Mumbai Court March 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.
Dinkar Vishwanath Panse Vs. Jayant Vasant Joglekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1992
Reported in: (1992)94BOMLR646
A.V. Savant, J.1. This is a Revision Application filed under Sub-section (2) of Section 31F of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short, the 'Bombay Rent Act') seeking to challenge the order dated 5th August, 1989 passed by the Competent Authority, Pune Division, Pune, in proceedings under Section 13A1 of the said Bombay Rent Act. This Revision Application raises the question as to the scope of the powers of this Court in a revision under Sub-section (2) of Section 31F of the Bombay Rent Act. Section 13A1 incorporates a special procedure in favour of the members of the Armed Forces of the Union, scientists and their successors-in-interest who are entitled to recover possession of the premises bona fide required for their occupation or for occupation by any member of their family. The premises are a two room tenement in the House belonging to the Respondent situate at 48/2, Paud Road, Erandwane, Pune. The respondent, admittedly, is now serving as a Lt...
Govind Rubber Ltd. Vs. Pavan Tyres Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1992
Reported in: [1995]83CompCas556(Bom)
S.M. Jhunjunuwala, J. 1. Company Petition No. 537 of 1991 has been filed by Govind Rubber Ltd. Bombay (hereinafter referred to as 'the transferor company'), and Company Petition No. 538 of 1991, has been filed by Pavan Tyres Ltd., Bombay (hereinafter referred to as 'the transferee company'), under sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, for sanction being accorded to the scheme of amalgamation of the said two companies. 2. The transferor company was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), on February 6, 1981, at Bombay under the name of Govind Rubber Pvt. Ltd. with the liability of members limited by shares. Thereafter, the transferor company's name was changed to its present name on April 2, 1986. It present authorised capital is Rs. 2 crores divided into 20 lakhs equity shares of Rs. 10 each. Its present issued, subscribed and paid-up capital is Rs. 1.50 crores divided into 15 lakh equity shares of Rs. 10 each fully paid up. Th...
Firestone Tyre Employees Union, Now Known as Modistone Tyre Employees ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)BomCR634; (1993)ILLJ426Bom
1. This writ petition challenges an award of the Industrial Tribunal, Maharashtra, Bombay, made in Reference (IT) No. 149 of 1979, by which the demand for the maximum bonus of 20% for the accounting year 1976-77 was rejected. 2. The petitioner is a registered trade union of the workmen employed in the second respondent-factory at Sewree. The second respondent is a company which manufactures tyres, tubes and allied products. 3. The second respondent declared and paid the minimum bonus of 8.33% of the annual earning/salary during the accounting year 1976-77. The petitioner, being dissatisfied therewith, raised an industrial dispute that all the workmen should be unconditionally paid bonus at the rate of 20% of their annual earning/salary for the said accounting year. Failing a settlement between the parties, and, consequent upon the failure of the conciliation proceedings, the appropriate Government referred the said demand for adjudication of the Industrial Tribunal. The parties filed t...
Asmaco Plastic Industries and anr. Vs. Municipal Corporation for City ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)BomCR188; (1992)94BOMLR338
M.L. Pendse, J.1. The petitioner No. 1 is partnership firm of which petitioner No. 2 is a partner. The firm carries on business as manufacturers of PVC film, tubings and laminated cotton fabrics in their factory situated at Thane Industrial estate, Thane. Respondent No. 1 is a Municipal Corporation of City of Thane, constituted under Bombay Provincial municipal Corporations Act, 1949. Section 127 of the Act confers powers on the Corporation to impose diverse taxes including levy of octroi duty. In exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 321 read with the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 105 of the Act, the Government of Maharashtra has framed rules known as the Maharashtra Municipalities (Octroi) Rules 1968. Schedule I to the rules set out the goods which are liable to octroi on being imported within the octroi limits of the Corporation for sole, use or consumption. Item No. 40 which falls under Class III i.e. the articles used for fuel, lighting, washing and in...
Santosh Poddar and anr. Vs. Kamalkumar Poddar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)BomCR310
Sujata Manohar, J.1. The plaints in both these suits have been placed before us in somewhat unusual circumstances.2. The plaintiffs in Plaint Lodging No. 396 of 1992 had filed Suit No. 6975 of 1991 in the City Civil Court at Bombay for a declaration that the first defendant therein had ceased to be a Director of Poddar Tyres Limited, the third defendant therein with effect from 31st December, 1990. They sought a further declaration that all meetings of the Board of Directors of the third defendant Company held after 31st December, 1990 and in particular, the meetings allegedly held on 23rd March, 1991 and 10th June, 1991 are illegal, invalid, non est and the resolutions passed at these meetings are illegal, invalid and non est and not binding on the third defendant Company or the plaintiffs. They sought a further declaration that they continued to be the Directors of the third defendant Company and their purported cessation as such Directors in invalid, illegal, non set and void.3. The...
C.K. Talwar Vs. M/S. Rallis India Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Bom1; 1992(2)BomCR638; (1992)94BOMLR170; 1993(1)MhLj347
1. Will this Court turn a Nelson's eye to a class of litigation that is unnecessarily throttling the functioning of the justice dispensation system which itself is groaning under unbearable arrears and virtually gasping for breath? For too long has it been the order of the day in and around the city of Bombay, particularly for persons in unjustified occupation of premises, to litigate virtually for decades together and use this time period as an umbrella for continuation of such illegal activities. Pendency of a litigation based on such claims invariably couched in a vanear of profoundness, arc used as the justification for such wrongful retention of the premises, thereby defeating the possessory rights of the owner. In the process, it is the Courts at whom an accusing finger is pointed as the institutions that have permitted this state of affairs to flourish. The modus operandi, invariably, is the institution of one or more litigations and the filing of appeals therefrom, or ihe start...
Noor Jamaal S/O Habib MomIn Vs. Haseena W/O Noor Jamaal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1992
Reported in: 1992(1)BomCR607; (1992)94BOMLR201
V.A. Mohta, J.1. This is an appeal under section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (the F.C. Act). The appellant is the husband - Noor Jamaal. The respondent is the divorced wife - Haseena Bano. Impugned order passed by the Family Court is for payment of reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to the wife and minor daughter Jasmeen, payment of mehr amount to the wife and for delivery of properties, under section 3(2) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (the MW Act).2. Crux of the matter is whether the Family Court has jurisdiction to entertain proceedings under the MW Act.3. The point arises against the following backdrop :The marriage took place on 25th December, 1983. A female child was born on 5th October 1987. Divorce took place on 25th March, 1988. Wife Haseena Bano filed an application under section 3(2) of the MW Act claiming several reliefs including maintenance for the child on 5th October, 1988 before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistr...
Noor Jamaal Vs. Haseena
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1992
Reported in: II(1992)DMC56
V.A. Mohta, J.1. This is an appeal Under Section 19 of the FamilyCourts Act, 1984 (the FC Act). The Appellant is the husband--Noor Jamaal.The Respondent is the divorced wife-Haseena Bano. Impugned order passedby the Family Court is for payment of reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to the wife and minor daughter Jasmeen, payment of mehr amount tothe wife and for delivery of properties, Under Section 3(2) of the MuslimWomen (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (the MW Act).2.Crux of the matter is whether the Family Court has jurisdiction toentertain proceedings under the MW Act.3. The point arises against the following backdrop :'The marriage took place on 25th December, 1983. A femalechild was born on 5th October, 1987. Divorce took place on 25thMarch 1988. Wife Haseena Bano filed an application Under Section 3(2) of the MW Act claiming several reliefs including maintenance for the child on 5th October 1988 before the Additional ChiefMetropolitan Magistrate, Borivli, B...
Vinod Kimar Kejriwal Vs. Usha Vinod Kejriwal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Bom160; 1992(2)BomCR648; I(1993)DMC32
1. This is an unfortunate litigation and that too a civil revision application arising out of an order, in the nature of an interlocutory order, under S. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The petitioner-husband seeks to challenge the order dated 30th August 1989 passed by the Civil Civil Court, Bombay, in Notice of Motion No. 6849 of 1987 for maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings in accordance with the provisions of S. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Section 24 of the said Act reads asunder:--'24. Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings :--Where in any proceeding under this Act it appears to the Court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding, and monthly during the proceeding such sum as having regard to th...
H. Vithaldas Bhat Vs. National Textile Corporation (S.M.) Ltd. and anr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)BomCR360
A.A. Cazi, J.1. Two contentions were raised by the petitioner in this writ petition viz. (i) that his service matters are governed by the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, and (ii) that the letter 25th November, 1987 which purportedly terminates his services is issued by one who does not have the authority to terminate his services. As regards the first contention Mr. Patel stated that the petitioner is not pressing that contention in view of certain decisions already given in other proceedings. Hence now only the second contention requires to be considered.2. A few facts may be mentioned. The petitioner was born on 5th November, 1927 and according to the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, he would reach the age of superannuation on completion of 60 years, that is, he would be superannuated from services, with effect from 5th November, 1987. He was first appointed on 1st April, 1958 by Finally Mills Ltd. as a Clerk in one of their three shops. On 18th October, 1983...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »