Mumbai Court September 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.
Govind Shanwar Chatal Vs. Dattatraya Waman Bhanushali and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-1991
Reported in: 1992(2)BomCR569; 1992CriLJ1228
Pendse, J.1. The Central Government realised in the year 1975 that there still exists in different parts of the country a system of usury under which the debtor or his descendants or dependants have to work for the creditor without reasonable wages or with no usage in order to extinguish the debt. At times, several generations work under bondage for the repayment of a paltry sum which had been taken by some remote ancestor. The interest rates were exhorbitant and such bondage cannot be interpreted as the result of any legitimate contract or agreement. The system implies the infringement of the basis human rights and destruction of the dignity of human labour. Article 23(1) of the Constitution prohibits forced labour and further provides that any contravention of the said prohibition shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law. Article 35 of the Constitution confers power on Parliament to provide for punishment for the contravention of the provisions of Article 23(1) of the Co...
Shri Netaji Narayan Lotlikar Vs. State of Goa and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2363
M.M. Qazi, J.1. Detenu Bhagwant Babul Lotlikar has been detained u/S. 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short 'the COFEPOSA Act') with a view to preventing him from engaging in transporting smuggled goods vide order dated 3rd May 1990 passed by the Under Secretary (Home), Government of Goa. The grounds of detention were simultaneously prepared on 3rd May 1990. However, the detention order could not be served on the detenu immediately because he was absconding. He was arrested on 18-6-1991 and immediately he was served with the order of detention and the grounds of detention. 2. On behalf of the detenu several challenges have been raised in the petition, but Mr. Karmali, the learned Advocate appearing for the detenu, essentially pressed the challenge raised in ground Nos. (iv) and (v). According to him, though the impugned order of detention was made on 3-5-1990, it was served on the detenu as late as on 19-6-1991, after a...
Briyesh Ramesh Kamble Vs. S. Ramamurthi Commr. of Police and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-1991
Reported in: 1993(2)BomCR670
1. In this writ petition, the validity of the Order of Detention dated March 2, 1991, passed by the Commissioner of Police, in exercise of powers conferred upon him under section 3(2) of the National Security Act 1980, is under challenge.2. The order of detention has been passed on the grounds pertaining to criminal activities of the detenu. The grounds of detention inter alia recite one Kumar Bhagwan Ratan Londhe, aged 26 years, resident of Dhobi Ghat, Dahisar (E), is working in the electric shop and styled as 'Baban Electric Stores' situated at L.T. Road, Dahisar, owned by one Tulsidas Tani. On September 21, 1990, at about 23-30 hrs. Kumar was standing near a 'Bhurji Pav' handcart near Depa Hotel, L.T. Road. Dahisar (W). There were number of other customers eating 'Bhurji Pav'. At that time, the detenu and his associates Sudhir, Narendra and other went there and called Kumar Bhagwan aside and threatened him in enquiring about Tari. When Bhagwan showed his ignorance, the Detenu gave h...
M/S. Parelkar and Dallas, Architechts Vs. Girish Thakorlal Vakil and O ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Bom350; (1992)94BOMLR863
ORDERBharucha, J.1. The appeal arises in somewhat unusual circumstances.2. The Court Receiver has, by an interim order in the suit, been appointed receiver of the assets of a partnership firm which has immovable property at Lonavala. The Court Receiver was advised that he would be liable to pay wealth-tax thereon. For the purposes of its valuation, the Court Receiver appointed the appellants. The appellants are architects and valuers upon the panel of the Court Receiver. The appellants valued the immovable property in the sum of Rs. 60,64,500/-. With their valuation report the appellants sent to the Court Receiver a bill for their fees in the sum of Rs. 30,870/-. The valuation was disputed by the 1st and 2nd defendants. They took out a Notice of Motion in which they prayed that the acceptance by the Court Receiver of the appellants' valuation report should be set aside and other valuation should be obtained. When the Notice of Motion came up for hearing before the learned single Judge ...
Bhagwandas S/O Khimji Patel Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1991
Reported in: 1991(4)BomCR593; 1992CriLJ2022
ORDER1. This criminal revision application is directed against the Judgment and order passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Akola dt. 17-8-90 in Criminal Appeal No. 172/87 arising out of and confirming the judgment and order passed by the J.M.F.C. Akola in criminal case No. 431/1981, dated 5-12-1987, convicting the applicant/accused u/S. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default to suffer further R.I. for 6 months. 2. The accused was tried for the offence u/S. 7(i) r/w S. 2(ia)(m) punishable u/S. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The facts giving rise to the prosecution are, briefly, stated as under : Shri Mankar - Complainant, who is a food Inspector has been notified by the State Govt. for Akola district u/S. 9 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The appointment of Shri Mankar is as per notification No. PFA/1072/52885/V dt. 22-2-1973 and the Jt. Commissioner of Food ...
Purushottam Wamanrao Thakur, and Others Vs. Warsha W/O Narendra Thakur ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1991
Reported in: 1993(3)BomCR587; 1992CriLJ1688; II(1994)DMC173
ORDER1. Whether the institution of the proceeding u/s. 97 of the Cr.P.C. directing the applicant No. 1 Purushottam Thakur to produce and hand over the minor children to the non-applicant No. 1 Smt. Warsha w/o Narayan Thakur, was legal, just and proper This is the only question to determine. 2. The facts giving rise to decide the question raised by the applicants are as follows : The applicant No. 1 Purushottam Thakur is the father of the applicant No. 2 Narendra Thakur. The non-applicant No. 1 Smt. Warsha is the wife of the applicant No. 2 Narendra Thakur. The non-applicants Nos. 2 and 3 viz. Ku. Chinmaya and Akshay are the daughter and son of the applicant No. 2 Narendra and non-applicant No. 1 Smt. Warsha. Therefore, the applicant No. 1 Purushottam Thakur is the father-in-law of the non-applicant No. 1 Smt. Warsha and the grandfather of the non-applicants Nos. 2 and 3 - Ku. Chinmaya and Akshay. Out of the wed lock the applicant No. 2 Narendra and non-applicant No. 1 Smt. Warsha have ...
Venubai Savleram Songaonkar Vs. Gajanan Savleram Alias Sawalaram Songa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1991
Reported in: 1991(3)BomCR719
ORDER1. Were it not for the two recent Supreme Court decisions taking a serious view of the breach of undertaking under the Contempt of Courts' Act as discussed later, the contemner in this case also would have been able to get away with impunity with his conduct which is clearly dishonest and which amounts to wilful breach of a solemn undertaking given to this Court. The tragedy is that the solemn undertaking was given in favour of his aged and widowed step mother and the petition of 1983 is being heard in 1991 and in the meanwhile the poor widow has died in 1990. 2. This is a petition filed for action under the Contempt of Courts Act against the first respondent Gajanan Savlaram alias Sawalaram Songaonkar for having committed a breach of the undertaking given by him to this Court on the 8th April, 1983 in Writ Petition No. 846 of 1983. The said undertaking reads as under :- 'I say that I am staying in bungalow at Baramati along with my wife and 3 daughters and one son. I say that I a...
Dalal Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ramrao Bhaurao Sawant and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1991
Reported in: 1991(4)BomCR571; (1992)IILLJ384Bom; 1991(2)MhLj1534
1. This writ petition impugnes the Orders of the First Labour Court, Thane, dated September 23, 1987 and May 30, 1988, as confirmed by the Industrial Court in revision by the Industrial Court's Order dated April 7, 1989. The proceedings in the two Courts below were 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 a private limited company, which carries on business as structural engineers and fabricators of industrial engineering equipment. For this purpose, they are required to get steel and other raw-material from their customers and carry out fabrication thereof within their factory. The first respondent is an employee of the petitioner working as a Fitter. One workmen, by name T. B. Patel, was dismissed by the petitioner on September 25, 1986, after he was found guilty of certain misconduct proved against him at a duly held domestic enquiry. It appears ...
Namdeorao Krishnaji Gajabhiye Vs. Agricultural Produce Marketing Commi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1991
Reported in: (1991)93BOMLR984
W.M. Sambre, J.1. Heard parties.2. Rule returnable forthwith.3. Petitioner claims that he is a Broker and therefore the Award passed by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Narkhed, dated 15.1.1990 holding him to be a Commission Agent is liable to be quashed and set aside.4. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was given a licence as an Adtiya by the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (A.P.M.C.), Narkhed, on his application dated 24.9.1988. The petitioner gave an undertaking that he will abide by the rules and regulations of the A.P.M.C. The licence was issued to him under Rule 6(2) of the A.P.M.C. (Regulation) Rules, 1967, wherein the conditions for working as Adtiya have been prescribed. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a Broker/Dalal and has nothing to do with the designation of Adtiya/Commission Agent. On the complaint made by the agriculturists/horticulturists, the respondent-A.P.M.C. passed a resolution authorising the Secretary to file a dis...
Jayshree Enterprise Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1991
Reported in: 1992(41)LC338(Bombay)
Sujata Manohar, J.1. These three Writ Petitions pertain to import of Ball Bearings made in China. Although the petitioners applied for withdrawal of the petitions, we directed the Respondents to file affidavits in these petitions because from the year 1987 onwards, as many as about 70 writ petitions have been filed in this Court in respect of import of Ball Bearings manufactured in China. In each of these matters, a final order has been taken by both the parties submitting the minutes of the order. Under the orders which have been taken in each of these petitions, the petitioners have been allowed to clear the goods on the basis of provisional assessments and the Respondents have been at liberty to make final assessments in accordance with the law. So far however, in not a single case has any order of assessment been made.2. Section 18 of the Customs Act provides for provisional assessment, inter alia, in a case where the proper officer deems it necessary to make further inquiry for as...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »