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.
Sharad Manilal Gosalia Vs. Superintending Engineer, Government of Goa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)BomCR244
H.W. Dhabe, J.1. The petitioner challenges in this petition the award of the works contract in question to the respondents No. 4 and claims that the same should have been awarded to him, since his tender was, admittedly, the lowest in regard to works contract in question.2. The facts are that by notice dated 15-10-1988 the Executive Engineer, Works Division XIV, Irrigation Department invited item rate tenders for several works. The last date for submission of the tenders was 21-11-1988 and the time before which the tenders were to be submitted, was 3.00 p.m. By letter dated 15-11-1988, the last date for receipt of the tenders was extended upto 3.00 p.m. on 16-12-1988. These works for which the tender notice was issued were in relation to provision for On-Farm Development Works in the Command Area of Branch Canal of SIP for the Water Courses No. 9. The estimated cost of the work as set out in the said tender notice was Rs. 12,83,075/- and the earnest money deposit was Rs. 20,000/-3. The...
Borivli Hosiery Mills Vs. Collector of Customs and Central
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1991
Reported in: (1991)(56)ELT76Tri(Mum.)bai
1. All the three appeals are directed against the same order passed by the Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Rajkot bearing No.13/Collr/1988 dated 13-5-1988.2. The appeal filed by M/s. Borivli Hosiery Mills and Shri Jamnadas G.Merchant, Partner of the aforesaid firm, was argued by Shri Anil Balani, the Ld. Advocate and was heard separately. The appeals filed by Shri Nilesh V. Shah and Shri Suresh V. Shah were argued by Shri A.K.Jain, the Ld. Advocate and were heard separately. Heard Shri K.M.Mondal, the Ld. SDR on behalf of the Department.3. However, we propose to dispose of all the three appeals by this common order, since the issue involved relates to imposition of penalties on the aforesaid appellants with regard to import of the same consignment declared to be "electronic spares for VCRs" consigned in the name of the appellant M/s. Borivli Hosiery Mills, Bombay. At the outset, it is necessary to mention that the goods ordered absolute confiscation are not claimed by any o...
M.C. Thakur Vs. Extrusion Processors Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1991
Reported in: 1991LC18(Bombay); 1991(54)ELT16(Bom)
Pendse, J. 1. This is an appeal preferred by the Government of India to challenge legality of judgment dated July 23, 1987 delivered by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1539 of 1981. By the impugned judgment, the learned Judge declared that the amendments to Section 2(f) and to Tariff Item No. 27 in the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 made by the Finance Act, 1980 and also Tariff Item 8313.11 in Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 to the extent to which it purports to authorise the levy of excise duty on the process of lacquering and printing of aluminium containers, and also Chapter Note 2 at the beginning of Chapter 83 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act are unconstitutional, ultra vires, null and void. The learned Judge, as a consequence of the declaration, directed the appellants to refund the duty collected to the respondents within three months. The facts giving rise to the passing of this order are required to be stated ...
Antony Philip D'souza Vs. Air India and others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1991
Reported in: [1991(62)FLR999]; (1992)IILLJ507Bom
1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning an order dated May 23, 1984 made by the National Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, in Approval Application No. NTB-4 of 1981. 2. The facts leading to the present petition may be summarized as under :- The petitioner was working in the service of the 1st respondent, which is the country's international airline, at Air India Building, Nariman Point, Bombay 400 021. He was in charge of ticketing. On November 2, 1979 the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet alleging misconducts of (i) dishonesty in connection with the business of the Corporation and (ii) breach of Service Rules applicable to the establishment. It was alleged against the petitioner that during the period February 16, 1979 to March 28th 1979, he was duty at the counter in the Booking Office of the 1st respondent at Nariman Point an was specifically positioned at the Gulf against Counter in the normal shift. It was alleged against him that during t...
E.S.i.C. Vs. S.K. Agarwal and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)BomCR88; [1991(63)FLR923]; (1992)IILLJ115Bom; 1991(1)MhLj935
1. This is a petition filed by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation and raises an issue of a considerable importance touching the manner in which some of the trial Courts have been disposing of prosecutions under the Employers' State Insurance Act. The present case is a classic instance of the manner in which judicial indiscretion has unfortunately been used, to show misplaced sympathy to certain accused persons, that too, almost in defiance of specific directions earlier issued by this very Court, the end result being a total miscarriage of justice. 2. The respondents Nos. 1 to 3 to this petition were prosecuted for offence under Section 85(a) of the Employees' State Act, 1948 and had been convicted by the Court on June 21, 1978 on which occasion, they had been find a paltry amount of Rs. 100/-. The accused No. 3 is the firm whereas accused Nos. 1 and 2 are the partners of the firm. Unfortunately, in these prosecutions, the attitude of the trial Courts and the sentences handed d...
Kashinath Namdeo Patil Vs. Meenaxi Kashinath Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1991
Reported in: II(1992)DMC99
A.A. Desai, J.1. The appellant-husband has questioned the correctness and legality of the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court refusingsto grant him a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty.2. The marriage between the parties took place on 17th February1975. As per the case made out the respondent wife left the matrimonialhouse and went to reside with her parents on or about 15th July 1975. Thepetitioner-appellant therefore presented a petition under Section 13 of theHindu Marriage Act, on 27th July 1981 claiming relief of divorce on thegrounds of desertion and cruelty. The trial Court framed the necessaryissues i.e. nos. 2 and 3 and reached to a conclusion that the petitioner failed toprove both the grounds and therefore dismissed the petition by the orderimpugned before me.3. Heard Shri Govilkar at length. According to him the wifevoluntarily, without the consent or permission, withdrew from the companyof the petitioner husband. It was mental design and wit...
Lena Pereira and Others Vs. Mary Boracho and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Bom93; 1992(1)BomCR118; (1991)93BOMLR175; 1991(1)MhLj761
ORDER1. This is a petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners impugning the judgment of theAppeal Bench of the Small Causes Court, Bombay, dated 17th September, 1985 by which the suit of the petitioners was dismissed.2. The facts necessary for deciding this writ petition can be summarised as under:--The suit premises consist of one room in Flat No. 21, 3rd floor of House No. 16, Cross Building at Dock Yard Road, Bombay-10. Flat No. 21 consists of three rooms and a passage. One Francies Pereira was the original tenant of the whole flat and was in occupation of the entire premises. Francis Pereira had a son named Andrew and a daughter named Mary who was married to one Boracho. During his lifetime Francis transferred the tenancy of the entire flat to his son Andrew. He also permitted his daughter Mary to occupy the middle room of the flat along with the members of her family. Francis died in the year 1955. Andrew filed eviction Suit No. 1251/E/61 in the year 19...
Dr. Rajendra Vithalrao Suryavanshi Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-1991
Reported in: 1991(3)BomCR335; 1991CriLJ2068
1. These two appeals can be decided by this common judgment as they arise out of one and the same case in which two appellants-accused No. 2 and accused No. 1, respectively, were tried and convicted for offences u/S. 161 read with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code as also under section 5(1)(d) read with S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Upon conviction, on each count each of the appellants was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months. The substantive sentences of both the appellants were directed to run concurrently. 2. The Appellant (Orig. accused No. 2) in Criminal Appeal No. 786 of 1986 Vilas Phulchand Mutha, is a Field Officer and Development Officer in the employment of the United India Insurance Company Limited having its Divisional Office at Pune. The United India Insurance Company Limited is a subsidiary Company under the General Insurance Corporation ...
Union of India Vs. Gem International
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-1991
Reported in: 1991(34)ECC12; 1991LC24(Bombay); 1991(54)ELT73(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. This appeal and seven other appeals filed by the Union of India and Chief Controller of Imports and Exports from group and the dispute involved in all these appeals is identical, and the issues raised by the appellants are decided by this judgment and in respect of remaining seven appeals only consequential orders will be passed. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated Sept. 5, 1985 recorded by the learned Single Judge granting relief of the respondents on certain terms and conditions. The facts giving rise to the passing of this judgment are not in dispute and are required to be briefly stated to appreciate the grievance made in the appeal. 2. The respondents are the sole proprietary concern and carry on business of exporting diamonds. The respondents are recognised export house within the meaning of Import Policy from April to March 1982-83 issued by the Government of India. Under the Import Policy various kinds of licences known as replenishment licence, adva...
Matoshri Mudrualaya and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)BomCR72; (1995)IIILLJ875Bom
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the prosecutions against petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 instituted by the second respondent, Inspector of the Office of the Regional Provident Funds Commissioner at Bombay, have been challenged.2. Mr. Bhonsale, learned counsel appearing in support of the petition, has challenged the legality and validity of the institution of the said prosecutions being Criminal Case No. 762 of 1978 to 768 of 1978 on two grounds. In the first instance, Mr. Bhonsale has pointed out that the provisions of Section 7(a) of the Employees' Provident Fund Act; contemplate the holding of an enquiry which requirement, according to Mr. Bhonsale, is mandatory and has not been complied with. Secondly, Mr. Bhonsale submits that in a case where a serious dispute arises with regard to the institution of prosecutions under the Act, and where the party has represented that no such action...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »