Mumbai Court July 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.
Association of Engineering Workers Vs. Dockyard Labour Union and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1991
Reported in: 1991(3)BomCR729; (1994)IIILLJ242Bom; 1991(1)MhLj1278
Pendse, J. 1. Both these petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be conveniently disposed of by common judgment as the issue raised in both these petitions is identical. The facts giving rise to filing of the two petitions are required to be briefly stated to appreciate the grievance made by the petitioner Union in both the petitions. 2. Association of Engineering Workers is a Trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, and represents the employees in the undertaking of Mazgaon Docks Limited, Bombay. The Association of Engineering Workers is also registered as recognised union in respect of the undertaking of respondent No. 2 under Section 11 of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the MRTU & PULP Act). Respondent No. 1-Dockyard Labour Union is also a Trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and filed Application No. 44 of 1987 on October 19, 1987 be...
Srirang Subraia Kamat Tarcar and ors. Vs. Administrative Tribunal of G ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)BomCR326
E.S. Da Silva, J.1. The respondent No. 3 is the owner of part of the building known as 'Mascarenhas Building' situated along the Afonso de Albuquerque Road and D. Antao de Noronha Road, Panaji, which was constructed some years back after the old building, which was existing in its place was pulled down. Since 1920 or thereabout a shop on the ground floor of that building had been leased to the Joint Hindu family of which the petitioner's late father Subraia, his brother late Vishnu, who was the father of respondents Nos. 4 and 5, were the members carrying on the family business of grocery. The said business was being run by them in the name and style of M/s. Vishnu V. Camotim Tarcar. Later on they have opened another shop at Panaji in the building next to Customs House where presently there is Vistar Hotel. On the opening of that shop the petitioner's father and his brother Vishnu reached an agreement whereby the petitioner's father started managing the said shop in the old building wh...
Chandrashekhar S/O Khushalrao Thamke Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1991
Reported in: 1994(1)BomCR163
B.U. Wahane, J.1. This Criminal Application is preferred by Shri Chandra shekhar s/o Khushalrao Thamke, the son of the deceased and thereby challenged the order dated 24-1-1991 on the applications filed by the applicant as Exh. 1 and 2, in Misc. Criminal Appl. No. 425 of 1990.2. That the deceased Khushal Thamke was prosecuted for the offences punishable under sections 448 and 354 of I.P.C. The learned J.M.F.C., Wani convicted and sentenced the deceased Khushal for the offences under sections 448 and 354 of I.P.C. Deceased Khushal was sentenced to suffer R.I. for one month and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offence under section 448 of I.P.C. and R.I. for 3 months for the offence under section 354 of I.P.C. vide order dated 3-12-1986.3. Being aggrieved, against the order passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Wani, deceased Khushal preferred a Criminal Appeal No. 7/87 in the Court of Sessions Judge, challenging the conviction and sentence in Criminal Case No. 440 of 1985, recorded by the le...
Suresh Nathmal Rathi and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2106
ORDER1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners sought various reliefs. However, Shri Bhattad, the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused, specifically restricted his prayer to the effect that a direction be issued to he Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shegaon, to allow the parties to compound the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In the instant petition, though the learned J.M.F.C. Shegaon, is not a party, but State being the respondent No. 1 and the petition being under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which prescribes the supervisory powers, the oral prayer made by Shri Bhattad is to be considered. 2. The petitioner Suresh Nathmal Rathi and the petitioner No. 2, Smt. Shobha wife of Suresh Rathi are the husband and wife. Petitioner No. 3 Ramesh and the petitioner No. 4 Dilip are the brothers of the petitioner No. 1 Suresh. Petitioner No. 5 Smt. Basantibai Rathi is the mother of the...
Tejmal Punamchand Burad Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ379
ORDER1. This Rule is directed against the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Malkapur, in a proceeding u/S. 133 of the Cr.P.C. i.e. for the removal of 'Public Nuisance'. 2. The terms 'Nuisance' as used in Law of Tort is not capable of exact definition. It has been used with meaning varying in extent by the old writers, and even at the present day there is no entire agreement whether certain acts or omissions shall be classified at 'nuisances' or whether they do not fall in any other divisions of the Law of Tort. The 'Nuisances' may be broadly divided into; 1) Acts not warranted by Law or omissions to discharge a legal duty, which acts or omissions obstruct or cause inconvenience or damage to the public in the exercise of rights common to all people; 2) Acts or omissions which have been designated or treated as nuisance by Statute; 3) Acts or omissions generally but not always or necessarily connected with the user or occupation of land which cause damage to anothe...
Advani Oerlikon Limited Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1991
Reported in: 1991(55)ELT486(Bom)
Pendse J.1. The Petitioner No. 1 is a deemed Public Company by virtue of provisions of Section 43(A) of the Companies Act, 1956 and manufactures and markets welding electrodes. The Petitioner Company has seven factories in India including a factory situated at Bhandup. The Company normally sells welding electrodes to its wholesale dealers spread all over the country at uniform prices. The wholesale dealers buy the goods in the course of wholesale trade and, they in turn sell the goods to the consumers. The Company's business consists of two distinct activities, viz. (a) manufacturing welding electrodes and (b) marketing and selling the same. The company makes two types of sales, viz. (1) sales from the factory direct to dealers and (2) sale from the factory to its area offices/godown wherefrom sale to dealers and customers take place. The Company makes all sales ex-factory in the course of wholesale trade in large bulk entirely on a principal to principal basis and the same are evidenc...
P.J. Pipes and Vessels Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1991
Reported in: 1992LC32(Bombay); 1991(56)ELT40(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging legality of order dated March 21, 1991 passed by Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports in exercise of powers under Clause 8-B of Imports (Control) Order, 1955. By the impugned order, it is directed that the grant of licence to the petitioners and allotment of imported goods to the petitioners should be kept in abeyance for a period of six months from the date of issuance of abeyance order. The order recites that pending investigation into the allegation of mis-utilisation of goods imported against Special Imprest and Advance Licences, it is in the public interest not to issue to the said firm any import licenses/CCPs or to allow allotment/delivery of imported goods through any other canalising agency. The power under Clause 8-B can be exercised without obtaining further details in regard to the circumstances under which mis-utilisation took place. 2. Shri Andhyar...
Patel Aluminium Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1991
Reported in: 1991(56)ELT298(Bom)
Bharucha, J. 1. These appeals involve similar facts and the same point of law. The learned Single Judge delivered a judgment in Writ Petition No. 1639 of 1989 and followed the judgment in the other three writ petitions. We can, therefore, dispose of all the four appeals by a common judgment. 2. The facts that we set out relate to the first appeal. The Appellants use aluminium ingots for the manufacture of aluminium extruded shapes and sections and other aluminium articles. The aluminium ingots are purchased by the Appellants from the local market and are also imported from abroad. 3. On 18th April 1980 a notification was issued by the Central Government under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, whereby aluminium ingots were exempted, when imported into India, from the whole of the basic customs duty and additional duty leviable thereon. This notification was to remain in force upto 30th September 1980. On 29th August 1980 the Central Government issued another notification under Sec...
May and Bakar Ltd. Vs. Shri Kishore Jaikrishandas Ichaporia and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-1991
Reported in: [1991(63)FLR319]; (1994)IIILLJ237Bom
Bharucha, J.1. The 1st respondent was employed by the appellant. On 28th April 1983 he was issued with a charge-sheet which alleged that he had committed some misconduct. On the same day he was suspended from service. A domestic enquiry was held. On 19th July, 1984 the 1st respondent was discharged from service. The appellant paid to the 1st respondent suspension allowance for the period of the suspension on the basis of the provisions of the Certified Standing Orders applicable to the appellant's industrial establishment.2. The 1st respondent filed an application before the Labour Court under Section 13-A of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. Section 13-A empowers the Labour Court to decide questions relating to the application or interpretation of a Standing Order certified under the Act. It was the 1st respondent's contention that he was entitled to subsistence allowance under the provisions of the Model Standing Orders, as then amended, under the Bombay Industri...
Dnyandev Pundlik Mali Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-1991
Reported in: 1992(2)BomCR99
M.S. Vaidya, J.1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard Mr. Adsure, holding for Shri Dhorde, for the petitioner and Shri Nayak, A.P.P., for State. 2. The petitioner was convicted the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kopergaon, in S.T.C. No. 916 of 1984 of offences punishable under section 304A of I.P.C. and section 3 read with section 112 of Motor Vehicles Act. For the first mentioned offence, he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to suffer further simple imprisonment for three months; for the latter mentioned offence he was sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for seven days. As per the certified writ, the revision petitioner had paid the fine on 8-6-1987 i.e. on which date the Magistrate had decided the case. 3. Criminal Appeal No. 59 of 1987 preferred to the Sessions Court, Ahemadnagar, came to be dismissed in course of time. The present revision petition is directed agains...