation under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act and seeks reinstatement with back wages.2. The petitioner was appointed on August 22, 1966 as a Clerk with the State Bank of India. He was charge-sheeted on April 23, 1979, the charges being that he had in collusion with a borrower induced the Manager of Digras Branch of the State Bank of India to grant advances to various relations and servants of that borrower and for these advances, the borrower Shri Rathod was the guarantor, the object of the petitioner being to advance the interests of the said Shri Rathod. The second charge was that he had accepted gratification from various borrowers for arranging to have their loans sanctioned. The petitioner filed his reply on April 30, 1979 and the Enquiry Officer made a report after holding the enquir...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Desai Brothers Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1990
Reported in: [1991]189ITR88(Bom)
Sujata V. Manohar, J. 1. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for directing the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state the case and refer to this court a question for determination which is set out in the application. It is an accepted position that as far as this court is concerned, the question has been decided in favour of the assessee by a decision of this court in CIT v. Century Spg. and Mfg. Co. Ltd. : [1978]111ITR6(Bom) . In the circumstances, we do not see any reason for allowing the application because, even if the question is framed and referred to us, we will have to answer it in the light of the above decision in C/T v. Century Spg. and Mfg. Co. Ltd. : [1978]111ITR6(Bom) .2. It is pointed out by Mr. Jetley that a special leave petition from the above judgment is pending before the Supreme Court. That, in our view, can be of no assistance because until the question is decided by the Supreme Court, as far as we are concerned, we would be bo...
Tag this Judgment!Kanak Vinod Mehta Vs. Vinod Dulerai Mehta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1990
Reported in: 1991(1)BomCR69
A.A. Cazi, J.1. The Plaintiff is the wife of the defendant. The reliefs which she has asked for in this suit are :-(a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that the plaintiff is entitled to an undivided right title and interest in the said matrimonial home being Unit No. 4, in Chancellor Court, Carmichael Road, Bombay-400 026 and that the plaintiff is entitled to reside therein without any let or hindrance from any quarter Whatsoever :(b) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that the plaintiff is entitled to the maintenance of the Rs. 17,000/- per month form the defendant for the maintenance of the plaintiff and their son Harshraj over and above the other expenses such as flat and lift maintenance charges, telephone bills including, superphone STD and trunk charges, electricity charges, and a chauffer driven car and the expenses pertaining to the maintenance and repairs of the car, petrol bills, insurance charges, taxes, salary of the driver etc. Which were previously...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Mrs. Nirmala D. Mehta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1990
Reported in: (1990)92BOMLR439
Sujata Manohar, J.1. This Wealth Tax Reference under Section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 poses a common question for eight assessment years 1965-66 to 1972-73. The question is as follows:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 35,000/- for each of the six assessment years from 1965-66 to 1970-71 and the sum of Rs. 25,000/- for each of the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73, which the assessee was entitled to demand and receive from the trusts/trust to be paid to her out of the corpus of the trust funds, was includible in her net wealth on the relevant valuation date?2. The assessee, who is the respondent, is an individual. She is a beneficiary under two trusts the first made by the assessee herself dated April 23rd, 1949 and the second made by Shri Manmohandas Madhavadas Amersey and dated December 24th, 1953. Under Clause 2 of the first deed of trust, which is dated April 23rd, 1949 it was provided as follows:.the Trustees shall pay to the Set...
Tag this Judgment!State of Maharashtra Vs. Chidanand Raghuram Tunga
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1990
Reported in: 1991(51)ELT43(Bom)
1. These two Criminals Appeals and the two Criminal Revision Applications arise out of the Judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune dated 3-11-1982 in Criminal Appeals Nos. 47 and 48 of 1982 by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed conviction of all the three appellants before him under Section 135(1)(a) and (b) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, but modified the Order of sentence by reducing the substantive sentence of imprisonment of one year imposed on them by the trial Court to three months' R.I. each and maintained the sentence of fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to suffer R.I. for three months.2. The prosecution case in brief is as follows :-On 8-10-1979 at about 11.30 P.M. V. S. Gombi (P.W. 1) Inspector of Central Excise, Pune along with the other officers, intercepted S. T. Bus No. MTD 8274 scheduled from Bombay to Ichalkaranji, near Sategaon on Bombay Agra road. Chidanand Raghuram Tunga (original Accused No....
Tag this Judgment!Blue Star Workers Union Vs. Blue Star Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1990
Reported in: [1991(61)FLR524]; (1992)ILLJ239Bom
M.L. Pendse, J.Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr. Rele for Respondent No. 1, waives service. Respondent No. 2 is a formal party. Heard Counsel1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Union is challenging legality of order dated June 15, 1990 passed by the Industrial Court, Bombay dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioners as regards unfair labour practice under Section 28(1) read with Item Nos. 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. Respondent NO. 1 Company till the year 1969 had its manufacturing activities of Colaba and thereafter the manufacturing work was shifted to Thane and the repair and service activities were carried out at Colaba. From the year 1969 canteen facility existed at Colaba. The petitioner claims that food and other items are supplied to the workman at Colaba establishment through a contractor at the rates fixed mutually. The petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Vxl India Ltd. (Ocm Woollen Mills) Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1990
Reported in: (1991)(52)ELT545Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The present appeal is directed against the order in appeal bearing No. 1346/88 BCH dated 17-3-1988, rejecting the appeal filed by the appellants as time barred.2. When the matter was called out, Shri C. M. Gupte, the partner of the clearing Agents submitted that their clients had submitted the papers only a couple of days back and the Sr. partner is away. He, therefore, requested for an adjournment. Considering the short point involved, it is not considered necessary to grant adjournment and hence proceeded to decide the matter.4. From the documents it appears that the appeal before the Collector (Appeals) was initially filed on 5-6-1986, which was defective to some extent and that the defect memo was issued on 8-7-1986 returning them with the appeal. The corrected appeal which was received back by the authorities only on 4-1-1988. Taking the date 4-1-1988 as the date for filing the appeal, the Collector (Appeals) has held that the appeal was hit by limitation by 1 year 6 months an...
Tag this Judgment!Annasaheb Bandu Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ814
ORDER1. The petitioner's appeal against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Wai, has been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Satara on 23rd August, 1988. Aggrieved by that order this revision application has been filed in this court.2. The petitioner is a driver by profession and was at the material time i.e. on 5th August, 1986 at about 1-15 p.m. proceeding towards Bangalore by Pune Bangalore Highway. The prosecution alleged that he suddenly applied breaks as a result of which the bus which he was driving turned turtle i.e. it faced exact opposite direction and my mind rally absent. It is common knowledge that the driver of the vehicle should know that if there Is light shower and the road is wet it became slippery and sudden application of breaks is bound to make the vehicle skid. Passenger loaded bus was the one which he was driving. Therefore in my opinion it is this action on the part of the driver of the vehicle th...
Tag this Judgment!Arshdeep D/O Gurudeo Singh Puri Vs. Maharashtra State Board of Seconda ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1990
Reported in: 1991(1)BomCR375; 1991(1)MhLj304
V.A. Mohta, J.1. In this writ petition by a XIIth standard student, two contentions are raised.(i) clause 88(1)(a) and (b) of the Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Eduction Boards Regulations, 1977 (the Regulations) relating to compulsory attendance in the class by a regular student is unconstitutional.(ii) Having handed over an Admission Card for the examination and allowed her to appear for the practical examination, the respondent No. 1 Board is estopped from prohibiting her participation in the rest of the examination under the undisputed factual background.2. In our view, contention No. (i) has to be repelled and contention No. (ii) has to be upheld for the reasons that follow.The petitioner Ku. Arshdeep Puri was prosecuting her studies as a regular student of XII class in St. Joseph's Convent Junior College, Nagpur of which respondent No. 2 is the Principal. XII standard examination is conducted by the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »