Mumbai Court February 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.
Security Guards Board for Greater Bombay and Thane Districts and ors. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1991
Reported in: 1991(3)BomCR392; [1991(62)FLR986]; (1993)IIILLJ381Bom
S.M. Daud, J. 1. The short question arising for decision in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is as to the applicability of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions 5 Act, 1952 (Act) to the petitioners.2. Petitioners are the Board and its Officers the Board having been constituted under the Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981, hereinafter referred to as the '1981 Act'. The respondent - to be referred to as the 'Commissioner' - is an authority under the Act - the power vested in him being that of overlooking the enforcement of the provisions thereof. On 21.3.1986 and 9.7.1986 the Board was served with the notices at Exs. A and C to show-cause as to why penal action should 2 not be taken against them for the failure to deposit contributions payable under the Act. Ex.B is a reply given by the petitioners to one of the notices aforementioned. Briefly, the stand taken in the reply was 2 that the Act did no...
Vinod Kumar Ramlalji Jaiswal Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1991
Reported in: (1991)93BOMLR107
M.S. Deshpande, J.1. These two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are directed against the refusal of the respondent No. 2 to consider the petitioners for admission respectively in the post graduate degree course in Sharir Rachana and the Diploma Course in Agad Tantra, though they had admittedly secured a higher percentage of marks than the respondent No. 4 in both the petitions, who had been admitted.2. Though Shri Trivedi, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2, stated initially that the fact that higher percentage of marks had been obtained by the petitioners than the respondents No. 4 in the two cases, was not admitted, it is apparent from the return filed in the two cases that there is no dispute about the fact that the two petitioners had secured higher percentage of marks than the respondents No. 4, and if merit were the criterion they should have been preferred for admission to the respondents No. 4.3. Shri Trivedi urged that the respondent No. 2 acted on Ru...
Allana Sons Private Limited Vs. R.M. Gandhi, the Regional Provident Fu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1991
Reported in: 1991(3)BomCR615; [1991(63)FLR120]; (1993)IIILLJ809Bom; 1991(1)MhLj818
S.M. Daud, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution takes exception to the imposition of damages under Section 14-B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.2. Petitioner is a private limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It was incorporated on 1st February 1973 and is engaged in commercial and trading activities. It has an establishment and was covered under the Act in 1975. A code number was allotted to it and remittances representing the employer's and employees' contributions were made to the account kept with the respondent. In October 1976, the Petitioner set up another business being that of shipping and doing business in the name and style of Allan a Lines. Having a work-force of less than 50, the petitioner wanted to avail of infancy benefits under Section 16(1)(b) of the Act vis-a-vis the establishment for Allana Lines. However, on 24th October 1977, it approached the res...
Metazinc Pvt. Ltd. Vs. R.M. Gandhi, Regional P.F. Commissioner and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1991
Reported in: 1991(3)BomCR620; [1991(63)FLR30]; (1992)IILLJ647Bom; 1991(1)MhLj565
1. Petitioner takes exception to Ex. B which amounts to a determination depriving it of the benefit of the infancy period given by Section 16(1)(b) of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, hereinafter referred to as the Act. 2. Petitioner is a Private Limited Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 with its office at Vile Parle (West), Bombay. Since the year 1971, it has a factory at Bhiwandi (Bhiwandi unit) which is engaged in the manufacture of zinc oxide. There was a 100% subsidiary of the petitioner Company at Patalganga manufacturing sulfuric acid and doing business in the name of Shree Siddeshwari Sulphur Products Pvt. Ltd. (Patalganga unit). By virtue of an order passed by this High Court on September 7, 1981 in exercise of its jurisdiction under the Companies Act, the two Companies came to be amalgamated. The Bhiwandi Unit was covered under Section 1(3)(a) of the Act since 1976. A question arose as to how the Patalgan...
Acme Metal Industries Private Ltd. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1991
Reported in: 1991(3)BomCR631; [1991(63)FLR331]; (1994)IIILLJ104Bom
S.M. Daud, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the vires of the fee recoverable under Section 6(1)(d) of the Factories Act. 1948 (Act) or in the alternative the increase in the quantum proposed to be levied vis-a-vis the notification bearing No. FAC-2085/9848/Lab-4 dated 21.5.1986. 2. Petitioner is a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act and having a factory for hot-rolling copper wire bars into flat rods and allied jobs. It has in its employ less than 50 workers and uses electric energy of less than 750 H.P. Its factory is a factory within Section 2(m) of the Act. Section 6(1) of. the Act enables the State Government to make rules for various purposes, one of them being-'(d) requiring the registration and licens-ing of factories or any class or descriptionof factories, and prescribing the fees payable for such registration and licensingand for the renewal of licenses'. The general power to make rules is conferred upon the S...
Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Bom104; 1991(2)BomCR148
1. Is fiber-glass wool (FGW or Wool) an electrical domestic appliance or a component/ spare thereof within the meaning of Entry 50(a)(iv), Schedule H to the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act -- hereinafter referred to as the 'entry', 'schedule' and 'Act' respectively?2. Octroi is a major source of revenue for the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and that Corporation gets the power to impose it on the entry of articles listed in the Schedule -- the entry being for consumption, sale or use in Greater Bombay (see Sec. 192(1) of the Act). The Schedule divides articles listed therein into nine classes -- each class having a heading. Class VIII has the heading 'Metals and articles made of metals'. Entry 50 consists of a main item titled -'Machinery and their components and spares'.The same has two sub-divisions (a) and (b).These sub-divisions are further split into what may be conveniently termed as micro items. Micro Item (a)(iv) relates to 'electrical domes-tic appliances'.3. Petitio...
Minoo Framroze Balsara Vs. the Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Bom375
ORDERBharucha, J.1. The definition of 'public premises' in S. 2(e) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter called 'the Eviction Act, 1971') was extended by Act 61 of 1980 (with effect from 22nd December, 1980) to cover '(2) Any premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of,--(i) any company as defined in S. 3 of the Companies Act, 1956, in which not less than fifty-one per cent, of the paid up share capital is held by the Central Government or any company which is a subsidiary within the meaning of that Act of the first mentioned company, (ii) any corporation (not being a company as defined in S. 3 of the Companies Act, 1956, or a local authority) established by or under a Central Act and owned or controlled by the Central Government.....'These writ petitions and appeal challenge the vires of the Eviction Act, 1971, in so far as it is made applicable to premises belonging to what we shall call 'Government companies and corporati...
Gulabchand Laxmichand Bhutada Vs. Central Bank of India and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-1991
Reported in: (1991)93BOMLR996; 1992(1)MhLj68
B.V. Chavan J. 1. A substantial question of law that arises in the present appeal is : Whether the interest awarded by the courts below was liable to be scaled down under the provisions of the Usurious Loans Act, 1918, or otherwise liable to reduction on account of breach of the circulars issued by the Reserve Bank of India under section 21 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 2. The relevant facts giving rise to the present second appeal are these : 3. The appellant, Gulabchand (hereinafter referred to as 'defendant No. 1'), who is an agriculturist by profession obtained a loan from respondent No. 1, Central Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the bank') from its branch at Yeotmal, District Yeotmal, as a crop loan on August 5, 1970, in the sum of Rs. 4,000 and executed a promissory note, a mortgage deed and hypothecation deed witnessing the said transaction. It was agreed that interest at 4.5 per cent. per annum over the bank rate subject to the minimum of 9.5 per cent. per annu...
MainuddIn Kasim Mulla Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-1991
Reported in: 1991(3)BomCR626; 1991CriLJ1699; 1991(1)MhLj592
M.S. Vaidya, J.1. The appellant in this case was convicted on 6th July 1988 by the learned Sessions Judge, Sangli in Sessions Case No. 6 of 1986 of offences punishable under sections 20(b) and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and was sentenced cumulatively to suffer R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in default to suffer further R.I. for one year. Having felt aggrived by the conviction and sentence awarded to him, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 2. According to the prosecution story, P.W. 1 P.S.I. Abhyankar of the prohibition and excise department, who was working at Sangli in the year 1986, had received on 13th February 1986 at about 10.30 a.m. an information at Miraj that some people were dealing in narcotic drugs in Mali Galli at Miraj. He was accompanied by one P.S.I., Miraj and also one Inspector, whose name he has not disclosed, at that time. Panchas were then called and the raiding party had travelled in a police jeep up...
Shankar Gangaram Khade Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)BomCR494; (1993)ILLJ1190Bom
1. This petition reflects a very sorry state of affairs regarding the conduct of a departmental inquiry by the 1st Respondent/State. I am constrained to say this because the alleged fraud and/or misappropriation related to the sale of postal stamps in the General Stamp Office, at Bombay, and the amount involved was as much as Rs. 66,000/-. The further disturbing factor is that the alleged fraud was committed between April and September 1969. By the present Petition, the petitioner Shankar Gangaram Khade is challenging the memorandum and the charge framed against him on February 1, 1988, being Memorandum No. 10411/ESST in the following facts and circumstances :- 2. It appears that there was a fraud in the General Stamp Office, Bombay, of the nature indicated above and some inquiry was held towards the end of 1969 and/or in the beginning of 1970 by responsible Government Officers. However, all that transpired in the said inquiry was that everything was in order. Later on however, Special...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »