Mumbai Court May 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.
Dr. Mrs. Banoo J. Coyajee and Others., Pratap Govind Pawar and Others. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-02-1991
Reported in: [1995]84CompCas534(Bom)
Mrs. Sujata Manohar, J.1. This group of six appeals is filed against an order and judgment of a learned single judge dated January 13, 1988, in Company Petition No. 476 of 1986, as also against an order of the learned single judge dated March 30, 1988, in two Company Applications Nos. 93 of 1988 and 110 of 1988 in Company Petition No. 476 of 1986. 2. Company Petition No. 476 of 1986 was filed by Shanta Genevieve Pommeret Parulekar and Claude-Lila Parulekar (hereinafter called 'the original petitioners') against Sakal Papers Private Limited and various other respondents as set out in that petition praying for the rectification of the register of members of the first respondent company in the following manner : (i) The names of the original respondents Nos. 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 13 and 14 (hereinafter referred to as 'the purchasers') be removed from the register of members of the first respondent company in respect of the 3,417 shares belonging to the estate of Dr. N. B. Parulekar and 93 shar...
Ashok Baburao Kadam Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-02-1991
Reported in: 1991(3)BomCR95
S.S. Dani, J.1. Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 1990 is filed by Ashok Baburao Kadam original accused No. 1 against the order dated 25th January, 1990 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule, in Sessions Case No. 1 of 1989 holding him guilty for the offences punishable under section 498-A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life.2. The present appellant-accused Ashok is the son of one Baburao Maruti Kadam, who was accused No. 2 in Sessions Case No. 1 of 1989 and both these accused were charged for having committed the offences, punishable under sections 498-A and 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. On appreciation of evidence on record the learned Additional Sessions Judge held that there was no evidence against accused No. 2 Baburao Maruti Kadam so as to prove any of these two alleged offences and in the result acquitted accused No. 2 Baburao Maruti Kadam of both the offences. Accused No. 1, therefore, is the only appellant before us....
R.C. Rajak, Acc (P) R and I Div. Vs. Thaika Mohamed Sayed Kamal Abdul ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-02-1991
Reported in: 1992(39)LC247(Bombay)
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. This is a revision application preferred by the Assistant Collector of Customs (Preventive) and is directed against an order dated 31.3.1991 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 3rd Court, Esplanade, Bombay in Customs Case No. 30CW of 1991. The present respondent No. 1 is the accused No. 2 in that proceeding and he had made an application to the trial Court on 15.3.1991 asking for permission to go abroad for six months in connection with his business. The learned Magistrate, after issuing notice to the Customs Department, after hearing the respective Advocates and perusing the relevant record, passed an order permitting the present respondent No. 1 to go abroad for a period of four months. The learned Magistrate, as appears from the order, has taken into account the fact that the accused No. 2 is a permanent resident of Madras and that his family members are in Madras. The learned Magistrate desired that in addition to the earlier bail amo...
S. Ganapathi and ors. Vs. Air India and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-01-1991
Reported in: 1991(4)BomCR147; [1992(65)FLR134]
M.F. Saldhana, J.1. We purpose to dispose of this group of four appeals through a common judgment for the reason that the point of law that falls for determination in all the four cases is a common one. The brief facts giving rise to these appeals may be summarized as follows.2. The four appellants before us at the relevant time, i.e., in the year 1979-80, were employees of Air India and were stationed at Calcutta. Pursuant to certain incidents that are alleged to have taken place in the month of October 1980, the Corporation instituted disciplinary proceedings against these employees and on the culmination of those proceedings, it was decided to award certain punishments to the four employees. We are not immediately concerned with the greater part of those proceedings because it is common ground that the Corporation applied to the National Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, by way of four approval applications under section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›