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.
Chhotabhai Jethabhai Patel and Company Vs. Agricultural Produce Market ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1991
Reported in: (1991)93BOMLR337
M.M. Qazi, J.1. Since common question of fact and law is involved in all these petitions. they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The petitioner is a firm carrying on its business in manufacturing Bidis and has its branches throughout India, including Maharashtra as also the district of Bhandara. For the purposes of its business of manufacturing Bidis the petitioner requires raw materials including tobacco and bidi leaves which are purchased by the petitioner mostly from outside the Maharashtra and mainly from Gujarat and Karnataka. The tobacco is purchased from different merchants from Gujarat and Karnataka and for the purposes of transporting the tobacco from various places in different States to Gondia and other branches and also for consuming the same, the petitioner obtained permits from the Excise Department from time to time as and when required. The petitioner has one of its branch offices at Gondia and tobacco is purchased by the petitioner from places outside th...
D.K. Enterprises Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1991
Reported in: (1991)39ITD394(Mum.)
1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee for the assessment year 1987-88. The substantial ground raised in the appeal is that the C1T(A) erred in confirming the stand of the ITO that the books of account and the profits shown be rejected and in conforming the addition made by the ITO of Rs. 6,61,504, being alleged profit earned on a project undertaken by the assessee.2. The second substantial ground is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the ITO to the extent of Rs. 10 lakhs in respect of the structures sold by the appellant, which was purchased along with the land, in the execution of the project.3. Certain facts are required to be stated before we deal with the issues raised in the appeal. The assessee is a firm and we are concerned with the assessment year 1987-88 for which the accounting period ended on 31-12-86. The assessee is a builder and it had shown, during the relevant accounting year, total expenditure, including value of land, at Rs. 4,02,50,871 ...
Raymond Synthetics Ltd. and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)BomCR133; [1992]73CompCas1(Bom)
M.L. Pendse J.1. Petitioner No. 1 is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, while petitioner No. 2 is the managing director and petitioner No. 3 is the General Manager (Finance) and Secretary of the company. The company had obtained an industrial licence dated April 18, 1990, under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, for manufacture of polyester filament yarn with an annual capacity of 25,000 tonnes. The Controller of Capital Issues, Government of India, by a letter dated May 31, 1990, consented to the company issuing 7,20,00,000 equity shares of Rs. 10 each at par and 33,90,000 14 per cent. secured redeemable nonconvertible debentures of Rs. 100 each at par. The consent was for an aggregate public issue of securities valued at Rs. 105.90 crores. The consent letter recites that the consent is qualified by the conditions mentioned in the annexure and the company shall comply with the terms of the conditions so imposed. One of the conditi...
Ravindra Haribhau Karmarkar Vs. Mrs. Shaila Ravindra Karmarkar and Ano ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ1845
1. In the instant application, the substantial question of law, in the public interest, has been raised and requires decision from this Court. The substantial question of law raised is as under : 'Whether a Judicial Magistrate First Class trying an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., is obliged under law, to stay the proceedings, on the ground that a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction has seized the matter in a suit, in which identical pleadings are made, and same reliefs are claimed by one and the same applicant/plaintiff, in whose favour the Magistrate has already awarded interim maintenance ?' 2. The facts giving rise to the above question of law, in nutshell, are as under : The applicant and the non-applicant are the legally married spouses. Their marriage was solemnised as per the customs and rites of Hindu Religion, some times in the year 1969 at Buldana. Out of the wed-lock, they have two issues viz. first issue is a son - Sagar who is living with the applicant while th...
Model Mills, Nagpur Vs. Labour Court, Nagpur and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1991
Reported in: (1993)IILLJ51Bom; 1992(1)MhLj904
1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Labour court Nagpur on May 10, 1985 under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, directing payment of overtime wages at a rate double than the ordinary rate of wages purportedly under Section 59 of the Factories Act. 2.38 employees of the petitioner filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for the recovery of difference in overtime wages which they were entitled to under Section 59 of the Factories Act and those actually paid from the year 1960 to December 1978. Overtime wages were paid to the 38 employees who were working as clerks up to May 1973 at the rate which was prescribed by Mangalmurti Award and from June 1, 1973 onwards they have been paid overtime wages at the rate of twice the ordinary rate of wage as per Section 59 of the Factories Act, rate 11/2 times the ordinary rate of wages for the overtime work put in be...
Anjuman I. Islam Vs. Ashraf Ali Choudhary and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1991
Reported in: (1993)IIILLJ946Bom
Bharucha, J.1. The appeal is preferred against the order of the single Judge dismissing the appellant's writ petition.2. The appellant runs a number of schools, colleges and other educational charitable organisations. For the purposes of its management thereof it also runs a secretariat. The 1st respondent was appointed as an accounts clerk in the secretariat on 2nd January, 1965. He was then promoted and given scale of pay accordingly, with which we arc not really concerned. On 6th November 1971 a meeting was held by the Finance Committee of the appellant which discussed the payment to the staff of the appellant's secretariat salary as recommended by the Badkas Pay Commission, which had been notified by the State Government on 30th August, 1969. It was resolved that 'the staff of the Anjuman Secretariat be paid as per scales laid down by Badkas Commission as well as allowances announced by the Education Department from time to time'. A further resolution was passed by the Finance Comm...
Elar Fashions Ltd. Vs. State of Goa and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)BomCR479
H.W. Dhabe, J.1. The petitioner employer has challenged in this writ petition the reference made by the State Government to the Industrial Tribunal in regard to the dispute about the demands of the workers of the petitioner Factory raised by the respondent No. 2 Union which according to the petitioner is a general Union of workers, in the sense that it is not meant exclusively for the workers in its factory. The order of the State Government making the above reference is dated 11-3-1991 and the same is issued in the exercise of its power under section 10(l)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'). The petitioner has also challenged the order of the State Government dated 28-3-1991 prohibiting continuance of strike or look-out in connection with the aforesaid dispute which may be in existence on the date of the reference which order is issued in the exercise of the power conferred upon it under section 10(3) of the Act. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the peti...
Sandoz (India) Limited Vs. Surinder Anand and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1991
Reported in: 1991(3)BomCR680
S.M. Daud, J.1. This is claim for possession and damages in relation to a flat bearing No. A-1-1, 1st floor, Darshan Apartments, Mount Pleasant Road, Bombay-400 006.2. The suit flat is owned by the Malbar Hill Co-operative Housing Society (Society) which is a tenant co-partnership society. Plaintiff, a public limited company, acquired it initially in the name of an Executive and subsequently got itself substituted in his place. Defendants are full brothers-the first, apart from other things, being the sole proprietor of a concern known as the Oriental Industries. Defendant No. 1 on 28-12-1970 entered into an agreement in relation to the flat with plaintiff. The said agreement labelled a 'leave and licence agreement' is at Ex. P-1. Defendants No. 2 has attested the said agreement. Ex.P-1 permitted defendant 1 to allow the flat to be used by an Officer of the Oriental Industries and the said Officer's family. Defendant 2 and his family are in occupation right since the inception. The occ...
Shiva Rama Salian and ors. Vs. Voltas Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1991
Reported in: (1995)IIILLJ123Bom
S.P. Kurdukar, J.1. In a complaint of Unfair Labour Practice under Items 4(c) and 4(d) of Schedule II and Item 5 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') filed by the petitioners. The Industrial Court dismissed the complaint by its order dated 12.10.1984 (Exh.W). It is this order which is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.2. The first petitioner is an employee of the first respondent who is alleged to have committed unfair labour practice under the aforesaid items. Second Petitioner is the Union. First respondent is a Company having its registered office at Bombay. Second respondent is the Member of the Industrial Court who has passed the impugned order.3. On or about May 31, 1982 the petitioners filed a complaint (ULP) No. 389 of 1982 alleging as under:It is not disputed that the first petitioner is ...
Shankar Sadhuji Khedikar Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporat ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1991
Reported in: (1994)IIILLJ361Bom
M.S. Deshpande, J. 1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Industrial Court, whereby the petitioner's right to come on the time-scale was made operative from 8th September, 1975, when the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short 'Unfair Labour Practices Act'), came into force.2. The petitioner was employed as a conductor with the respondent on April 14, 1971. Under Settlement No. 49, dated 25th April, 1956, the petitioner was entitled to be given the time-scale applicable to the post in which he was employed, after the completion of 180 days. Since this relief was not given to the petitioner, he approached the Industrial Court with a complaint under Section 28 of the Unfair Labour Practices Act. His claim was opposed by the respondent, the contention being that though the petitioner had completed 180 days of service which, under Settlement No. 49, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »