Mumbai Court August 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.
Chandrakant Chandulal Bhansali Vs. Shrikant Shrikrishna Joshi and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)BomCR658; (1992)94BOMLR689
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. Is an order granting anticipatory bail to be equated with a regular bail order passed by a Criminal Court and, consequently, would the principles applicable to the cancellation of bail apply equally to both types of orders? This courts has, in the recent past, been flooded with applications presented by the State for cancellation of anticipatory bail orders, all of which proceed on the common ground that the direct consequences of the passing of the order has either seriously impeded or totally frustrated the investigation and damaged it, at times irretrievably. The second common head of challenge which, to my mind, is almost complementary to the first is that the timing of the order was wrong. A subsidiary grievance, but one in respect of which much can be said, is that anticipatory bail orders are, more often than not, passed ex-parte, without affording the prosecuting authority an opportunity of being heard. Be that as it may, once an order for anticipatory bail ...
Jaika Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Nagpur and Another Vs. State of Maharashtr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Bom87
ORDERV. A. Mohta, J.1. Constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987 ('The Act') is impugned in this batch of seventeen petitions.2. Broadly stated, grounds are:(a) Want of legislative competence in the State legislature.(b) Colourable exercise of legislative power.(c). Violation of freedom of inter-State trade and commerce declared by Article 301 of the Constitution.(d) Vice of double taxation.(e) Arbitrariness.3. State Governor promulgated the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Ordinance, 1987 (`The Ordinance') on 30th September 1987 after receiving instructions from the President as required under Article 213(1) of the Constitution. The Act which repeals the saidOrdinance received the President's assent on 18th December, 1987. The object of the Act will be crystal clear from the following Statement appended to the Ordinance:'From 1984 onwards some States and the Union Territories adjoining the State to M...
Jaika Automobiles (Private) Limited and Another Vs. State of Maharasht ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)MhLj1658
V.A. Mehta, J.1. Constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1987 ('the Act') is impugned in this batch of seventeen petitions. 2. Broadly stated, grounds are : (a) Want of legislative competence in the State Legislature. (b) Colourable exercise of legislative power. (c) Violation of freedom of inter-State trade and commerce declared by article 301 of the Constitution. (d) Vice of double taxation. (e) Arbitrariness. 3. State Governor promulgated the Maharashtra Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Ordinance, 1987 ('the Ordinance') on September 30, 1987, after receiving instructions from the President as required under article 213(1) of the Constitution. The Act which repeals the said Ordinance received the President's assent on December 18, 1987. The object of the Act will be crystal clear from the following statement appended to the Ordinance : 'From 1984 onwards some States and the Union territories adjoining the Stat...
Hermes Industries Corporation and anr. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Com ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1992
Reported in: (1993)IIILLJ574Bom
D. Vyas, J. 1. By the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging recovery notices issued by the 2nd Respondent under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. These recovery notices are in respect of the alleged claim of the 1st Respondent against the petitioners, under the provisions of the Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952.2. It is the case of the petitioners that although the 1st petitioner and Herms Enterprises Corporation are both separate entities, the 1st Respondent has tried to invoke the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952, in order to treat them as one and the same. It is the case of the petitioners that there is no functional integrity as required by law in respect of the two units. On the other hand Mr. Mehta, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent submitted that there was such functional integrity and tired to justify the notices of demand and the recovery certificates.3. Admittedly in purs...
Anand @ Anna Murlidhar Powar Vs. S. Ramamurthi, Commissioner of Police ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)BomCR655; (1992)94BOMLR271
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. The petitioner before us has assailed the order of detention dated 26-3-1992 passed by respondent No. 1 under the provisions of the National Security Act, 1980. It is undisputed that the order of detention was served on the detenu on 3-4-1992. Against this order the detenu addressed a representation dated 15-6-1992 which was received by the Central Government on 19-6-1992. Thereafter parawise comments/details relating to the case were called for from the Detaining Authority on 24-6-1992. Reply from the State Government was received on 9-7-1992. According to the affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India, the case of the detenu was put up before the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, on 10-7-1992 and he considered the same and with his comments put up the case before the Special Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs on 10-7-1992. The Special Secretary in turn, after considering the matter put up the case before the Home Minister, Government of India on 11-...
Phirdos Co-operative Housing Society Limited and anr. Vs. Union of Ind ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1992
Reported in: (1992)94BOMLR531
V.A. Mohta, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.2. The petitioners have made a small but significant grievance in this petition. It pertains to the right of raising objection to the acquisition of rights in the lands under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (the Act).3. Undisputed factual background is that the preliminary notification dated 14.9.1988 under Section 4 of the Act about intention to prospect coal in the area was published in the Official Gazette on 8.1.1988. Upon satisfaction that coal was obtainable in the lands, notice of intention to acquire the rights in the lands was given by issuing a notification under Section 7 of the Act on 7.10.1991 in the Official Gazette. Before issuing the notification, statutory period of two years referred to in Section 7 was raised to permissible outer limit of three years by a notification dated 23.7.1990.4. No personal notice of this intention was served on the petitioners. Due publication of noti...
Superintending Engineer, Urdhwa Painganga Project Circle and anr. Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)BomCR725; (1993)IIILLJ515Bom
1. The petitioners herein challenged the order passed by the Labour Court, Amravathi in Complaint (ULPN) No. 189 of 1985 on June 12, 1987 whereunder it was declared that the petitioners have engaged themselves in unfair labour practice and hence directed them to cease and desist from such unfair labour practices. As many as 173 workers whose names are mentioned in the list attached (hereinafter referred to as 'the listed workmen') were ordered to be reinstated in service with back wages. Even the order passed in Rev. (ULP) No. 93 of 1987 on September 16, 1988 is impugned in this petition. 2. A complaint under Section 28 read with Item I of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was filed by the respondent No. 1 Union espousing the cause of 173 workmen of Division No. 2 of 'Urdhwa Painganga Project' alleging that their termination by notice dated September 30, 1985 is invalid and ille...
international Airports Authority of India Vs. Noor Mohammed and Sons
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)BomCR155
S.M. Jhunjhunuwala, J.1. This petition has been filed under section 30 of The Arbitration Act, 1940 to set aside the Award dated 6th June 1989 made and published by one Ramarao, sole arbitrator.2. The petitioners are a statutory body constituted by and under the provisions of the International Airport Authority Act, 1971. The respondents are a partnership firm, inter alia, carrying on business of building and civil engineering contractors. On or about 1981, the work of constructing a new International Terminal Complex Phase II at Sahar Airport. Bombay, was being carried out by the petitioners in pursuance of their statutory functions, powers and duties. As part of the said constructions the petitioners invited tenders in 1981 for the construction of RCC Flyover at Bombay Airport. The notice inviting tenders was duly published and in response thereto, the respondent submitted their tender by which the respondents offered to carry out the work of constructing the RCC Flyover at Bombay Ai...
Bussa Overseas and Properties P. Ltd. Vs. C.L. Mahar, Asstt. C.C.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-1992
Reported in: 2004(163)ELT304(Bom)
M.L. Pendse, J.Rule, returnable forthwith.Shri Sethna waives service on behalf of the respondents.By consent, Petition taken on board and called out for hearing.1. By this Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners are challenging legality of show-cause notice dated March 18,1992 issued by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Appraising Group-I, Bombay and the copy of which is annexed as Exh. 'L' to the Petition. By the impugned notice, the petitioners are called upon to show-cause why the goods imported by the petitioners should not be confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and penalty under Section 112 should not be imposed upon the petitioners. To appreciate the facts which gave rise to the issuance of the show-cause notice and the challenge of the petitioners to the impugned notice, it is necessary to set out few facts.2. The petitioner No. l is a Private Limited Company and are holders of valid REP licences. The petitioners imported 25...
Zenith Steel Pipes and Industries Limited Vs. G.K. Ashtekar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-1992
Reported in: (1993)IIILLJ500Bom
H.H. Kantharia, J.1. The first respondent-workman moved the First Labour Court at Thane by filing a complaint (ULP) No. 8 of 1980 alleging unfair labour practices on the part of the petitioner- company covered by item 1 (a), (b), (d), (e), (f) and (g) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the MRTU & PULP Act') stating that the termination of his services was on account of ictimisation, not in good faith but in the colourable exercise of the employer's rights and for patently false reasons. He succeeded in the said complaint to the extent of getting the relief of reinstatement with continuity of services but loss of 50 per cent back wages. The judgment and order passed by the learned Labour Judge on June 27, 1983 was challenged in revision by both the petitioner-company and the first respondent-workman, the petitioner-company contending that the relief of reinstatement with continuit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »