Mumbai Court September 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.
Bombay Labour Union Vs. Haulage Corporation and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-1990
Reported in: 1991(1)BomCR403; [1991(63)FLR144]
S.M. Dadu, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution takes exception to a declaration holding the workers owing allegiance to the petitioner guilty of having commenced and continued an illegal strike from 13-7-1982 till 13-9-1982 (both days inclusive), constituting an unfair labour practice within the meaning of section 24(1) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (PULP Act.).2. The first respondent was in the transport business and had a work force consisting of amongst others Drivers and Cleaners. Some or possibly the majority of employees, working with respondent 1 joined the petitioner Union and that is how the said Union became a force to reckon with in the affairs of respondent No. 1 Prior to the supremacy attained by the petitioner the workers of respondent No. 1 were affiliated to another Trade Union known as All India Transport Kamgar Union. This Union had raised a charter of demands and the same consti...
Mumbai Kamgar Sabha and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-1990
Reported in: 1991(1)BomCR422; [1991(63)FLR148]
S.M. Dadu, J.1. This petition challenges the vires of notification dated 18th September 1978 issued by the 1st Respondent under section 1(5) and section 1(4) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.2. The Act has been passed to provide for certain benefits to employees in case of sickness, maternity and employment injury and to make provision for certain other matters in relation thereto. Being an enactment of the Union Government, the Act was made applicable in the first instance to all factories other than seasonal factories. Having regard to the sheer size and diversity of employments in the country, it was left to the appropriate Government to extend the provisions of the Act or any of them to 'any other establishment or class of establishments, industrial commercial, agricultural or otherwise'. The expression 'appropriate Government' was to mean (i) the Central Government in respect of establishment under it control or a railway administrati...
Bombay Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited Vs. Vinayak Krushnaj ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-1990
Reported in: 1990(3)BomCR682
S.P. Bharucha, J.1 This is an appeal against the dismissal of the winding up petition filed by the company itself under the provisions of section 433 (a), (e) and (f) of the Companies Act 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act').2. The company was incorporated as a public company limited by shares on 15th November, 1979 and was then called the CIDCO Transport Corporation Limited. It was a subsidiary of City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limit ('CIDCO') and its share capital was held by CIDCO and its nominees. The shares of CIDCO itself are owned by the State of Maharashtra and its nominees. The object of the company was to carry on the business of carriage of passengers by road and water within and around New Bombay. The nominal capital of the company is Rs. 50,00,000/- divided into 50,000 shares and its issued and paid-up capital is Rs. 10,00,000/- divided into 10,000 shares. On 17th June, 1980 the name of the company was changed to that which it presen...
Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-1990
Reported in: 1991(51)ELT217(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Company is challenging notice of demand dated April 20, 1979 served by the Superintendent of Customs and Central Excise, Century Rayon Range, Shahad, Dist. Thane. The facts giving rise to service of this notice are not in dispute and are required to be briefly stated to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner Company.2. The petitioner Company runs a factory situated at Shahad near Kalyan, and manufactures rayon yarn for which wood pulp is used as a raw material. The Company imports wood pulp from outside the country from time to time. The import of wood pulp is liable to payment of customs duty and the countervailing duty under Tariff Item No. 68. The Company imported various consignments of wood pulp between February 1978 and February 1979 and the imported material was stored in the bonded warehouse. On August 2, 1976 the Central Government in excise of powers conferred by sub-section...
Daulat Raghunath Derale Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-1990
Reported in: 1990(3)BomCR608; 1991CriLJ817
H.H. Kantharia, J.1. This appeal preferred from jail by the accused-appellant arises from the judgment and order dt. March 25, 1988 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Thane, in Sessions Case. No. 655 of 1987, convicting the accused for an offence of possessing crude heroin, punishable u/S. 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NDPS Act').2. The relevant facts giving rise to the appeal are as under :Police Sub-Inspector Murlidhar Borkar (P.W. 2) of the Crime Branch, Thane and at the relevant time attached to Kalyan Unit, was present at the Control Room at about 12-00 noon on May 29, 1986. At that time, information was received that the accused, a resident of Bail Bazar, had in his possession heroin powder and that he was selling the same. Therefore, he secured the presence of two panch-witnesses from the neighbouring locality and organised a raid and proceeded to the slum area where the accused was residing. The accused was se...
Apar Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-1990
Reported in: 1991(51)ELT224(Bom)
M.L. Pendse, J.1. It is not necessary to set out the facts leading to the filing of this petition in great detail because the main controversy stands conclude decision recorded by Full Bench of this Court and reported in : 1985(22)ELT644(Bom) Apar Private Ltd. and other v. Union of India and others. The proceedings are required to be remitted back to the Collector of Central Excise and Custom, Pune and only the relevant facts to appreciate the order of remand would be set out hereinafter.2. The petitioners filed five applications for refund of customs duty before the Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Pune. Three applications were lodged on August 8, 1973, while the remaining two on August 17, 1973. The total amount of refund sought by these applications was to the tune of Rs. 3,07,000/-. The applications were rejected by the Collector by order dated September 26, 1974 and the order of rejection was confirmed by the revisional authority on June 16, 1978. The refusal of the Collec...
Pudumjee Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-1990
Reported in: 1991(51)ELT235(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. The petitioner No. 1 is a joint stock company registered under the provision of the Companies Act and owns a factory situated at Theregaon in Pune District. The Company manufacturers various types of speciality papers including grease proof paper and glassine paper. The papers manufactured by the Company are liable for payment of excise duty under Tariff No. 17 and the Item reads as under :-'17. Paper and paperboard all sorts (including paperboard, millboard, starboard, carboard and corrugated board) in or in relation to the manufacture of which any process is ordinarily carried on with the aid of power - (1) Uncoated and coated printing and writing paper (other than poster paper) 25% ad valorem. (2) Paper board and all other kinds of paper including paper of paper boards which have been subjected to various treatments such as coating, impregnating, corrugation, creping and design printing not else where specified. 40% ad valorem.'2. In exercise of powers conferred by sub-...
Kishan S/O Dashrath Naikwade Vs. Asrabai W/O Babu Naikwade and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-1990
Reported in: 1991(2)BomCR24; 1991(1)MhLj68
N.P. Chapalgaonkar, J.1. In Regular Civil Suit No. 380 of 1980, plaintiff Kishan sought the relief of declaration that the decree in Regular Civil Suit No. 105 of 1968 is not binding on him and is invalid and also for perpetual injunction restraining defendants from interfering into his possession. The property in dispute is Survey No. 196/A situated at Village Chousala in taluka and district Beed.2. It is not in dispute that the property is an inam land which was abolished under the provisions of Hyderabad Abolition of Inams and Cash Grants Act, 1954 and is not service inam. The occupancy of the said land was given to Babu Gopala Naikwade- the husband of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and father of defendant No.3. It is also not in dispute that Kishan is the nephew of said Babu being brother of Dashrath who is real brother of Babu. It is the case of plaintiff that because of the oldness of Babu, he gave these lands for cultivation on batai basis to the plaintiff and, therefore, plaintiff ...
S.B. Gaikwad Vs. Iyer Subramanya Venkateswara
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-1990
Reported in: 1990(3)BomCR736
Ashok Agarwal, J.1. Writ Petition No. 293 of 1989 has been filed by the original defendant tenant seeking to challenge the judgment and decree dated 24th November, 1988 passed by the Appellate Court of the Small Causes, Bombay in Appeal No. 89 of 1986. By the impugned decree the plaintiff's suit for possession under section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent Act has been decreed on certain conditions.2. Writ Petition No. 4257 of 1989 is by the original plaintiff seeking to challenge the very judgment and decree which is the subject matter of Writ Petition No. 293 of 2989. By this petition the plaintiff seeks to impugn the order directing him to provide alternate accommodation to the defendant as a condition precedent to the grant of a decree for possession in his favour.3. The suit premises consist of residential premises admeasuring about 500 sq. ft. Situate on plot No. 12.A, First Road, Chembur, Bombay. 400 071. The said property was purchased by the plaintiff on 22nd May, 1972. On 25th Jan...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›