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.
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and ors. Vs. Ankush Jijab ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-1991
Reported in: (1994)IIILLJ112Bom
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1.These are cross-petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, impugning an order of the Industrial Court, Pune, dated 31st May, 1984 made in Complaint (ULP) No. 324 of 1981 under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). For the sake of convenience. The first petitioner in the sake of convenience, the first petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3127 of 1984 will be referred to as 'the Corporation' and the first respondent therein as 'the employee'. This reference will be in both the writ petitions, which are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The employee was working as an Electrician on daily basis in the employment of the corporation since the year 1967. He worked as Electrician in the Deputy Engineers's Section in the Civil Engineering Department of the Pune Division of the corporation. In that section, there is one permanent post of Ar...
B.C. Rajak, Asst. Collector of Customs, R and I(P) Vs. Apinos Victor a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)BomCR106
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay, and is directed against the Judgment and Order of the learned Addl. Chief. Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Bombay, dated 27th May, 1991. The learned Magistrate had acquitted the respondents before this Court, i.e., the Original Accused, who stood charged with having committed offences punishable under section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with section 13(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, Imports Control Order 17/55 and section 11 of the Customs Act, under sections 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b) read with section 135(1)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962, and under section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act.2. A few facts which are relevant for the purpose of this appeal are set out below :According to the prosecution, a ship by name M. V. MANASLU which was on voyage from Karachi to Bombay, relayed a message from the Captain to the agents at Bombay who, in turn, informed the Customs A...
Ramesh Dhaktu Shirodkar and ors. Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)BomCR659
G.D. Kamat, J.1. These three appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment as they arise out of one and the same judgment and order convicting the appellants under section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 in Sessions Case No. 4 of 80 recorded on 31st December, 1990. 2. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 91 was the accused No. l, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 91 was the accused No. 2 and the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 91 was the accused No. 3. There was another co-accused. No. 4, put up for trial but, however, he was acquitted by the teamed Sessions Judge. We will refer to the appellants as accused Nos. 1,2 and 3 the positions in which they were tried in the Sessions case. 3. The prosecution case is that there was a confidential information that accused Nos. 2 and 3 husband and wife were dealing in narcotic drugs at their residence at Calangute. A raid was therefore arranged on the morning of 2nd July, 1987, with two panchas. ...
A.C. Rajak, Assistant Collector of Customs Vs. Apinos Victor and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-1991
Reported in: 1992(41)LC512(Bombay)
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay, and is directed against the Judgment and Order of the learned Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Bombay, dated 27th May, 1991. The learned Magistrate had acquitted the Respondents before this Court, i.e. the Original Accused, who stood charged with having committed offences punishable under Section 120-D of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, Imports Control Order 17/55 and Section 11 of the Customs Act, under Sections 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b) read with Section 135(1)(i) of the Customs Act. 1962, and under Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act.2. A few facts which are relevant for the purposes of this appeal are set out below:According to the Prosecution, a ship by name M.V. MANASLU which was on voyage from Karachi to Bombay, relayed a message from the Captain to the agents at Bombay who, in turn, informed the Customs Autho...
National Leather Cloth Mfg. Co. Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1991
Reported in: (1994)(69)ELT612Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Both the aforesaid appeals have been filed against the same order.During the hearing the Ld. advocate Shri J.J. Bhatt stated that the appeal No. 52/91-BOM is a duplication of appeal No. 51/91 because one of the appeal was filed by the parties directly and the other was filed by the solicitors. Hence, he requested that the appeal No. 52/91-BOM may be treated as superfluous and the same may be disposed of accordingly. In view of the aforesaid submission, we dismiss the appeal No. 52/91 as duplication of appeal No. 51/91 and confine the submissions to appeal No. 51/91.2. Appeal No. 51/91-BOM is directed against the order bearing No.SKM-2171/89-B.II, dated 29-10-1989. The issue involved in this appeal is the eligibility of modvat credit in respect of the duty/CVD paid on 'release paper' falling under Chapter 4810.90 used in relation to the manufacture of PVC coated fabrics classifiable under Chapter 59.03. It was held by the Asstt. Collector that release paper is an appliance and there...
Ramniklal Tulsidas Kotak and Others Vs. Varsha Builders and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Bom62
ORDER1. By my order dated 30th July 1991, I have granted injunctions, inter alia, in respect of flats and shops in the building under construction on the suit land or any part thereof and also passed a conditional order for appointment of receiver in respect of the suit land and all the structures standing on the suit land or any part thereof. The defendant No. 1 is constructing 51 flats and several shops after amalgamation of the suit plot with two other plots. I had therefore thought it proper to direct the parties to file affidavits so as to identify the flats and shops covered by the abovereferred order dated 30th July 1991. After considering the affidavit of defendant No. 2 dated 5th August 1991 and affidavit of plaintiff No. I dated 8th August 1991 and the submissions of learned counsel for the plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 1 to 3, I pass this clarificatory order to the effect that the order dated 30th July 1991 shall be applicable to 39 flats and 4 shops particularised in Exhib...
Abhimanyu Govind Mali Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)BomCR396
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. This is an application filed by an under-trial accused who has been in custody since the year 1988. The applicant is facing charges under sections 147, 148 and 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also alleged that the applicant along with his companion accused have committed offences punishable under sections 37(1), 135 and 142 of the Bombay Police Act. Four of the original accused had applied to this Court for release on bail through Criminal Application No. 2573 of 1988. It appears that prior to the filing of this application, the accused had moved the Sessions Court as also third Court for bail and that the application came to be rejected. My brother Kotwal, J., by an order dated 28-12-1988, released accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 but rejected the application of the present applicant. There are no reasons indicated in that order as to why this distinction was made but a perusal of the record indicates that this was obviously done, since there are di...
Indian Institute of Technology Vs. Ratan Surveyor and Company
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1991
Reported in: 1992(2)BomCR461
A.A. Cazi, J.1. This petition is for setting aside the Arbitrators, Award dated 7th September, 1989 which is filed as Award No. 178 of 1989.2. On 22nd December, 1978 there was an agreement between the petitioners and the respondents, under which the respondents agreed to construct hostel, canteen and connecting corridor at the petitioners' Institute at Powai. Under the said agreement, the work was to be commenced on 29th September, 1978 and it was to be completed by 28th December, 1979. There are what are stated to be' conditions of contract which are annexed to the agreement and also form part of the agreement between the parties. It is mentioned in the agreement that M/s. M.K. Talpade & Associates has prepared the drawings and specification describing the work to be done. The term 'the Architects' in the conditions means the said Messrs. M.K. Talpade and Associates. Under condition 20, a provision was made in respect of delay and extension of time. Conditions 21 related to damages fo...
Rajeshkumar Porwal Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-1991
Reported in: (1992)40ITD142(Mum.)
1. This is a group of 30 cross appeals by the assessees and by the revenue in the case of five assessees (Rajeshkumar Porwal, Rakeshkuniar Porwal, Sushilkumar Porwal, Sunilkumar Porwal and Sanjivkumar Porwal) which were heard together since the issue involved in all these appeals is the same. These appeals are disposed of by a common and consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. Since the main order of the CWT (Appeals), Nagpur, dated 14-10-1988, is in the case of Sanjivkumar Porwal for the assessment years 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83, we will deal with the facts and arguments stated in this order. The arguments advanced by the learned Departmental Representative and the learneu counsel for the assessees with reference to this order and our decision on the issues raised in this order will apply to other connected cases, namely, Rajeshkumar Porwal, Rakeshkumar Porwal, Sushilkumar Porwal and Sunilkumar Porwal. The brief facts as culled out from the papers filed before us and as...
Krishinchand Khubchand Jagtiani Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)BomCR449; 1992CriLJ1071; 1991(2)MhLj1228
1. The short question which will dispose of this petition embracing larger and many questions is in relation to the applicability or otherwise of certain provisions of S. 83 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act viz. Bombay Act No. III of 1888 - hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. 2. For a proper pinpointing of the question that I am taking up for determination it will be necessary to set out the factual and legal parameters : The petitioner K. K. Jagtiani was working as an Assistant Engineer with the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (BMC). It is alleged that on 10th February, 1987 the petitioner along with one. Sawarkar and certain other municipal employees took action against M/s. Asian Oil Company of Sewree, Bombay-15. As an aftermath of this action, S. K. Toprani a partner of M/s. Asian Oil Company contacted Inspector G. G. Aparaj Anti-Corruption Bureau on 11-2-1987. On the basis of information furnished by Toprani, an offence was registered ascribing to the petitioner a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »