Mumbai Court July 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.
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. President, Telecom and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1990
Reported in: 1991(1)BomCR447
A.A. Halbe, J.1. Delay condoned. Rule issued forthwith and taken up for consideration with the consent of the parties. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties.2. The important question, which poses consideration in this revision is whether the matter about disconnection of the telephone on the ground of emergency under Rule 422 of the Indian Telegraph Rules framed under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, should be referred to the arbitrator under section 7-B of the said Act. The question arises as follows.The respondent No. 2 is the subscriber of Telephone No. 203 under Amalner Exchange. The said telephone had been installed at the residence of respondent No. 2 and he was paying the necessary charges from time to time. It seems, that the respondent No. 1 has been joined in its representative capacity. It is the Telecom Users Association, Amalner, represented through is President, Shri Bhailal Shah, on 17th December, 1989, at about 8.55 a.m. Vinodkumar, son of Respondent No. 2 had book...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Elys Plastics Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-1990
Reported in: (1990)87CTR(Bom)80; [1991]188ITR11(Bom)
Sujata V. Manohar J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The following question has been referred to us for decision :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 2,70,201 received on June 14, 1979, being the cash subsidy received from the Gujarat State and Central Government being the grant of subsidy scheme of 1971 (sic) for industrial units set up in selected backward districts or areas, should not be reduced in working out the 'actual cost' as defined under Section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the purpose of computing depreciation, investment allowance on plant and machinery and for the purpose of computing the capital employed under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84 ?'2. The assessee is a private limited company carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of saline disposable plastic sets which ar...
Sheroo Kalikushroo Fatakia Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-1990
Reported in: (1993)IIILLJ714Bom
H.H. Kantharia, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as Stenographer by the second respondent, Bank of America, vide letter dated September 12, 1966 with effect from November 1, 1966. She was confirmed as Manager's Steno/Secretary by a communication dated May 1,1967. In October, 1982, she was designated as Financial Analyst. However, by a letter dated July 11, 1988 she was demoted to the post of Assistant Financial Analyst. According to the petitioner she was made to tender her resignation effective from September 1, 1988 on August 2, 1988 but she withdrew her resignation by a telegram dated August 4, 1988. However, according to second respondent, the petitioner was informed on August 4, 1988 itself that her resignation was accepted with immediate effect waiving notice period of one month. Thereafter, on August 10, 1988 the petitioner raised a demand on the second respondent that she should be allowed to resume work but with no success. The petitioner then moved the Conciliation Officer i...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Thaly Constructions
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-1990
Reported in: 1991(1)BomCR389
G.D. Kamat, J.1. This appeal purported to be under section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, challenges the order of the trial Court dated 8th September, 1989, whereby that Court directed appointment of an arbitrator in consultation with the parties for which purpose a further date was fixed calling upon the parties to submit their respective panels of arbitrators.2. At the outset it is necessary to notice that a further order was made on 14th February, 1990, by which the trial Court appointed Mr. M.R. Ujjenkpo, a retired Chief Engineer of the State of Karnataka, to decide upon the disputes raised by the respondents. The latter order of 14th February, 1990, has not been challenged in any proceedings. It may be indeed urged that this may be a mere technicality and it may not be necessary to challenge the same for, if the impugned order dated 8th September, 1989, is quashed, automatically the subsequent order of 14th February, 1990 would become infructuous. I, however, propose not to go i...
Dattatraya Son of Madhao Jamkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-1990
Reported in: 1991(2)BomCR706
M.S. Ratnaparkhi, J.1. The order of compulsory retirement passed by the commissioner, Amravati division, amravati on 30th March, 1988 following the domestic enquiry has been challenged in this petition.2. The petitioner Dattatraya Mahadeo Jamkar was serving at the relevant time in December 1983 as Naib Tahsildar. Kelapur in Yavatmal district. The Tahsildar, Kelapur proceeded initially on leave and in his place one Mr. Mulavkar was asked to look after the duties of the Tahsildar. This Mulavkar initially proceeded on casual leave and then on earned leave, converting the initial casual leave also into earned leave. The present petitioner was directed to look after the charge of the Tahsildar, Kelapur in addition to his own duties from 12-12-1983 to 21-12-1983. There was a further direction in the order-annexure-1 that the petitioner was to perform all the duties as was being performed by Shri Mulavkar. With this order Annexure-1, the petitioner started performing the additional duties of ...
Nandkumar Ramchandra Jadhav Vs. Gangaram Jagannath Katawate
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-1990
Reported in: 1990(3)BomCR356; (1990)92BOMLR432
S.M. Daud, J.1 An interesting question of a some what complex nature arises in this revision.2. Nandkumar Ramchandra Jadhav, the petitioner in this revision and hereinafter to be referred to as the 'defendant' had instituted suit bearing No. 1879 of 1978 in the Court of Small Causes at Pune against Gangaram Jagannath Katavate, hereinafter to be referred to as the 'plaintiff'. The suit was for possession and arrears of rent and compensation etc. Plaintiff was served with the summons of the said suit, but remained absent for which reason an ex-parte decree came to be passed against him. To get over this decree, the plaintiff filed an application bearing Miscellaneous Application No. 772 of 1982 under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The said application averred that plaintiff had been prevented from coming to Court to defend himself by a fraud practised upon him by the defendant's brother acting at the defendant's instance. This application was rejected by the Small...
Garg Associates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1990
Reported in: (1991)(56)ELT420Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The present appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal bearing No. 958/85 dated 23-2-1985 of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), filed against the Order-in-Original No. S/6-C/974/83R(S-151/87F) dt.24-9-1983 of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Refund Department, insofar as it relates to the rejection of the appellants' claim for refund of the duty amount, on account of the shortage in the consignment.2. The appellants imported one crate containing various articles and sought for its clearance by filing a Bill of Entry, and also paid the requisite duty as assessed thereon. The duty amount was paid on 6-1-1982 vide Cash No. 1776. The actual delivery of the consignment was taken on 8-1-1982, and the same was taken to Ghaziabad. There on conduct of survey, some shortage in the articles was noticed and it was suspected that there was a pilferage. The appellants thereupon filed a complaint of theft with the Yellow Gate Police Station at Bombay on 30-1-1982. On investigation in the ...
Echbee Corporation Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1990
Reported in: 1991(51)ELT31(Bom)
1. This petition has been filed by Sole Proprietor of Echbee Corporation and the petitioner appeared in person and has raised four contentions as set out in paragraph 7 of the petition. The petition was filed on January 30, 1990 and was admitted by Justice Kurdukar on February 21, 1990 and was directed to be peremptorily heard on April 2, 1990. The petition was placed for hearing before Justice Kotwal and was adjourned from time to time for one or the other reason. On the re-opening of the Court, the petition was posted before Shri Justice Kantharia on June 8, 1990. The learned Judge felt that the petition should be heard by Justice Kotwal because some oral directions were given by the learned Judge about filing of affidavit-in-reply. The learned Chief Justice then directed that the petition should be posted before me for hearing. I have heard the petitioner, who appeared in person and Shri Deodhar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.2. The first grievance of the pe...
Mohd. Yusuf S/O Faiz Mohammad and ors. Vs. Jannat Bee W/O Faiz Mohamma ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1990
Reported in: 1991(1)BomCR245
A.A. Halbe, J.1. In an unusual appeal seeking only remand of the Suit No. 240 of 1985, the appellant-plaintiffs who have lost in both the Courts below, have very vehemently contended that both the Courts below committed virtually a blunder in deciding the suit and the appeal only on the preliminary questions of res-judicata and limitation. It has been contended by the learned Advocate for the appellants that the approach by both the Courts below should be termed as perfunctory approach without any indepth enquiry into the allegations made by the appellants-plaintiffs in the suit as well as in the appeal. Both the Courts below miserably failed to comprehend the concept of res-judicata as has been envisaged in section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code and also failed to reckon on the question of limitation, in its correct perspective. Had the Courts below gond through the number of documents produced on record appropriately, the Courts would have certainly not come to the conclusion that th...
National General Mazdoor Union Vs. NitIn Casting Limited and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1990
Reported in: 1991(1)BomCR8; [1991(61)FLR315]
R.A. Jahagirdar, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 24th of July, 1981 passed by the Industrial Court, Thane Bench, in Complaint (ULP) No. 162 of 1980, which had been preferred by the petitioner-union before the Industrial Court. That complaint was filed on 24th of September, 1980, alleging certain acts of unfair labour practices on the part of respondent No. 1, hereinafter referred to as 'the company'. Those unfair labour practices consisted of, among other things, the dismissal of the employees of the company, who were members of the petitioner-union, on the ground, among others, that they were members of the petitioner-union. The complaint which was filed on 24th of September, 1980 was found to have been filed tow days beyond the period of limitation prescribed for filing such complaints under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, hereinafter referred to as 'th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »