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.
Bombay Municipal Executive Staff Union and ors. Vs. the Municipal Comm ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1991
Reported in: 1991(4)BomCR15; (1993)IIILLJ135Bom
B.N. Srikrishna, J. 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns an order of the Industrial Court dated 24th December, 1982, dismissing the Complaint (ULP) No. 272 of 1980 made by the petitioners before the Industrial Court, Maharashtra under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.)2. The first respondent is the Municipal Commissioner of the Bombay Municipal Corporation, and the second respondent is the Executive Health Officer employed therein.3. In the Health Department of the Bombay Municipal Corporation, there is a post of 'Chief School Clinic Organiser'. Below this, there are posts of Assistant School Clinic Organisers. Prior to March, 1978, the Assistant School Clinic Organisers were promoted to the post of School Clinic Organisers merely on the basis of Seniority and there was no specific qualifications for the post other than that they should hav...
Rajkumar Ramchandra Sahu and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)BomCR187
H.H. Kantharia, J.1. In this appeal, appellants-accused Nos. 1 and 2 challenge their conviction under section 8(c) read with section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NDPS Act') and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three years recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in N.D.P.S. Special Case No. 1010 of 1989 by a judgment and order dated October 8, 1990.2. The relevant facts giving rise to the appeal are as under.On September 2, 1989 at about 7.00 a.m. Dattaram Narayan Ketkar (P.W. 1), a head constable attached to Nagpada Police Station, received information that a dealing in narcotic drugs would take place at Room No. 6, Building No. 40 at the 6th lane of Kamathipura, M.R. Road, Bombay. Head Constable Ketkar, therefore, contacted Sub-Inspector Dagdu Patil (P.W. 5) and accordingly the raiding part...
Sampat Shripat Lambate Vs. Suresh T. Kilachand and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1991
Reported in: 1991(3)BomCR688
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. This is an appeal that has been pending since the year 1980 and is part of a group of 12 companion appeals. The matter is one of some seriousness in so far as the appellant who is the Secretary of the Digvijay Mills Employees Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., has assailed the correctness of the judgment and order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 6th Court, Mazagaon, dated 3-5-1979, acquitting the accused.2. The complainant before the Trial Court in his capacity as Secretary of the Digvijay Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., filed a complaint under section 147(b) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and section 409 read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code against the chairman and Manging Director, the Directors and the Secretary of the Digvijay Mills Ltd. The complainant stated that the Society used to advance loans to the members who are the employees of the Mills and that there existed an arrangement/agreement under which the loans were t...
Trishul Dye Chem Vs. Collector of Central Excise and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1991
Reported in: (1992)LC479Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Though this day, only the stay application was listed for hearing, Shri Willingdon Christian, the Ld. Advocate on behalf of the appellants, pleaded that the arguments on the appeal as well as on the stay application are one and the same, namely the issue of time bar.Though the order has been passed with regard to the denial of exemption under Notification No. 43/82 he is not challenging that part of the order. He is challenging the demand confirmed only on the ground of time bar. He submitted that the show cause notice was issued on 8-3-1990 in respect of the duty payment made during the Financial Year April 1985 - March 1986. Hence he would be advancing the argument only on the time bar aspect.2. After hearing both the sides and with their consent, we decided to take up the appeal itself for disposal. .3. The appeal is against the Order-in-Original No. 7/Demand/91 dated 16-12-1990 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara. The facts of the case for purpose of ...
Bhagwan Jathya Bhoir Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1991
Reported in: (1992)94BOMLR388; 1992(2)MhLj979
1. An issue of immense importance which would concern a large number of pending corruption prosecutions and appeals, as also curtail numerous others that would otherwise have been mechanically dumped on the Courts had arisen in this appeal, which is summarised as follows : Whether it is not fundamental for a sanctioning authority, while according sanction under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, to withhold sanction in petty cases where facts allege an isolated instance, and where the case would not justify the minimum sentence of one year R.I. and fine, and whether in such cases the public servant ought to be dealt with through disciplinary proceedings at the departmental level Whether a sanction order issued without application of mind to these considerations would be bad in law 2. This criminal appeal relates to an incident that had taken place as long back as on 9-2-1982. The appellant who, at the relevant time, was working as a clerk in the Rationing Office at Bhi...
Bombay Tyres International Limited Vs. B.P. Talathi and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1991
Reported in: 1991(4)BomCR1; [1991(63)FLR690]; (1993)IIILLJ1Bom
B.N. Srikrishna, J. 1. This petition, though purported to be filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, on the appellate side of this Court, can conveniently be disposed of by treating it substantially as a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. Since the reliefs claimed in the petition can be granted by treating it substantially as a petition under Article 227, I have done so.2. The petitioner filed an application for approval of the action of dismissal taken against the second respondent-workman by an order dated 4th April, 1978. The application for approval of the action became necessary, as, at the relevant time, an industrial dispute vide Reference (IT) No. 523 of 1975 was pending before the Industrial Tribunal. As required by Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), as parts of the same transaction, the petitioner issued the Order of Dismissal dated 4th April, 1978, despatched to the workman a sum o...
R.M. Nerlekar Vs. the Chief Commercial Supdt., Central Rly.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1991
Reported in: (1993)IIILLJ753Bom
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. This writ petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, impugns an order of the Central Government Labour Court No. 2, Bombay, dated 2.8.1982 made, inter alia, in Application No. LC/2/111 of 1971.2. Application No. LC/2/111 of 1971 was filed jointly by the petitioner and eight others, who described themselves as Commercial Inspectors, The applications were made under the provisions of Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The applicants were allotted files for investigation pursuant to which they were sent on line on Central Railway as well as other Railways for the purpose of investigation of various claims. During the course of their duties they were required to travel on almost all the days in a month and attend the office on first of every month to submit the report of the work done and then leave the headquarters with the newly allotted work. The applicants alleged that under Rule 8, Subsidiary ...
Khetshi K. Haria Vs. Fourth Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1991
Reported in: (1992)40ITD167(Mum.)
1. The two appeals have been filed by the assessee for the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85 against the orders of the CIT (Appeals) dated 21-12-1989 confirming penalties of Rs. 2,20,952 and Rs. 2,69,954 under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85 respectively. These were heard together and are disposed of by this consolidated order.2. The assessee herein is earning income mainly from proprietary concern and share of profit from a registered firm, M/s. K.K. Traders.On 3-10-1983, search and seizure operation was conducted by the department at the business as well as residential premises of the assessee. However, nothing incriminating was found either at the residence or at the business premises and, apparently, no order under Section 132(5) of the Act was, therefore, passed consequent to this search and seizure operation.3. In response to notice under Section 148, the appellant filed his return showing income from property, business i...
Sahebrao Kisan Jadhav and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)BomCR423; 1992CriLJ339
1. This Criminal Appeal raises certain issues of far-reaching significance which I am summarizing as follows : (A) If in the purported exercise of trade union functions an office-bearer assisted by seven of his colleagues, all armed with iron-bars, engage in a murderous assault on the Factory Manager and other officers who are able to ward off the intensity of the attack and thereby not only survive but suffer relatively minor injuries, whether the accused can contend at the highest that they are liable only for causing simple hurt and that the conviction for attempt to murder under such circumstances is erroneous; and (B) Whether the Accused in such circumstances who are admittedly employees of the Company and workers engaged in the factory who have unauthorisedly stormed into the cabin of the Factory Manager can be independently convicted on a charge of criminal trespass in the light of their defence that as employees they have every right to enter any part of the Company's premises...
Lawarance D'souza Vs. State of Maharashtra and another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ399
ORDER1. The Petitioner was arrested on 3-5-1990 and is an under-trial prisoner in N.D.P.S. Special Case No. 889 of 1990, for alleged offences u/S. 8(c) read with Ss. 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'N.D.P.S. Act') for having been found in possession of 5 K. Gms. of Brown Sugar on 3-5-1990 during a raid and search carried out by the Officers of the Narcotic Cell on information received by them. Prosecution relies upon the Panchanama of seizure heavily. According to the Petitioner he has been falsely implicated and nothing was found from his possession. 2. The Petitioner, inter alia, complains violation of S. 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act. That Section reads : '50. Conditions under which search shall be conducted. - (1) When any officer duly authorised u/S. 42 is about to search any person under the provisions of S. 41, S. 42 or S. 43, he shall, it such person so requires, take such person without unnecessary delay to the neares...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »