Mumbai Court October 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.
Ramdas Mahadeorao Shrirao and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1991
Reported in: 1991(4)BomCR533; 1992CriLJ2641
ORDER1. There Police Officials who are the protector of law and order, are prosecuted u/S. 376(2) of I.P.C. for committing rape on a Adiwasi Korku woman of village Toranwadi. Out of the three Police Officials, the applicant Nos. 1 and 2 are the Constables and the accused No. 3 P. H. C. Ramchandra is absconding as he was denied anticipatory bail by this Court. Besides three Police Officials, the applicant No. 3 Turrebajkhan and P.S.I. Patil are also prosecuted for abetting the offence. 2. The applicants Nos. 1 and 2 and the absconding accused P. H. C. Ramchandra were attached to Police Station, Chikhaldara, Tahsil Achalpur, District Amravati. Police Out-post Katkumbh is within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Chikhaldara. At the relevant time, i.e. on 17-8-1991, Constable Mohansingh was posted at the Out-Post, Katkumbh. On or about 15th or 16th August, 1991, one Shalikram, a resident of village Toranwadi and nephew of Tanu Darshimbe, reported to Police Out-post, Katkumbh, that his un...
Sahebrao S/O Laxmanrao Vitiwale Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1991
Reported in: 1994(1)BomCR148
A.A. Desai, J.1. The Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati recorded a finding of conviction against the appellant-original Accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for having, on 26-4-1986 at about 8.30 p.m. in village Gopalpur, committed murder of Pundlikrao Mahinge by inflicting injuries with the aid of spear (Article 1 and 9) and then rejected his plea of right of private defence.2. Involvement of the accused in the incident of assault is not in dispute. The question is whether he is guilty of culpable homicide amounting to murder, or acted within the or exceeded in exercise of the right of private defence. Before scrutiny of evidence as regards the incident of assault, we propose to mention certain predominant features of the prosecution case.A) The appellant-accused in his report Exhibit-37, as regards the incident, referred to Bhaurao as one of the persons who came with deceased Pundlikrao to his house. Baburao is a brother-in-law of Pundl...
Delux theatres Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bombay Labour Union
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1991
Reported in: (1995)IIILLJ257Bom
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. This writ petition impugns the order of the Industrial Court, Bombay, dated 9th July, 1984, made in Complaint (ULP) No. 140 of 1983 under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company doing the business of exhibiting films and owns a Cinema Theatre known as 'Navrang Cinema' at Andheri. There were about 38 workmen working on the premises of Navrang Cinema. Out of these, we are concerned only with 10 workmen who were employed in the five Cafeterias situated on the premises of the said Navrang Cinema. The others were employed in connection with the exhibition of pictures and we are not concerned with them in the present petition. Some time in the last week of January 1983, 13 workmen connected with the exhibition of pictures and 7 workmen working in the Cafeterias, became members of the respondent-union. The responden...
Phoenix Mills Ltd. and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1991
Reported in: (1993)IIILLJ844Bom
Ashok Agarwal, J. 1. The first petitioner is the Phoenix Mills Ltd. engaged in the business of spinning yarn and weaving and processing of cloth and the second petitioner is one of its share-holders. They have filed the present petition seeking to impugn the order dated 8th June 1983 (Exhibit II to the petition) passed by the Government rejecting the petitioner's application dated 25th October 1982 (Exhibit-C) under Section 36 of the Payment of Bonus Act (21 of 19 6 5) for exemption to pay the minimum bonus to the workers, which at the rate of 8.33% works out to a sum of Rs. 26,60,000/ -. The first respondent is the State of Maharashtra. The second respondent is the Under Secretary to the Government in the Industries Energy & Labour Department and the third respondent is the Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh which represents the workmen of the petitioners. A few facts leading to the filing of the petition may be stated. 2. On 2nd September 1977 a catastrophic fire engulfed the three storied...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Jagdish Oil Mills
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1991
Reported in: 1993ACJ719
H.W. Dhabe, J.1. This is defendant Railways' appeal against the decree for damages in the sum of Rs. 80,000/- with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of suit till realisation passed against it on 29.1.1983 by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nasik, in Special Civil Suit No. 67 of 1981.2. The plaintiff is a registered partnership firm carrying on business of groundnut oil at Nasik. The plaintiff firm used to purchase the groundnut seeds for the use of its oil mill from various places outside Nasik. One Satyanarayan Traders of Kothapet, District Chittoor (A.P.), despatched to the plaintiff firm as per its order dated 12th May, 1980, 280 bags of groundnut seeds of the best quality, each bag containing 80 kg. of groundnut seeds from Sullurpeta under invoice No. 1, wagon No. NRC 30456 to Nasik Road Railway Station. The railway receipt was endorsed in the name of the plaintiff firm. The consignor, i-re., Satyanarayan Traders referred to above drew a hundi for...
Sudam Vanaji Shirsat Vs. Shetkari Sahakari Sangh Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Bom347; 1993(1)BomCR543; (1992)94BOMLR797
ORDER1. A very interesting argument has been advanced on behalf of the writ petitioner in the present case. The writ petitioner was working as a Marketing Manager of the 1st respondent -- Co-operative Society. His services, have been terminated by an order dated 11th June, 1991. His termination is assailed in this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. Counsel was conscious about the hurdles --many of them -- which he had to cross, to have writ petition entertained by us.2. Whether a co-operative society is an authority within the provisions of Art. 12 of the Constitution of India, is the threshold question.3. It is unnecessary to burden the judgment with decisions of various courts including those of the Apex Court, where helpful aids and guidelines have been given for resolving that controversy. Even in relation to the co-operative societies, the question has been considered by High Courts. Some decisions have taken the view that the cooperative societies are outs...
Omprakash Gulabchandji Partani Vs. Ashok and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1991
Reported in: 1993(3)BomCR611; 1992CriLJ2704
ORDER1. This revision application is preferred against the order dated 31-1-1991 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amravati, in Criminal Case No. 10/87, dismissing an application (Exh. 16) filed under S. 468, Cr.P.C. by the applicant-accused. 2. The facts giving rise to the present revision-application are as under : The respondent No. 1, Ashok son of Ruprao Ulhe, a Seed Inspector in the Department of Agriculture of Maharashtra State, had lodged a prosecution against the applicant-accused and two others under Cl. 23(g) of the Seeds Rules, 1968, for contravention of S. 7 of the Seeds Act, 1966. The complaint case is filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amravati, on 2-1-1987. The learned C.J.M., Amravati, took the cognizance and passed an order issuing process against the accused persons including the present applicant. The applicant-accused (original accused No. 2) is the proprietor of Nilesh Agro Service Centre, Cotton Market Road, Amravati, which deals particularly ...
Union of India Vs. Gum Export Corporation
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1991
Reported in: 1992(58)ELT26(Bom)
Bharucha, J. 1. On 30th June, 1986 the Spices Export Promotion Council issued a circular letter to all registered exporters setting out the rates of cash compensatory support applicable to the exporters of spices, whole or ground, spice mixtures and powders. The rate was specified as a percentage of the f.o.b. value. It was 10% 'for consumer packs under specified brand names' and 5% 'for all others in consumer packs'. The rates were intended to be applicable to exports made on and after 1st July, 1986 and upto 31st March, 1989 but Government reserved the right to withdraw or alter them at any time it merit. By another circular dated 20th February, 1987, it was noted that representation were being received that in the absence of brand names being specified exporters were not getting any cash compensatory support. It had therefore been decided to grant CCS at the rate of 7% for exports under brand names in consumer packs and this decision would be applicable to exports made on and after ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›