Mumbai Court June 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.
Viru Muthu Sukhlingam Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)BomCR575
K. Sukumaran, J.1. Viru Muthu Sukhlingam was one among the migrant labour to Bombay. He hails from a village in Salem District of the State of Tamil Nadu. He joined the service of the International Airport Authority (which came into being in 1971, under a Parliamentary enactment, the International Airport Authorities Act of 1971) as a Khalasi or Assistant Fitter. He rendered service, and without complaint, from 5-5-1978 to 13-8-1982. Thereafter, there was continued absence, for about two years. He has his own version on his absence from work.2. He pleaded that he had availed of leave in July, 1982 and that the leave had expired on 13-8-1982. According to him, he was then the victim of an oppressive array of adversities. Adversities, it is well known, do not, quite often, come singly. The demolition of his hut in the Bombay slum area of Kamrajngar, and his being forcibly repatriated to Tamil Nadu by the State authorities, his managing to put up a small hut when the Supreme Court stayed ...
T.A. Darbar and Company and ors. Vs. Union Bank of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)BomCR702
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. This notice of motion raises an interesting question of law as to whether the remedy of decree-holder Union Bank of India to execute the decree dated 17th January, 1977 passed in Suit No. 1747 of 1976 was extinguished on the 'relevant date' and whether the Insolvency Notice dated 27th June, 1989 based on the said decree is liable to be set aside as a consequence thereof. The question which arises for consideration of the Court is as to whether the decree forming the basis for issue of insolvency notice was alive on the date when the insolvency notice was issued or on the date when the notice of motion was taken out to set aside the insolvency notice herein.2. The material facts required to be stated for the purpose of disposal of this notice of motion are as under :(a) On 17th January, 1977, Desai J., passed a consent decree in favour of Union of India and against M/s. T.A. Darbar & Company, Turabali Abdulhusain Darbar and Mohammadhusain Abdulhusain Darbar in Suit No...
Shahbehram Arbeshir Khonyar Vs. Asiatic Travel Service and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-1992
Reported in: [1992(65)FLR1006]; (1992)IIILLJ394Bom
H.H. Kantharia, J. 1. This petition under Article 227 arises from the order passed by the learned Labour Judge, Seventh Labour Court, Bombay on October 30, 1985 in Application (IDA) No. 42 of 1985 filed under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. The relevant facts giving rise to the petition are as under:The petitioner was employed in the office of the respondents No. 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondents') as a Clerk in the year 1976. He was confirmed in that post on 27th December, 1978 on a monthly salary of Rs.325/-. He was granted increase in salary every year and on 1st January, 1984 he was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 900/-. It is his case that the second respondent who is a partner of the first respondent asked him to work on part-time basis at a Beer Bar and Restaurant known as 'Nushkil Qusha Beer Bar and Restaurant' from 6.30 p.m. to 12.00 mid-night including Sundays and holidays which offer he accepted but thereafter he realised that to work ...
Association of Engineering Workers' Trade Union Vs. Sewree Iron and St ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-1992
Reported in: [1992(65)FLR1022]; (1993)IIILLJ396Bom
S.H. Kapadia, J.By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner Union seeks to challenge the judgment of Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) Nos. 136 and 137 of 1985 filed by the Union alleging unfair labour practice under Item 9 - Schedule IV to the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 which have been dismissed by the Industrial Court, Bombay. 2. The facts giving rise to this petition briefly are as follows:- (a) The petitioner is a Trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. It has registered office at 252, Janta Colony, Ram Narayan Narkar Marg, Ghatkopar (E), Bombay - 400 077. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are partnership firms having their principal place of business at 6, Sewree Cross Road, Sewree, Bombay - 400 015. The said principal place of business is common to both respondents No. 1 and 2. (b) According to the petitioner, the first respondent i.e. Sewree Iron & Steel Company (hereina...
Shankar Balu Pishte Vs. Arvind Processors and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-1992
Reported in: [1992(65)FLR186]; (1994)IIILLJ763Bom
H. H. Kantharia, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution arises from the order dated June 27, 1984 passed by the learned Labour Judge, Kolhapur holding camp at Ichalkaranji in I.D.A. Application No. 91 of 1982.2. The relevant facts giving rise to the petition are as under:Three employees, including petitioner No. 2 Sukumar Balwant Birnale preferred I.D. A. Application Nos. 90, 91 and 92 of 1982 before the Labour Court at Kolhapur under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming certain amount of wages in accordance with certain settlements arrived at between the union representing the employees and the first respondent partnership firm. Out of those three employees, petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 did not press their petitions and, therefore, we are now concerned only with Petitioner No. 2-Sukumar Balwant Birnale who shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the petitioner-employee'. It is the case of the petitioner-employee that he was employed by the first resp...
Suryakant Shankar Jog and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1992
Reported in: (1992)94BOMLR264
Sujata Manohar, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioners have challenged Rule 1(c) of the All India Services (Confidential Rolls) Rules, 1970 and a letter dated 20th May, 1987 addressed by the Special Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department, to the Director General, Inspector General of Police. State of Maharashtra under which the Government has rejected the proposals submitted by the petitioners relating to the writing of confidential reports. The entire dispute relates to the manner in which and the authorities by whom the confidential reports of members belonging to the All India Police Service have to be written.2. It is the submission of the respondents that the dispute is covered by the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and hence this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. The matter is, therefore, being heard in order to decide this preliminary issue.3. Under Section 28 of the Act ...
Dr. Sharad Vaidya Vs. Paulo Joel Vales (deceased by L.R.'s) and others ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1992
Reported in: 1994ACJ835; AIR1992Bom478; 1993(2)BomCR296
ORDER1. This revision is directed against the order of the learned Civil Judge S.D., Panaji, dated 19th July, 1989 in Special Civil Suit No. 25/83/A whereby the learned Judge has decided against the petitioner issue No. 8 in the aforesaid suit which is treated as preliminary issue and held that the petitioner has failed to prove that the suit filed against him and respondent No. 3 was barred by limitation.2. The facts of the case are that the late respondent No. 1 Paulo Joel Vales and respondent No. 2 filed a suit against the petitioner and respondent No. 3 for compensation and damages in respect of treatment given by the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 to their deceased wife and mother Santana Vales. The suit was instituted on 1-3-1983 and according to the then plaintiffs the cause of action arose on 2-3-1978 which is the date of the admission of the deceased Santana in respondent No. 3's hospital and continued up to 18-8-1979 which is the date of expiry of the said Sahtana.3. It ...
Sitaram Vishnu Chalke Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ3364
Dani, J.1. The appellant-original accused has challenged the order of conviction and sentence dated 22nd December, 1989, passed by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Satara, in Sessions Case No. 144 of 1989, holding him guilty for the offence of murder punishable under S. 302, IPC and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer R.I. for two years. 2. The deceased involved in the case was one Vishnu Chalke the father of the present appellant-accused. P.W. No. 4 Housabai is the mother of the accused. Dattaram is a younger brother of the accused. P.W. 8 Anantabai is the wife of the elder brother. The deceased Vishnu along with his family members was residing at Chalkewadi, district Satara. The deceased was addicted to liquor and it is alleged that the quarrels used to be ensued between the family members inter se on this. The incident in question is alleged to have taken place on 6th May, 1989 at 10 p.m. at the house of the deceas...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-1992
Reported in: (1992)107CTR(Bom)50; [1992]198ITR196(Bom)
Mrs. Sujata Manohar, J. 1. This is an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made by the Revenue asking us to direct the Tribunal to frame the following question and refer it to us for adjudication : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that passing of an order by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in the appeal filed against the order passed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) has resulted in the complete merger of the order appealed against with the appellate order, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income-tax from exercising his power under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, even though the issue considered under the section 263 were not the subject-matter of appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ?' 2. The relevant facts are as follows : The assessee is a company and the year relevant to this application is the assessment year 1980-81...
Bombay Port Trust Employees Union Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-1992
Reported in: (1994)IIILLJ368Bom
Pendse, J.1. Both these appeals are directed against common judgment, dated March 15, 1989 delivered by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1194 of 1988 and Writ Petition No. 2861 of 1988. Appeal No. 1200 of 1989 is preferred by Bombay Port Trust Employees Union and B.P.T. Railwaymen's Union, while Appeal No. 1251 of 1989 is preferred by All India Port and Dock Workers' Federation, Indian National Port and Dock Workers' Federation, Port Dock and Waterfront Workers Federation of India and Water Transport Workers Federation of India.2. Two questions require determination in these two appeals. The first question is whether the learned single Judge was right in upholding the order passed by Union of India on June 7, 1988 declining to refer the disputes for adjudication. Shri Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in Appeal No. 1200 of 1989, submitted that the learned single Judge was in error in not setting aside the order of Government of India and not m...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »