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.
Dalanvalan Imarat Bandhkam and Patbandhare Kamgar Union Vs. the State ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1991
Reported in: 1991(4)BomCR111; (1993)IIILLJ744Bom
B.N. Shrikrishna, J. 1. This writ petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, impugns an order of the Industrial Court, Nasik, dated 17th March, 1989 made in Complaint (ULP) No.468 of 1987 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 Trade Union of workmen employed in the Public Works Department. The Petitioner-Union filed a complaint before the Industrial Court, Nasik, under Items 5, 9 land 10 of Schedule IV of the Act on behalf of 14 workmen working in the Public Works Department of the State of Maharashtra. It alleged that the concerned 14 workmen had been served with retrenchment orders on 2.7.1987 terminating their services with effect from 9.8.1987. The Petitioner-Union has raised an industrial dispute, inter alia, with regard to the conditions of service of the workmen of the Public Works Department carried on the Daily Wag...
Pralhad Narayan Malawade Vs. Shriram Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1991
Reported in: (1993)IIILLJ748Bom
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. This writ petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, impugns an order of the Labour Court, Kolhapur, dated 31st March, 1982, made in complaint (ULP) No.9 of 1977 as confirmed by the order of the Industrial Court, Kolhapur, dated 20th March, 1985, made in Revision Application (ULP) No. 12 of 1982, Both proceedings 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 first respondent is a Co-operative Society engaged in the business of manufacturing sugar at its factory situated at Phaltan, District Satara. The petitioner joined the services of the first respondent on 3.11.1958 as a Clerk and was thereafter promoted as Sectional Head with effect from 1.11.1969 by an order issued on 2-10.1972. By an order issued on 11.4.1974, with effect from 1.2.1974, he was promoted as Transport Superintendent. On 19th February, 1977, the petitioner was...
Sivnarayan Amarchand Paliwal Vs. Vasantrao Vithalrao Gurjar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1991
Reported in: (1992)94BOMLR866
A.A. Desai, J.1. This petition is directed against order dated 20.12.1990 passed by the respondent No. 4, a Specified Officer setting aside the election of petitioner on the Board of Directors of the respondent Bank, in exercise of powers under Section 144T of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (Act of 1960).2. The petitioner was a representative of an affiliated sale purchase society on the respondent Bank. The Bank is a Specified Co-operative Society as envisaged by Section 73G of the Act of 1960. The State Government in exercise of powers under Section 144X of the Act framed the Maharashtra Specified Co-operative Societies Election to Committee Rules, 1971 (The Rules of 1971).The respondent No. 2, returning officer on 21.9.1987 for the purposes of election of the Board of Directors of the Bank, under Rule 4 declared a provisional list of voters. He then on 21.10.1987 under Rule 7 declared the final list. On 15.4.1988 the Returning Officer, in accordance with Rule 16 declar...
Jamnaprasad Sarju Tiwari Vs. Saban K. Dhone and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)BomCR403; 1993CriLJ1470
1. This is a criminal appeal filed by one Jamnaprasad Sarju Tiwari, a resident of Goregaon, who is supposed to have been conducting a panshop at plot No. 62, Jawahar Nagar. It is alleged that on 14-8-1981, the four accused who are officers/employees of the Bombay Municipal Corporation demolished the pan shop in spite of protests of the appellant. He, therefore, prosecuted the four public servants for offences under sections 427, 447 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 26th Court, Borivali, Bombay, in Case No. 227/S/81. Ultimately, on 10-8-1983, the learned Magistrate acquitted all four accused, the main ground being that the complainant gave evidence and thereafter went away to his native place and was not available for further cross-examination. Not being content with having harassed the public officials for two years through such proceedings, the complainant thereafter filed the present appeal and obtained the leave of t...
Lml Ltd. and Another Vs. M.K. Venkataraman, Assistant Commissioner of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1991
Reported in: [1994]205ITR585(Bom)
1. For the assessment year 1989-90, the petitioners had claimed a refund of tax which included, inter alia, refund of a sum of Rs. 49,65,878, being the tax deducted at source by two companies, viz., LML Fibres Limited and Prakati Synthetics Ltd., in respect of the interest paid by these two companies to the petitioners. 2. However, this amount of tax deducted at source has been paid into the treasury at later dates in the assessment year 1990-91 as per the order passed in Writ Petition No. 2618 of 1989, filed by these companies against the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax. 3. In view of the amended section 143 of the Income-tax Act from the assessment year 1989-90 onwards, any refund due on the basis of a return is required to be granted to the assessee at the initial stage. The provision for refund after regular assessment has been deleted. As per the Central Board of Direct Taxes Circular set out at [1990] 182 ITR 25, no refund can now be granted on completion of assessment under th...
Auro Engg. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. R.A. Gadekar and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1991
Reported in: (1991)93BOMLR595; (1992)IILLJ693Bom; 1992(1)MhLj131
1.This petition impugns an Order of the Industrial Court, Nasik, dated July 31, 1989, made in Complaints (ULP) Nos. 741 to 744 of 1987 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 an employee in the Engineering Industry. The respondents 2, 3, 4, and 5 were employed as fitters in the factory of the petitioner. The petitioner had a total complement of 37 workmen at all material times. From 1st of April, 1987, the petitioner laid off some of the workmen intermittently. The workmen laid off included respondents 2 to 5. The lay-off was on account of the financial difficulty of the petitioner which continued unabated despite the lay-off. On September 8, 1987 respondents 2 to 5 were told by the financial situation of the petitioner-company was getting worse, and, since the lay-of resorted to had not made any discernible improvement in the situation, the petit...
Murlidhar Raghoji Savant Vs. General Manager, Mather and Platt (i) Ltd ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1991
Reported in: 1992(2)BomCR184; (1992)IILLJ394Bom
1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns an order dated March 27, 1986 made by the First Labour Court, Pune, in Complaint (ULP/LCP) No. 40 of 1984, 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 a company carrying on business in the engineering industry and owns a factory at Pune. The petitioner was employed in the said factory. The factory, at the material time, employed about 600 workmen. The workmen resorted to a tool-down strike from May 18, 1983 to June 22, 1983 and thereafter a total strike from June 26, 1983 to July 2, 1983. During this period, a meeting was held on May 29, 1983, near Mehta Hospital, Chinchwad, Pune, which was addressed by the activists of the union sponsoring the strike. During the meeting, one Moses Gabriel Francis, a senior workman of the factory, voiced his doubts as to the advisability of ...
Lml Ltd. and Another Vs. M. K. Venkataraman, Assistant Commissioner of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1991
Reported in: (1993)102CTR(Bom)344; [1993]205ITR585(Bom)
For the assessment year 1989-90, the petitioners had claimed a refund of tax which included, inter alia, refund of a sum of Rs. 49,65,878, being the tax deducted at source by two companies, viz., LML Fibres Limited and Prakati Synthetics Ltd., in respect of the interest paid by these two companies to the petitioners.However, this amount of tax deducted at source has been paid into the treasury at later dates in the assessment year 1990-91 as per the order passed in Writ Petition No. 2618 of 1989, filed by these companies against the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax.In view of the amended section 143 of the Income-tax Act from the assessment year 1989-90 onwards, any refund due on the basis of a return is required to be granted to the assessee at the initial stage. The provision for refund after regular assessment has been deleted. As per the Central Board of Direct Taxes Circular set out at [1990] 182 ITR 25, no refund can now be granted on completion of assessment under the provision...
Associated Shipping Service Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-1991
Reported in: (1992)(43)LC759Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No 39/88 Ahmd dated 31.5.1988 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay, confirming the Order-in-Original No VIII/23-7/Cus/85-86 dated 19.5.1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Porbander, with minor modification requiring the appellants to pay Rs. 18,795.80 by way of Customs duty.2. The appellants, engaged in the profession of shipping Agents, were appointed as agents for a foreign registered vessel "M.V. Uniluck" which came from Bhavnagar and anchored at Rozi Anchorage Bedi, within the jurisdiction of Customs office at Jamnagar, on 30.9.1982. A show cause notice dated 20.9.1985 was served on the appellants, alleging that when the said vessel was anchored at Rozi Anchorage, the master of the ship had filed a declaration, in relation to the items, (duly specified in the Show Cause Notice) as ship stores, but when M/s Chetan Steel, Bombay, the purchaser of the ship for breaking, filed the Bill of Entry, in r...
AshwIn Prafulla Pimpalwar and Etc. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Bom233; 1992(2)BomCR280; (1992)94BOMLR43; 1991(2)MhLj1336
ORDERK. Sukumaran, J. 1. A prelude to the cases before the Court : Admissions to Professional Colleges, Medical, Engineering or others, generates, regularly and recurringly, an annual spurt of litigation. They raise quite often complex and complicated legal problems. Courts, particularly, the constitutional, have the duty and responsibility to resolve the controversies. This feature was adverted to in a recent judgment by the Apex Court (vide Dr. Ku. Nilofar Insaf v. State of Madhya Pradesh : [1991]3SCR429 .2. The time constraint for rendering the decision is often adverted to by the Courts; for there cannot be a retrieval when the sands of time run off. It would be cruelty of a high order to expose indefinitely the flower of intelligent youth to a distressing situation of disconcerting unpredictability the rush and hurry required for an expeditious decision, in turn, entail difficulties on part of Counsel, long arguments in Courts and serious consideration by the Judges. When numerous...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »