Mumbai Court February 1992 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.
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Chandralal Nalvani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1992
Reported in: 1992(43)LC326(Bombay)
M.L. Pendse, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by Union of India to challenge legality of judgment dated February 2,1987 delivered by learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 294 of 1987. By the impugned judgment the learned Judge directed Union of India to refund amount of Rs. 42,164.43 being the amount collected as countervailing/additional duty from the petitioners.2. The learned Counsel for Union of India complained on the last occasion that Chandralal Nalvani, in whose name the petition was filed before the learned single Judge, had not declared or sworn the petition, nor has instructed Kantawala & Company to file the petition. It was claimed on behalf of Union of India that a bogus petition in the name of Chandralal Nalvani as the sole-proprietor of a proprietary firm, Climex Chemicals was filed and order was secured from the learned Judge. To ascertain the accuracy of the grievance, we directed Mr. Kantawala to keep his client present in Court and find out from him whether he ha...
Madhukar Matu Bhalekar Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1992
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2366
1. The appellant in this case has assailed his conviction on corruption charges both u/S. 161 of the Indian Penal Code and 5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act whereunder a sentence of one year R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default R.I. for three months have been awarded on each count. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution alleges that the accused was working as a Gram Sevak at Group Gram Panchayat of Kamatghar in Bhiwandi Taluka. On 29-3-1982, one Shamsuddin Kamaluddin Siddiqui had made an application to the Sarpanch requesting to transfer the house situated at Gaurr Pada in his name and to allot a number to the house and to issue house tax receipt in his name. The complainant is an illiterate person and had in fact got the work of preparing the application etc., done through the accused. It is alleged that the accused told him that he would have to spend some amount for his work. On 13th April 1982, when the complainant enquired whether his work was done, the acc...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. A.K. Mahansaria
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1992
Reported in: 1993(3)BomCR455
D.J. Moharir, J.1. This appeal by the State is for enhancement of the sentence awarded to the respondent-accused, upon his conviction on admission for a contravention of the provisions of a rule framed under the Factories Act, 1948 and punishable under section 92 thereof. The respondent is the occupier of M/s. Balkrishna Paper Mills Ltd., Ambivali P.O., Mohane, Taluka Kalyan, District Thane. The worker of a contractor engaged by the petitioner for carrying out certain works met with a fatal accident on 6th July 1983. The fact of this death was inquired into by the complainant Inspector of Factories. The facts were as under:2. One Gulamuddin Mohiddin Kureshi was one of the workers employed by the contractor. He had been working near the asbestos sheet roof of Plant No. III of the paper mill. The work being carried out by him and other workers was of water proofing of gutter of the said plant building. While so working near the asbestos roof the said workman Gulamuddin Mohiddin Kureshi h...
Hiralal Ganeshmal JaIn Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1992
Reported in: (1992)94BOMLR128; 1993CriLJ1209
Smt. Sujata Manohar, J.1. The petitioner is the brother of one Babulal Ganeshmal Jain, who has been detained under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, by an order of detention dated 13th of September 1990. Thereafter, the Detenu has continued to be in detention as a result of a declaration made under section 9(1) of the COFEPOSA Act on 13th of February 1991. 2. The order of detention is made by Shri L. Hmingliara, Secretary (Preventive Detention) to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department, who has been specially empowered by the Government of Maharashtra to issue such detention orders under section 3(1) of th COFEPOSA Act. In the ground of detention, the Detenu has been informed that he has a right to make a representation to the State Government against the order of detention and such representation should be addressed to the Minister of State for Home, Mantralaya, Bombay - 400 032, through the Superintendent ...
Regional Manager M.S.R.T.C. Vs. Civil Judge, Senior Division and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1992
Reported in: (1994)ILLJ140Bom
A.A. Desai, J.1. This revision application is directed against order dated 20th June, 1991 passed by the non-applicant No. 1 the Civil Judge, rejecting the objection, under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as regards the jurisdiction of the Court to try a matter relating to a member of the Trade Union.2. The non-applicant No. 2 is an Union of the employees engaged in the applicant's establishment. The Union is registered under the provisions of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (hereinafter referred to 'the Act of 1926'), and was affiliated as a member to the non-applicant No.3 Federation which is also a registered Union. The non-applicant No.2 filed a Civil suit claiming a declaration that it being a member of the Federation, has the exclusive rights to enjoy the privileges and claimed that the Corporation be restrained from acting on a letter dated 2nd December, 1990 issued by the Federation whereunder it accepted the membership of non-applicant No. 4 Union. The trial Court granted...
Regional Manager, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. the ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1992
Reported in: 1994(1)BomCR158; [1992(65)FLR710]; (1994)IIILLJ957Bom
A.A. Desai, J. 1. This revision application is directed against order dated 20.6.1991 passed by the non-applicant No. 1-the Civil Judge, rejecting the objection, under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as regards the jurisdiction of the Court: to try a matter relating to a member of the Trade Union.2. The non-applicant No. 2 is an Union of the employees engaged in the applicant's establishment. The Union is registered under the provisions of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (hereinafter referred to 'the Act of 1926'), and was affiliated as a member to the non-applicant No. 3 Federation, which is also a Registered Union. The non-applicant No. 2 filed a civil suit claiming a declaration that it being a member of the Federation, has the exclusive rights to enjoy the privileges and claimed that the Corporation be restrained from acting on a letter dated 2.12.1990 issued by the Federation whereunder it accepted the membership of non-applicant No. 4 Union. The Trial Court granted the tempo...
Dr. Kashinath G. Jalmi and anr. Vs. the Speaker, Legislative Assembly ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)BomCR113; (1992)94BOMLR874
M.L. Dudhat, J.1. Petitioners in this writ petition are the members of the Legislative Assembly of Goa. Respondent No. 1 is the speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Goa, Respondent No. 2 is the Deputy Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Goa and respondent No. 3 is the Chief Minister of Goa. The petitioners have filed the present writ for quashing the order passed by the Deputy Speaker, respondent No. 2 dated 7th/8th March, 1991 whereby respondent No. 2 had reviewed and set aside the order of the earlier Speaker dated 15th February, 1991 disqualifying respondent No. 3 as a member of the Legislative Assembly of Goa.2. At the admission stage it is contended by Mr. Kakodkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the impugned order passed by the Deputy Speaker-respondent No. 2 dated 7th/8th March, 1991 is illegal, void and inoperative. According to the petitioners under Tenth Schedule to the Constitution there is no power given to the Speaker to review his own dec...
Motandas Nandiram Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)BomCR74
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. The petitioner has orally applied for decree in terms of Award herein with reasonable rate of interest from the date of the award till passing of decree and from the date of decree till payment. It is not disputed and is not disputable that the Court can award interest on the amount payable under the award from date of decree till payment by virtue of powers conferred on Court under section 29 of Arbitration Act, 1940. The question which arises for consideration of the Court is as to whether the Court has power to award interest from date of the award till passing of the decree if the award is made prior to 19th August 1981 i.e. the date when Interest Act, 1978 came into force.2. In Srikantia & Co. v. Union of India, : AIR1967Bom347 , Tulzapurkar, J., held that Court can award interest while passing decree in terms of the award only from the date of the decree. While delivering this judgment, the learned Judge examined the provisions of Interest Act, 1839, section 34...
Narsayya Ashanna Vs. Tata Robins Frazer Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1992
Reported in: 1994ACJ288; 1994(2)BomCR522; (1994)IILLJ149Bom
B.U. Wahane, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated February 10, 1982 passed by the Commissioner, under the Workmen's Compensation Act at Nagpur, in W.C.A. No. 18 of 1978, dismissing the application filed by the appellant/worker, on the ground that it is time barred. Heard Shri Dharmadhikari, the learned Counsel for the appellant. None present for the respondent.2. It is not disputed that the appellant Narsayya Ashanna was working with the respondent - Tata Robins Frazer Limited, as Khalashi on monthly wages of Rs. 240/-. On March 11, 1974, he met with an accident while he was in the employment of respondent. He was admitted in the Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur, by the respondent, for treatment and he was there till October, 1977. The appellant was under treatment from time to time and ultimately on October 14, 1977, Dr. Marwha, Professor of Surgery of the Government Medical College & Hospital, Nagpur, issued a certificate, certifying him fit to resume duties and a...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Udechand Ramchandra Luniya and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1992
Reported in: 1992(1)BomCR516
H.H. Kantharia, J.1. The first respondent, Udechand Ramchandra Luniya (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff), filed Special Civil Suit No. 49 of 1979 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Satara for compensation of Rs. 51,600.76 ps. on account of a motor car accident in which he was involved at the hands of the second respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the second defendant') who was driving the motor car belonging to the appellant (hereinafter referred as 'the first defendant') i.e. State of Maharashtra. It was the case of the plaintiff that on October 9,1975 at about 4.00 p.m. while he was proceeding on a bicycle by the extreme left side of the Satara-Koregaon road towards village Mahuli, the ambassador car driven by the second defendant gave him a forcible dash on account of which he fell down and received serious injuries to his right leg, on his head and he also sustained some minor injuries on the other parts of his body. The plaintiff further contend...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›