Mumbai Court August 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.
Dhananjay Raghunath Malvadkar Vs. the Maharashtra State Road Transport ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1991
Reported in: (1993)IIILLJ742Bom
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Industrial Court, Nasik, dated 31st March, 1986 made in complaint (ULP) No. 193 of 1985 under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The petitioner is the son of retired employee of the first respondent-Corporation, which is a Corporation set up under the Road Transport Corporation Act, for carrying out the work of conveying of passengers for hire.3. By a Circular dated 20th February, 1984 issued by the Chief Personnel Manager, instructions and guidelines had been laid down for recruitment in various unit cadre posts. The circular provided that, generally for the purpose of recruitment, names had to be called for of suitable candidates from the local Employment Exchange/Special Welfare Officer/Sainiki Board/Social Employment Exchange for Physically Handicapped. It is also, inter a...
Mohamed Yusuf Haji Mohamed Khasim Vs. L. Hmingliana, Secretary, Preven ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)BomCR192
H.H. Kantharia, J.1. As these four writ petitions arise out of same facts and circumstances and the points of law are also the same, they are heard together and are being disposed off by this common judgment. 2. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 452 of 1991 is the brother-in-law of the detenu Abdul Kader Gafoor Imam Shaikh (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Kader'), the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 453 of 1991 is the brother of the detenu Umer Abdul Aziz (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Umer'), the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 491 of 1991 is the wife of the detenu Sultan Hussain Tafzool (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Sultan') and in Writ Petition No. 552 of 1991 the petitioner is the brother of the detenu Narendrasingh Jamindar Singh (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Narendrasingh').3. The petitioners in all these four writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have challenged the detention orders passed by the Secretary (Preventive Detenti...
Arun Wankhede Vs. Executive Engineer and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1991
Reported in: (1991)93BOMLR600
A.A. Desai, J.1. The question of general importance as raised in these petitions, is as to whether the non-compliance of provisions of law could be a failure on the part of an employer to implement an agreement, so as to constitute an unfair labour practice as envisaged by Item 9, Schedule IV (for brevity 'the Entry') of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1971')The complaint of petitioners under Section 28 of the Act of 1971 is that their termination as effected by the employer being in violation of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1947'), is an unfair labour practice, under the Entry. The Industrial Court, however, rejected the complaint so made.2. Mr. S.D. Thakur, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner employee, pointed out that failure on the part of employer to implement, Award, Settlement or Agreement is a...
Elcome Marine Services (P.) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1991
Reported in: (1992)40ITD268(Mum.)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned C.I.T.(A) dated 1-11-1990 for the assessment year 1986-87. 1. The Income-tax authorities have erred in law and on facts of the case in not allowing investment allowance of Rs. 3,06,458 on the machineries bought and used during the year for the purpose of its business. 2. The Income-tax Authorities have erred in law and on facts of the case in disallowing Rs. 1,14,299 under Section 40(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, while the assessment officer had disallowed Rs. 2,18,930 under Section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Without prejudice the balance of Rs. 1,14,299 should also be allowed.3. The arguments of the learned counsel for the assessee and the learned Departmental Representative were heard.4. The assessee-company is engaged in the sales and service of navigational electronic equipment to Indian ships. Apart from this, the company had also secured a contract from the Oil & Natural Gas Commission (O....
Automobile Corporation of Goa Ltd. Vs. State of Goa and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1991
Reported in: (1995)IIILLJ433Bom
K. Sukumaran, J.1. By order dated 28th June, 1991, the Government of Goa exercising powers under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal, Goa, Daman and Diu at Panaji, Goa, as indicated in the Schedule thereto. Essentially, it was in relation to the action of the Government in terminating the services of 16 workmen mentioned in the order.2. The management-petitioner has impugned the order of reference on various grounds. The first and prominent contention was that the Government was denuded of the powers of referring a dispute in the backdrop of antecedent facts and events. It was submitted that there were demands made by the workmen, which enveloped a demand in relation to the action taken against the workmen and that a settlement as evidenced by Annexure P-5 had been reached. That apparently was not the end of industrial confrontation in the establishment. A fresh charter of demands had been submitted on 17th October, 1987, b...
Aspaque Jamil Khan Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1991
Reported in: 1992(2)BomCR394
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. This is an appeal filed through jail. It has been expedited and fixed peremptorily for hearing on the ground that the sentence was passed on 28th September, 1990 and that it is likely to run out. The appellant along with two others was originally charged with having committed offences under sections 392 read with 34 I.P.C. and 397 read with 34 I.P.C. The learned VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, acquitted the accused of the offence under section 397 I.P.C. and convicted them under section 392 read with 34 I.P.C. and imposed a sentence of two years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to under R.I. for six months.2. The facts of this case present a situation of considerable seriousness but it needs to be said at the very outset, that the Railway police authorities at Karjat to whom the matter was reported to had done an admirable job in having apprehended that accused within the minimum possible time and in having recovered the property that had been taken a...
Niranjan Singh Dilipsingh Bhullar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1991
Reported in: 1991(3)BomCR691
H.H. Kantharia, J.1. The petitioner-detenu has filed this habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the detention order passed by the Secretary (Preventive Detention) to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department and Detaining Authority on February 26, 1991 detaining him under section 3(1) of the Prevention of illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 in order to prevent him from engaging in transportation, warehousing and concealment of narcotic drugs.2. The grounds of detention of the same date (annexure 'B' to the petition) show that the allegations against the petitioner were that on February 9, 1990 at about 00.50 hours the control room of the Bombay Police directed the Inspector of Kalachowkey Police Station to verify abandoned and suspected vehicles parked near the compound wall of Veterinary College, Dr. Vijay Walimbe Marg. On receipt of such information, Police Inspector Ingale and Head Constable Shirish Desai an...
State of Maharashtra Vs. K.R. Murlidharan Nair
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1991
Reported in: (1991)93BOMLR965
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. In this appeal, preferred by the State of Maharashtra short question that arises for determination is as to whether the learned Special Judge, for Greater Bombay was justified in extending the benefit of Section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the respondent, who was admittedly, convicted for corruption charges.2. The learned A.P.P. has referred to the relevant provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act viz., Sections 18 and 19 thereof and there can be no dispute about the fact that the learned Special Judge was in error, he having extended the benefit to the accused. The question, therefore, arises as to whether the order requires to be interfered with and if so. what orders in the alternative and required, to be passed in this case.3. The learned Counsel representing the respondent pointed out, that if this Court were to consider the imposition of any other punishment, that the entire matter is thrown open and that he is entitled in law to argue that the a...
Mahadeo Sitaramji Band Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporatio ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1991
Reported in: (1991)93BOMLR963
A.A. Desai, J.1. This petition by the employee is directed against order dated 24.1.1991 passed by the Industrial Court, Amravati. The question of general importance as involved is, Whether the provisions of Section 148-A of the Code of Civil Procedure as regards the filing of caveat has an applicability proceedings1 before the Labour and Industrial Courts.2. The applicant was In the employment of the respondent-Transport Corporation. He Was dismissed in a proceeding under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, he was directed to be reinstated with back wages by the Labour Court. The respondent-Corporation, therefore, presented a revision application before the Industrial Court and prayed for setting aside of the order. In these proceeding the petitioner filed a caveat purported to be under Section 148-A of the Civil Procedure Code3. The respondent in the revisional proceeding applied under Section 30(2) of the Act, for interim ...
Abdul Wahid Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-1991
Reported in: (1991)93BOMLR478; 1992CriLJ1900
Deshpande, J. 1. The learned Single Judge has referred for decision by a Division Bench, the question whether the right accrued to the accused for being enlarged on bail under proviso (a) to S. 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is such an absolute right that it cannot be divested or obliterated by filing a charge-sheet. 2. Abdul Wahid the applicant was arrested on 8-8-1989 at Morshi in respect of an incident which occurred on 25-4-1989 in which a person was killed. The charge-sheet was filed on the 92nd day from the date of arrest that being also the date on which an application for bail was made to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court refused bail on 31-1-1991 despite the contention of the applicant that he was entitled to be released on bail under proviso (a) to S. 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in view of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Shrwan Hanaji Undirwade v. State of Maharashtra : 1976 M LJ 654. The applicant then preferred the present app...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »