Mumbai Court January 1991 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.
Militant Security Bureau Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. B.R. Mehr and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1991
Reported in: 1991(3)BomCR406; (1993)ILLJ842Bom; 1991(1)MhLj485
1. Petitioner No. 2 in this case is the Director of M/s. Militant Security Bureau Pvt. Ltd., which is a Company and which is the Petitioner No. 1 herein. Respondent No. 1, who is a Government Labour Officer and Inspector under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, instituted a prosecution against the Petitioners in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 13, Dadar, Bombay, being Case No. 489/SL/1986, alleging infringement of the various provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and the rules framed thereunder. Admittedly, the Petitioners were the contractors of the Executive Engineer, South Bombay Electric Division, Public Works Department, and were required to contract for the services of liftmen in various Government buildings. The Petitioners have, both in the petition as also in the annexures thereto, set out a list of the buildings and the number of employees that are supplied to each of them. From this, it is ev...
Dorab Bomanji Ghadiali Vs. Jamshed Kanga and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Bom13; 1991(2)BomCR244; 1991(2)MhLj878
ORDER1. This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution impugns the trade refuse charge imposed upon small tradesmen by respondent No. 1 for and on behalf of the 2nd respondent.2. The 2nd respondent being the Municipal Corporation for Greater Bombay is governed by the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act -- Bombay Act III of 1888. Section 3(YY) of this Act defines 'trade refuse' as meaning and including 'the refuse of any trade, manufacture or business'. Sections 367 and 368 to the extent relevant vis-a-vis trade refuse or a charge read thus :-- '367. The Commissioner shall provide or appoint in proper and convenient situations public receptacles, depots and places for the temporary deposit or final disposal of--. (a) ..... (b) trade refuse;' '368. (1) It shall be incumbent on the owners and occupiers of all premises to cause all..... trade refuse to be collected fromtheir respective premises and to be deposited at such time as the Commissioner, by public notice, from time to time presc...
Panvel Nagarpalika Parishad, Panvel Vs. Mukund L. Phalke and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)BomCR570; 1991CriLJ1916
1. This appeal filed by the Appellant i.e. Panvel Nagarpalika Parishad, Panvel challenges the acquittal of the Respondent-accused, Mukund Laxman Phalke, for the commission of offence under section 139 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965. 2. The Respondent-accused is the owner of a medical store at Panvel. On 29th April 1980, two officials of the Panvel Municipal Council were on patrolling duty to check cases of illegal imports of dutiable goods within the Municipal limits of Panvel. At about 6-00 p.m. when they were close to the shop of the Appellant, in the bazar area, they saw 3 parcels of boxes been unloaded from an auto-rickshaw. Releasing that goods had been thus imported by the accused shopkeeper, these two officials Bhagat and Mumbaikar proceeded to make enquiries with the accused as to whether the octroi duty has been paid on these imported goods. It was found on enquiry from the accused that duty had not in fact been paid; therefore Gadkari, Senior Octorai Officer and ...
Arun Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1991
Reported in: (1992)ILLJ812Bom
1. The petitioner was appointed as Clerk with effect from July 6, 1973 by the Deputy Works Manager, Central Workshop, M.S.R.T.C., Nagpur vide order dated July 6, 1973. While he was working as a Clerk, he was served with a charge-sheet dated August 22, 1980. The charge was that he committed a theft of two pieces of Rexin cloth measuring 10' x 1' and 33' x 21'. Thereafter, the departmental enquiry was held by one Deshpande, an Accounts Officer, against whom the petitioner had a grievance. The petitioner felt that he was being harassed by Mr. Deshpande and he therefore, sought his transfer from the Central Workshop, Nagpur to any other office and this happened before he was served with the charge-sheet. However, he was not transferred and he had to continue in the Central Workshop at Nagpur, where Mr. Deshpande was working as an Accounts Officer. Mr. Deshpande issued the charge-sheet and also acted as an Enquiry Officer. It is also alleged that Mr. Deshpande extensively cross-examined the...
Bansi S/O. Yada Kalge (Koli) Vs. Ramkrishna S/O Laxman Joshi and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)BomCR240
N.P. Chapalgaonker, J.1. Vithal s/o Laxmanrao and Ramkrishan s/o Laxmanrao, both landlords, filed two separate applications under section 44 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, and in both these filed bearing No. TNC/AR/105/59 and TNC/AR/51/59, the then Naib Tahsildar, Bhoom was pleased to allow the applications and passed an order on 16-3-1959, that each of the landlords be put in possession of 9 acres 38 Gunthas of Survey No. 236, situated at village Pargaon. It is contended that out of this land, half of the land belonging to Vithal s/o Laxman was given in possession of the landlord by dispossessing the tenant, but the possession of rest of the half land belonging to Ramkrishna was not given to the landlord by the revenue authorities. It is the contention of the petitioners herein that the possession of this half land was taken by the landlord forcibly approximately in the year 1974.2. Alleging these facts, the petitioner herein filed and application before th...
Chandrakant Damodar Soparkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)BomCR21; [1991(62)FLR302]
S.M. Daud, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is by a Police Inspector taking exception to a finding of guilt recorded against him in a Departmental Enquiry and the punishment imposed therefore.2. The petitioner while working as a Sub-Inspector of Police at the Bandra Police Station arrested one Sachhidanand Shetty and his associate Vijay Maladkar on 1-5-1981. Shetty was released on bail in the evening and that was not to the liking of the petitioner. Petitioner expressed his dislike in language said to be unbecoming and improper and that gave rise to the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him. Pending the commencement of a Departmental Enquiry petitioner on 17-10-1981 was placed under suspension. A charge-sheet was served upon him on 2-5-1982. Fourteen days later, the suspension was revoked. The Departmental Enquiry was conducted by an Assistant Commissioner of Police and in the course thereof witnesses were examined on either side. Only in respect of...
Bakhtawar Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Tahsildar and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1991
Reported in: 1991(3)BomCR199
S.M. Daud, J.1. The short point arising for determination in this writ petition is whether petitioners who are the inferior holders of alienated land could be proceeded against for arrears of land revenue under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966---hereinafter referred to as 'Code'?2. The land in dispute belongs to N.J. Dubhash and Sir H.P. Dastur, who on the second day of September 1949 leased out the same to the first petitioner - the second petitioner being a Director of the said first petitioner - for a period of 99 years. The land revenue payable on the same was paid for the period 1973 to 1981 by the petitioners. In 1982 petitioners raised a dispute about their liability to pay the land revenue contending that the same was recoverable from the superior holders. This led to their lodging an objection with the Tahsildar, Andheri, Bombay. In this objection, they claimed a refund of the sums paid towards land revenue from 1973 to 1981. The Tahsildar was unmoved and threatened coe...
Ashok Kisan Thorat and Etc. Vs. Jalandhar Baburao Apradh and Another, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-1991
Reported in: (1991)93BOMLR343; 1991CriLJ1718
1. These three appeals arise out of a judgment given in a case in which two persons were accused of contravention of the provisions of clause 13(1)(a) of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1957 read with Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 2. Appeal No. 69 of 1987 has been filed by the original accused Ashok Thorat, Manager of the Karad Co-operative Purchase and Sale Society Ltd., Karad, District Satara. He was, upon conviction, sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. The second accused was one Bhogilal Gulabchand Shaha, a trader of Baramati, district Pune. He was acquitted by the trial Court and hence the State has now filed Criminal Appeal No. 260 of 1987 to take exception to his acquittal. Criminal Appeal No. 261 of 1987 has also been filed by the State taking exception to the rather mild sentence which has been awarded to the accused No. 1 Ashok Thorat upon his conviction. 3. The prosecution case in brie...
P. Ripalkumar and Co. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-1991
Reported in: 1991LC318(Bombay); 1991(54)ELT67(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. These four proceedings, that is two appeals and two writ petitions, can be conveniently disposed of by common judgment as the dispute involved in these four proceedings is identical. The appeals are directed against the judgment dated August 19, 1987 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The two writ petitions were referred to Division Bench and that is how the two appeals and the two writ petitions are placed before us for final disposal. For the purpose of appreciation issues involved in the proceedings we have referred to the facts involved in Appeal No. 1105 of 1987 which arise out of the judgment delivered by Single Judge in Writ Petition in Writ Petition No. 1457 of 1987. 2. The appellants are a partnership firm carrying on business of exporting cut and polished diamonds after importing rough diamonds. The appellants are recognised export house within the meaning of the relevant import p...
Mumbai Shramik Sangh and ors. Vs. N.D. Rathod, Conciliation Officer an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)BomCR49; (1995)ILLJ273Bom
A.V. Sawant, J.1. The petitioner - Mumbai Shramik Sangh -has by this petition challenged the settlement arrived at on November 25, 1987 under Section 12(3) read with Section 18(3) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (for short ' the said Act'). The first respondent is the concerned Conciliation Officer, the second respondent - The Bombay Tyres International Ltd is the employer and the third respondent - General Secretary, Modistone Tyre Employees Union is the Union representing majority of the workmen.2. It appears that there was a negotiated settlement under Section 12(3) read with Section 18(3) of the said Act which was reached on January 3, 1983. However, certain disputes arose as a result of demands made on October 23, 1985, May 15, 1986 and July 4, 1987. The first respondent - employer declared a lockout on October 8, 1986. In the course of conciliation, meetings were held on October 12, 1987, October 16, 1987, November 6, 1987, November 18, 1987, November 23, 1987, November 24, 1...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »