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.
iqbal Singh Keer Vs. Shekharappa C. Nagathan and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-1991
Reported in: 1991(3)BomCR86
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. By this petition filed under the provisions of section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner who is the Managing Director of Karnataka Maharashtra Transport Pvt. Ltd., has challenged the issue of process against him in Criminal Cases No. 105 of 1982 in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Sangli. The learned Magistrate had issued process against the petitioner under section 407 read with section 34 I.P.C.2. The brief facts that are relevant for purposes of decision are as follows :The petitioner, at the relevant time, was the Managing Director of a transport company. This transport company had branches at different places in the country and we are basically concerned with two of the branches, the first of them being the Branch situated at Hubli and the second one being the branch situated at Madhav Nagar, Dist. Sangli . Admittedly, this particular company was not on the approved list of transporters with the Indian Banks Association. Messrs ...
Bhagwatiben Harilal Bhojani and Others Vs. Municipal Corporation of Gr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Bom269; 1991(2)BomCR240; 1991(1)MhLj583
ORDER1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to a warrant of attachment marked Ex. A being an annexure to the petition.2. Respondent No. 2 is the owner of an open plot of land measuring 54 ft. x 96 ft., being plot No. 11/12 (part), Nagardas Scheme, New Nagardas Road, Andheri (East), Bombay (Western Railway, His father on and from 1-4-1954 let out the said plot on a rent of Rs. 85/- per month to H. Govindji & Co. being the name and style in which the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners (Harilal the original petitioner) was doing business. There stood some structures on the land which structures were acquired by Harilal. The land together with structures was assessed to property tax payable to the first respondent, hereinafter referred to as the 'BMC'. Certain bills claiming property tax were served upon respondent No. 2's father as also respondent No.2. These were upon an enhanced rateable value. The same were passed on by the lesso...
G.P. Pedke Vs. Syed Javed Ali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1991
Reported in: 1991CriLJ1481
ORDER1. The present application has been filed by the applicant, who is the Police Sub-Inspector, on the ground that he cannot be prosecuted by the non-applicant unless the sanction under S. 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is obtained. It has been argued by Mr. Chouby, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the P.W. I applicant that the offences alleged to have been committed by the applicant have been committed in discharge of his official duties and, therefore, the learned trial Judge was not right in directing issuance of process against him. He has also invited my attention to the notification dated 2nd June 1979 in this behalf. 2. The facts, in brief, which gave rise to the present application are as under : The non-applicant Syed Javed Ali is an advocate. He filed a complaint on 28-8-1990 against the applicant and two others under Sections 294, 506 Part I & II, 336, 427, 341, 342, 500 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and under Section 110 read with Section 117 of the B...
Standard Brand Corporation Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1991
Reported in: 1992(59)ELT42(Bom)
ORDERP.D. Desai, C.J.1. The Writ Petitioners are a partnership firm carrying on business, inter alia, in diverse Alloy Steel Items. In the course of the said business, they imported Electric Resistance Strips (Ferrous Base) on 19th April 1990 as per invoices dated 27th February 1990. According to them, the goods in question were Alloy Steel Items falling under Customs Tariff Heading 7226.99. They filed two bills of entry for warehousing of the said goods (see Exhibit 'A' collectively) and thereunder claimed benefit of Exemption Notification No. 81/90-Cus., dated 20th March 1990. The claim for exemption was advanced on the footing that the goods were covered by serial No. 3 of column 3 of the Table incorporated in the said Notification. In substance, the claim was that the goods were liable to be subjected to the basic customs duty at the rate of 70% ad valorem. Be it stated that there was and is no dispute with regard to the auxiliary duty and additional duty payable. 2. In April 1991,...
Association of Engineering Workers Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1991
Reported in: (1994)IIILLJ97Bom
A.V. Savant, J. 1. This petition by the Association of Engineering Workers of the third respondent-employer under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks to challenge the letter/order dated 12th October, 1988 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Bombay District, Bombay where under he was of the opinion that it was not a fit and proper case for making a reference under Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Since a question of law has been raised before me, a few facts may be stated:2. There was some dispute about the quantum of peace cum productivity reward resulting in willful slowing down of the performance of the workmen between the period 4th March 1982 and 10th June 1982. A charge-sheet was framed on September 29, 1982. In the enquiry which followed, the workmen did not participate effectively and on 30th December, 1982 an order of dismissal was passed. The whole controversy, all along, related to six out of about 150 workmen employed by the third resp...
Rashtriya Hair Cutting Saloon Vs. the Maharashtra Kamgar Sabha and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1991
Reported in: 1991(3)BomCR408; (1991)93BOMLR165; [1991(62)FLR795]; (1994)IIILLJ1086Bom
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner-Employer has impugned part of the Award dated 24th April, 1987, made by Shri S.A. Patil, Member, Industrial Tribunal, Maharashtra State, Bombay, in Reference (IT) No. 159 of 1979 pertaining to demands of workmen of Hair Cutting Saloons concerned in respect of wage scales, dearness allowance, leave facilities, gratuity, bonus, etc. The Maharashtra Kamgar Sabha represents the workmen and is a recognised Union. Several companion petitions pertaining to the same very Award dated 24th April, 1987, are listed along with this writ petition for being heard together. The said Industrial Tribunal's Award is a composite Award and pertains to various Hair Cutting Saloons 2. By its letter dated 23rd October, 1978, the Respondent No. 1-Union sent a Charter of demands to the Petitioner and 34 other Hair Cutting Saloons making a demand for fixation of scales of pay, annual increments, dearness allo...
Anil Vasant MaraThe Vs. the Municipal Commissioner of Greater Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1991
Reported in: 1991(3)BomCR196; [1991(62)FLR923]; (1994)IIILLJ1082Bom
S.M. Daud, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution takes exception to the finding of delinquency and punishment imposed upon Petitioner pursuant to a Departmental Enquiry.2. Petitioner joined the employment of the Respondent Corporation as a Tracer on 7.12.1967. Applying for and having obtained employment in the Security Department of me Corporation, he took over on 1.7.1972 as a Security Assistant. On 13.8.1982 at about 3.00 p.m. a telephone message was received for one S.B. Naik. S.B. Naik was not available, for which reasons, Telephone Operator Mrs. S.S. Katdare passed on the call to the Petitioner to be received by him in the room of Shri Chavan. This room i.e. Mr. Chavan's room, was on the second floor and Petitioner was called to the said room as the extension line in his room was out of order. Information about the call to be received by the Petitioner in Mr. Chavan's room was sent through a Peon. Petitioner refused to attend the call in Mr. Chavan's room and in...
State of Maharashtra and anr. Vs. Kisan Genu Pawar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)BomCR167
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. This is a petition filed by the State of Maharashtra and is directed against an order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Satara in Criminal Appeal No. 108 of 1985. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge was dealing with an order dated 23-10-1985 passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Satara, rejecting the application of the present respondent for the release of his truck and trolley which had been seized by the officers of the Forest Department and was liable for confiscation. The truck No. MTM 4231 and the trolley No. MTL 7291 had been seized by the Range Forest Officer, Mobile Squad, Satara on 7-8-1985. Admittedly, at the time when the vehicles were seized, there was no forest produce being carried in either of them. The admitted position is that the vehicles were found empty and were parked in front of the respondent's residence. The record shows that a few days earlier, on or about 3rd of August 1985, that the officers of the Forest Department apprehen...
Shashikant S. Bagwe Vs. Municipal Commissioner for Greater Bombay and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1991
Reported in: 1991(3)BomCR89; (1991)93BOMLR60
M.F. Saidanha, J.1. The petitioner in this case is the owner of a building by the name of Bages Mansion, situated at M.G. Road, Ghatkopar, Bombay-400 086. He has unfortunately had to carry on a relentless litigation for almost a decade starting from the year 1981 and culminating with the present Criminal Writ Petition, because of the wholly unsatisfactory conduct on the part of certain officers of the Bombay Municipal Corporation.2. Briefly stated, as long back as in the year 1981, the petitioner lodged a complaint with the Bombay Municipal Corporation Authorities to the effect that one Shri Hariprasad Sharma, who was a tenant of the petitioner and who was residing on the first floor of the building, had unauthorisedly constructed a w.c.; that he had also constructed a bathroom and that he had constructed a standing platform with lockers and washing sink for the purpose of cooking. The petitioner had complained about this construction for two reasons the first of them being that the un...
Technova Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1991
Reported in: (1991)LC727Tri(Mum.)bai
1. All the three appeals are directed against the three orders passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) confirming the order of the Asstt. Collector rejecting a part of the claim for refund on the ground that there was a non-compliance of the requirement of Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules.2. As all the three appeals raise the same issue and are by the same party, they are taken up together for disposal.3. As the facts as pleaded are not disputed, it is not necessary to go into the same.4. Heard Shri Parakh for the appellants and Shri Mondal for the Respondents.5. The only ground on which a part of the refund claim has been rejected is that the appellants did not make any endorsement on the third copies of the Gate Passes I and/or invoices, which was compulsory as contemplated under Clause 4 of Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules. It is not in dispute that the letter registering protest was duly lodged with the Department much prior to the clearance under the concern...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »