Mumbai Court July 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.
Rajendra Paleram Agarwal Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1992
Reported in: 1992CriLJ3525
1. The appellant was convicted by the learned Special Judge, Greater Bombay by his Judgment and order dated 23-2-1988 under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and sentenced to suffer R.I. for three months on two counts and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- in default to suffer R.I. for 15 days, on both counts. The substantive sentences have been made concurrent. 2. The appeal was admitted on 12-4-1988. It has been pending since then. The application dated 7th July, 1992 was received from the appellant stating therein that during the last three months his financial position has gone bad to worst and he was unable to survive in this city. He further stated that his entire family is suffering from great hardship and he was without a job. Hence, he prayed for withdrawal of the appeal and sought permission to surrender before the Court to undergone the remaining period of sentence, whereafter he wanted to leave Bombay. I instantly realized that the application was the result of frust...
Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Foremost Dairies Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1992
Reported in: (1993)47ITD262(Mum.)
1. This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order of the CWT(A)-VII, Bombay and relates to the assessment year 1988-89.2. The solitary ground taken in this appeal projects the following grievance : On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CWT(A) erred in holding that value of operational vehicles like jeeps should not be included in net wealth as these cannot be termed as motor cars.3. Shri Keshav Prasad, ld. Departmental Representative appeared before us and placed his reliance on the ratio laid down by the Madras High Court in the case of Crompton Engg. Co. (Madras) Ltd. v. CIT [1992] 193 ITR 483.4. Smt. Arti Vissanji, ld. counsel for the assessee appeared before us and submitted that jeep cannot be construed to be motor car. Our attention was invited on the meaning of the word 'jeep' given in Webster's Encyclopaedia, wherein it is defined as a light motor utility truck designed in World War II. Smt. Vissanji, also referred to its meaning gi...
The Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India Ltd. and Ano ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Bom304; 1994(3)BomCR449; 1993(1)MhLj448
ORDER1. This chamber summons hasbeen taken out by the defendants, seeking therelief that the ex parte decree dated 5thNovember, 1990, made by Agarwal, J., bedeclared to be a nullity and/or nonexecutable with the further prayer that thesaid ex parte decree be set aside.2. The facts leading to the present chamber summons indicate the considerable legal ingenuity which has gone into avoiding the day of reckoning. They are:(a) The plaintiffs are financial institutions, which had advanced large sums of money to a Company known as Krimpex Synthetics Ltd., of which the defendants are Directors. While the first plaintiffs had advanced a sum of Rs. 87 lacs, the second plaintiffs had advanced a sum of Rs. 58 lacs. Usual agreements for compounding the interest were entered into between the said Company and the two plaintiffs. The loans were advanced not only against security of the plant, machinery, building and land of the said Company, but were also collaterally guaranteed by personal guarantee...
Assocn. Chemical Workers and ors. Vs. B.D. Borude and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)BomCR627; (1993)ILLJ1196Bom
1. By this writ petition under Article 227 read with Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners impugn Award Part I and Award Part II dated May 17, 1982 and February 14, 1985 respectively and more particularly Award Part II dated February 14, 1985 to the extent it rejects the demand of the petitioners for reinstatement of petitioner Nos. 2 to 10 with consequential reliefs. 2. The second respondent-Company, United Carbon Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the company') is registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and has its registered Office and factory at MIDC Plot No. 3, ITC Industrial Area, Thane-Belapur Road in Thane District. It has in all three manufacturing units. Till October 1978, only Unit No. 1 was in operation. As a result of maintenance shut-down of Unit No. 1, Unit No. 2 was put in operation after modifications and installation of a new machinery known as Tail Gas Combuster Unit consisting of various equipments. 3. The first petitioner is a Trade Union registered und...
Abdul Haleem Siddiqui Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)BomCR251
P.D. Desai, C.J.1. The Writ Petitioner is a suspended employee of the 2nd respondent which runs M.H. Saboo Siddik Polytechnic in Bombay. In an appeal preferred before the School Tribunal, Bombay by another employee of the said respondent, whose services have been terminated, the said employee desired to be represented by the Writ petitioner. The Writ Petitioner, therefore, sought permission of the 2nd respondent to represent the said employee in those proceedings as required by the proviso to section 14 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The permission was rejected on the ground that since he was under suspension he could not be granted the permission. Hence the present Writ Petition.2. The Writ Petitioner challenges the constitutional validity of the proviso to section 14 of the Act which reads as follows :'Provided that, the appellant shall, if he so desires, be allowed to represent himself...
Yogi Anand Swamy Trust Vs. Ramchandra Dattatraya Phule and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)BomCR490; (1992)94BOMLR269
M.L. Dudhat, J.1. Heard.Rule made returnable forthwith.At the outset the petitioner in this case prays for amendment of this petition as the petitioner intends to delete respondent Nos. 1 to 6 and 8 from this petition. The oral application made by Mr. Deshpande on behalf of the petitioner is granted. Amendment is allowed.2. The petitioner is this case is a Trust having agricultural lands in Taluka Saswad, district Pune. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and 8 are the tenants in the said lands. Since respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and 8 were the tenants in respect of certain land on the Tiller's day, 32(g) proceedings started against the petitioner - Trust. However, with a view to save some part of the land for the Trust, the Trust decided to compromise with the tenants. It appears that the petitioner - Trust was successful in settling the dispute by compromise and by virtue of the said compromise with the tenants the petitioner - Trust retained a portion of the land and agreed rest of the land to be purc...
Vinodchandra Gajanan Deokar Vs. Smt. Anupama Vinodchandra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Bom232; 1992(3)BomCR129; I(1993)DMC537
ORDER1. This notice of motion has been taken out by the respondent-wife for a variation of the Order dated 15th January, 1991, made by Cazi, J., in Interim Petition No. 32 of 1990, allowing the petitioner-husband access to the minor child, Leena, in the manner as provided for in the said order. This litigation has a peculiar background, and, unless the factual matrix is reproduced, it would not be possible to appreciate the circumstances under which the motion has been taken out or the defences taken in objection to the prayers in the motion.2. The respondent-wife filed M.J. Petition No. 622 of 1989 before the Bombay City Civil Court, Bombay, for obtaining divorce and for maintenance for herself and the minor child, Leena. Upon the Matrimonial Jurisdiction of the Bombay City Civil Court being transferred to the Family Court, the said proceedings came to be transferred to the Family Court, Bombay. The respondent had taken out an interlocutory Application No. 378 of 1990 before the Famil...
Hitesh Shantilal Mehta Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)BomCR716; 1993CriLJ1729
Mrs. Sujata Manohar, J. 1. Leave to amend in terms of the draft. Amendment to be carried out within one week. This petition has been filed by one Hitesh S. Mehta to challenge the constitutional validity of the Special Court (Trial of Offences relating to Transactions in Securities) Ordinance, 1992 and the Notification dated 8th June, 1992 issued by the 2nd Respondent under Section 3(2) of the Ordinance notifying the name of the petitioner under that section. 2. The petitioner is a qualified surgeon. He has an M. S. Degree in General Surgery which he acquired in January, 1988, and presently he is employed as a lecturer in the Department of Surgery and Surgical Gastroenterology at the Nair Hospital. He is also the brothers of Harshad Mehta, Ashwin Mehta and Sudhir Mehta against whom proceedings are taken before the Special Court. The petitioner has challenged the provisions of the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Ordinance, 1992 (hereinafter referr...
Kalmeshwar Girni Kamgar Sanghatana Vs. Assistant Registrar of Unions a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1992
Reported in: (1992)94BOMLR384; (1993)ILLJ576Bom; 1992(2)MhLj1521
1. The petitioner Kalmeshwar Girni Kamgar Sanghatana a registered Trade Union impugns by this petition the communication dated February 8, 1985 whereby the respondent No. 2, the Textile Mill, was informed by the Assistant Registrar of Unions that the respondent No. 3, the Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh, Kalmeshwar, has been registered as a representative union and entered in the approved list of unions under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 in Cotton Textile Industry in the local area of Kalmeshwar Taluka. 2. The respondent No. 3 the Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh applied for its registration as a representative union under Section 13(1) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act (hereinafter referred to as : 'the BIR Act') on September 25, 1984. In the absence of a representative union, five elected representatives were functioning in the industry. At the relevant time the five elected representatives were respondent Nos. 6 to 10. On receipt of the application, the respondent No. 1 -...
S.M. Renu Vs. Proprietor, Mahajan Silk Mills and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1992
Reported in: [1992(65)FLR485]; (1993)ILLJ319Bom
1. The petitioner-employee was in the permanent employment of the 1st respondent-ex-employer as a Jobber for a period of about two years. On May 11, 1978, he was served with a show-cause notice on the allegations that he had refused to carry out the instructions for attending the looms of the sister concern of M/S. Mahajan Silk Mills (Respondent No. 1.) He was suspended pending enquiry and thereafter on consideration of his written explanation a domestic enquiry was conducted as a result of which he was dismissed from service by an order dated June 19, 1978. The petitioner thereafter approached the 1st respondent under Section 42(4) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 requesting the 1st respondent to reinstate him with full back wages and continuity of service. Since the demand was not acceded to, he filed an application under Sections 78 and 79 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 in the Labour Court at Thane for the relief of reinstatement with full back wages and co...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »