Mumbai Court June 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.
Larsen and Toubro Ltd. Vs. Rajnikant Raghunath Belekar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-1991
Reported in: [1991(63)FLR607]; (1995)IIILLJ115Bom
S.P. Kurdukar, J. 1. On a full-dressed trial, the Presiding Officer of the 1st Labour Court, Bombay, vide his order dated August 31, 1983, held that the termination of the 1st respondent by the petitioner-company vide its letter dated 9.7.1979 was not termination simplicitor under Standing Order No. 21, but dismissal and amounts to unfair labour practice under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The learned trial Judge accordingly declared that letter of termination of service dated 9.7.1979 is bad and illegal and directed the petitioner-company to cease to engage in the unfair labour practice and to reinstate the 1st respondent with continuity of service and full back wages with effect from the date of termination. It is this order of this Labour Court which is the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is a ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Bombay Dyeing and Mfg. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1991
Reported in: (1991)LC247Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is filed by the Department against the order in appeal bearing No. PPM-173/Bi-86/88 dated 24-5-1988, setting aside the demands confirmed by the Asstt. Collector vide his order No.V(18A)4-136/82/869 dated 6-2-1985 on the ground that the demand was hit by the period of limitation and that the show cause notice did not contain any allegation as to the wilful suppression or fraud etc.2. Shri Mondal, the ld. SDR for the appellant submitted that the Collector (Appeals) has not considered the issue on merits and has rejected it only on the ground of limitation. He pleaded that the show cause notice was issued on 28-8-1982 raising the demand covering period from Nov. 1981 to January, 1982. In his submission, the present demand was raised on account of testing the sample of the items manufactured by the respondents on 12-2-1981 and the Chief Chemist's report was received on 5-8-1981 indicating that though the respondents had claimed count in 100s, they were found to be 113s. He ...
Nabisha HusseIn Shaikh Vs. K.K. Uppal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)BomCR197
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the Original petitioner in Writ Petition No. 655 of 1982 against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 24-6-1986 dismissing the writ petition. The appellant at the relevant time was working as Clerk, Grade I, with the Docks Department of the Bombay Port Trust, and had challenged the orders whereby he had been dismissed from service by the Chairman of the B.P.T. The appellant had been served with a charge-sheet dated 14-5-1977 alleging therein that he was in possession of assists worth Rs. 90,054/- approximately, which were disproportionate to his known source of income and that, consequently, he had failed to maintain absolute integrity in relation to his duties as a B.P.T. employee and thereby violated the general principles regarding the maintenance of absolute integrity and devotion to duty in the discharge of his duties equivalent to Rule 3 of the B.P.T. Employees (conduct) Regulations, 1976. Pursuant to the serv...
Ramakem (P.) Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1991
Reported in: (1991)39ITD197(Mum.)
1. In this appeal, the assessee is contesting the order passed by the IAC (Assessment) under Section 104 of the Act and raising additional lax of Rs. 8,01,524.2. The assessee is a company. The assessment year is 1983-84 and the relevant previous year ended on 30th June, 1982.3. As per the assessment framed under Section 143(3) of the Act, the status of the assessee was taken by the IAC as "Company (Industrial Co.in which public are not substantially interested)". In the body of the assessment order, the IAC has observed that the business of" the assessee primarily consists of two activities, viz., (i) processing of intermediate dyestuffs at its factory in Kurla, Bombay and (it) trading in dyes manufactured by others.4. During the relevant year, the assessee had declared dividend of Rs. 6,00,000. The IAC was of the view that since the assessee had declared dividend which was less than 60 percent (the statutory percentage) of distributable income, the assessee would be hit by the provis...
income-tax Officer Vs. Shri Krishan Chand
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1991
Reported in: (1991)38ITD552(Mum.)
1. This appeal by the department is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) dated 3-12-1986 cancelling the penalty imposed under Section 140A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1984-85.2. The arguments of the learned Departmental Representative and the learned authorised representative of the assessee were heard.3. An action under Section 132 on 21-7-1983 revealed the existence of three bank lockers, out of which two were exclusively operated by the assessee's wife, Smt. Sudha Chand and the third was operated by the assessee jointly with his wife. From the first two lockers ornaments and jewellery worth Rs. 44,37,445 and Rs. 12,74,854 were found and seized and from the third locker diamond jewellery worth Rs. 76,000 and cash of Rs. 15.000 were found and seized. In her first statement recorded by the intelligence authorities, Smt. Sudha Chand, disclosed that the seized assets belonged to her. As she could not satisfactorily explain the sourc...
Canara Bank Vs. Punalur Paper Mills Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)BomCR690; [1994]79CompCas803(Bom)
H. Suresh, J. 1. Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 have taken out this chamber summons for revoking the leave granted under clause XII of the Letters Patent. 2. The plaintiffs have filed the suit to recover a sum of Rs. 11 crores odd from defendants Nos. 1 to 4. Defendants Nos. 5, 6 and 7 are the other financial institutions with whom the plaintiffs have a pari passu agreement, whereby they have agreed inter se that their respective rights with regard to their claim of each of them as against defendants Nos. 1 to 4 shall rank pari passu without any preference or priority of one over the other or others for all purposes and to all intents. 3. It is an admitted position that all the facilities to defendants Nos. 1 to 4 were granted at Quilon and Punalur, Kerala. The amounts were disbursed at Quilon. Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 carry on business and reside out of Bombay. The immovable properties which are given as security are also situated out of Bombay. However, the plaintiffs have sought to file the s...
Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1991
Reported in: 1991(56)ELT315(Bom)
Saldanha, J.1. This is an appeal directed against a judgment and order of Pratap, J. (as he then was) dated 24th/25th July, 1985, dismissing the Original Writ Petition No. 794 of 1981 filed by the present appellants. We consider it essential to set out the few facts and dates which are of some consequence. 2. The original first petitioner is a private limited company and the second petitioner is a shareholder and director thereof. The second respondent to the petition is the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports who is the licencing authority appointed under the Imports (Control) Order, 1955. The third respondent is the registering authority specified under the Import (Control) Hand Book of Rules and Procedures published by the first respondent - Union of India - and are specified as the registering authority for cotton textiles. As such registering authority, the third respondent is entrusted with the duties and functions of registering and deregistering exporters. The first respond...
Changunabai Chanoo Palkar Vs. Khatau Makanji Mills Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)BomCR85; [1992(65)FLR118]; (1992)IILLJ640Bom; 1992(2)MhLj1641
P.D. Desai C.J.1. The appellant (original writ petitioner) came to be employed in the Winding Department of the Respondent Company sometime in 1944 according to her and in March, 1947 according to the Respondent Company. The Maharashtra Girani Kamar Union called upon all employees in the textile industry in Greater Bombay to resort to strike from 18th January 1982. In view of the said call the appellant along with other employees absented from duty. The strike was declared illegal by an order of the Labour Court dated February 11, 1982. According to the appellant after the Chief Minister made an appeal to the employees to resume duty and the tense situation eased, the employees started reporting for duty and a majority of them were permitted to resume duty. She too reported for duty at the Mill Gate but was not allowed to resume. Her grievance was that she was singled out in that regard and by such discriminatory attitude compulsory unemployment was thrust upon her. She was never charg...
Subhash Dhananjay Inamdar Vs. Rajshri Pictures Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1991
Reported in: (1995)IIILLJ52Bom
H.H. Kantharia, J1. The petitioner-workman was employed by the, first respondent-company as an Assistant Accountant under an appointment letter dated February 16, 1979. His services were terminated by a letter dated June 19, 1981 in the following terms:'We regret that your attitude and behaviour is becoming more and more antagonistic, which cannot be tolerated further. In all the three sections, you were working (1) Billing, (2) Realisations, (3) Exhibitors' Ledger, we find that you are not taking any interest or responsibility in completing the work allotted to you satisfactorily. Hence you are forcing us to terminate your service forthwith. You may settle your account accordingly'. On receipt of the letter of termination on June 22, 1981 the petitioner filed Complaint (ULP) No. 77 of 1981 in the Labour Court at Bombay under Item I of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the MRTU & P...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Forest Department and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1991
Reported in: 1992ACJ833
M.L. Pendse, J. 1. These four appeals arise out of an award declared by the Presiding Officer of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, South Goa, Margao, in Claim Petition Nos. 127 of 1982 and 128 of 1982. Since these two claim petitions arose out of the same incident, it is convenient to dispose of all four appeals by a common judgment. First Appeal Nos. 30 of 1987 and 31 of 1987 are filed by the insurance company while the remaining two appeals are preferred by the driver, the owner and the alleged transferee of a pick-up van bearing registration No. GDZ 5642. The facts leading to the filing of the two claim petitions before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal are as follows:K.M. Godinho was working as Range Forest Officer and on June 16, 1982 he went on patrolling duty along with his staff members Raghoba Naik and Anil Haldonkar. The patrolling party left, moving in a forest area, in a truck bearing registration No. GDL 9872 of the Forest Department and the truck was being driven by Hars...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »