Mumbai Court June 1993 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.
Punjabrao Krishi Vidyapeeth, Akola Vs. General Secy., Krishi Vidyapeet ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-1993
Reported in: 1994(3)BomCR13
V.S. Sirpurkar, J 1. Punjabrao Krishi Vidyapeeth (University for short) has challenged the order passed by the Industrial Court, Amravati, holding that the University has engaged in an unfair labour practice covered by item 6 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, and the consequential directions issued therein. In these directions, the learned Member of the Industrial Court has directed the respondent University to grant all the benefits and privileges admissible to the regular and permanent employees in so far as payment of wages, payment of dearness allowance and leave admissibility are concerned. The University is further directed to approach the Government with honest intention to persuade the Government to create permanent posts in which these employees can be absorbed. The learned Member has also further directed that they should be given the benefit of permanent employees from the date they complete fiv...
Omprakash Vs. City and Industrial Development Corp. of Mah. Ltd. and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-1993
Reported in: 1994(1)BomCR30; (1993)95BOMLR252
M.S. Rane, J.1. The important issues arising in this matter are :(i) Can a party, who responds to the tender by submitting its offer but withdraws the same before the stipulated date of acceptance, commits the breach, and(ii) Whether providing clause in the tender notice imposing fetter on the exercise of right of tender to withdraw the offer is justifiable in the light of provisions as contained in section 5 of the Indian Contract Act.2. Now straightway to the relevant facts.(i) The plaintiffs are Builders and Contractors. The first defendants are Maharashtra State owned Company engaged in developing new areas in the State. The 2nd defendants are the Bank. (ii) In or about February 1993 first defendants invited tenders for four sets of contract of N.R.I. Housing Projects on the plots situated at Nerul in New Bombay and plaintiffs in response thereto submitted on 6th April 1993 their tenders/offers for two contracts out of four. The plaintiffs also furnished the Bank Guarantee through ...
Bombay Alloy Steel Industries and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-1993
Reported in: 1993(48)LC553(Bombay)
M.L. Pendse, J.1.By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners are challenging legality of order dated November 25, 1983 passed by Collector of Customs (Appeals) dismissing the appeal against order dated August 3,1983 passed by Assistant Collector of Customs. The facts giving rise to the passing of this order are not in dispute.1A. The petitioners had imported consignment and bill of entry was filed on December 9, 1983 for home consumption. The goods were allowed to be cleared and subsequently it was noticed that the duty demanded was not correct and there was a shortage of Rs. 24,543/-. The mistake occurred because the goods were wrongly classified. The Assistant Collector thereupon served Notice under Section 28 of the Customs Act for short levy of duty. After considering the reply filed by the petitioners, the demand was confirmed. The petitioners carried appeal before the Collector of Customs, but appeal ended in dismissal and these orders are under ...
Subhash S/O Fakirchand Agarwal and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-1993
Reported in: 1994(1)BomCR356
N.P. Chapalgaonker, J.1. Elections to the Managing Committee of Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Ltd., Rahata (Taluka : Kopargaon, District : Ahmednagar) were scheduled to take place in the month of March, 1993. This Society is a Co-operative Society within the meaning of section 2(27) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'Co-operative Societies Act' for the purpose of brevity) and is also a notified Society within the meaning of section 73-IC of the said Act. Respondent No. 3 was appointed as Returning Officer for holding the said elections. Provisional list of voters was to be published on 4th March, 1993. The last date for filing objections and claims was 18th March, 1993 and publication of final list of voters was to be made on 20th March, 1993. The nomination papers were to be filed on 22nd March, 1993. Voting was to take place on 25th April, 1993. This election programme was published on 22nd February, 1993. For this election, resp...
Shriniwas Vithal Bhairi and ors. Vs. the Municipal Corporation of Gr. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-1993
Reported in: 1994(1)BomCR269
B.P. Saraf, J.1. All these three writ petitions are directed against a Circular issued by the Sr. Ward Officer ( Markets ) Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay in regard to recovery of service charges from the licensees in the municipal markets. These petitions are, therefore, taken up together for hearing and, for the sake of convenience the facts of Writ Petition No.2420 of 1988 are only stated.The petitioners are holders of stalls owned by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay in a market known as 'Dr. D.H. Kharude Market' situated at Adarsh Nagar, Prabhadevi, Bombay-400 025, consisting of 127 stalls. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay ('Corporation') respondents, herein, had published a scheme to let out the stalls in the said market to highest bidders in public auction. That was in the year 1970. The petitioners as well as other stall-holders were allotted the said stalls as highest bidders and since then they are in occupation of the said stalls paying the rent ...
Yerguntha Sudarshan Rao Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-1993
Reported in: 1993(3)BomCR663
A.V. Savant, J.1. Heard both the learned Counsel at some length, Shri Sabnis for the applicant and Shri Mirajkar for respondent-State.2. This is an application for bail by a Police Inspector who has been charged with the offence of custodial rape punishable under section 376(2)(a) of the I.P.C. read with section 376B of the I.P.C. The applicant was the Senior Police Inspector attached to the Vigilance Branch, Bombay and a raid was conducted in the evening of 21st August 1992 at Citadel Hotel, Khar, Bombay in connection with C.R. 263 of 1992 from where certain call girls including Reshma, the prosecutrix in this case, were brought to the vigilance branch, H.Q. late in the evening. It is alleged that Reshma was interrogated by the applicant alone in the privacy of his room where he later committed rape on her, during the mid-night between 21st and 22nd August, 1992.3. It is true that this Court had granted anticipatory bail to the applicant by its order dated 20th November 1992 in Crimin...
Chandulal Hathibhai Shah Vs. Champaklal Ambalal Parikh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Bom16; 1994(2)BomCR174; (1994)96BOMLR432; 1993(2)MhLj1267
ORDERSujata Manohar, J. 1. The appellant and the respondent entered into a Deed of Partnership dated 1-1-1979 under whichthey agreed to carry on business in yarn and as commission agents in partnership in the firm name and style of M/s. C.H. Shah & Co. The partnership, however, is not registered. A recital in the Partnership Deed states that the respondent was tenant of business premises situate at Room No. 29, 152/2 Narayan Dhuru Street, Bombay-400 003. Clause 5 of the Partnership Deed provides that the partnership business is to be conducted in the said premises. Clause 29 of the partnership deed provides that any dispute or question which may arise in connection with the business of the said partnership or any matter connected with it shall, unless decided by mutual agreement by the parties, be referred to arbitration of arbitrators, one to be appointed by each party to the dispute.2. Since about July 1981 there were disputes between the parties. According to the respondent, from 20...
Shyam Narayan Singh Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-1993
Reported in: 1994(3)BomCR287; 1993CriLJ3925; 1994(1)MhLj1015
1. Is it conscionable for the State to commence criminal proceedings against a subordinate employee of the Telephone Department in the year 1978, carry on investigations for three years and thereafter suspend him in a state of limbo with no end in sight to the proceedings even in mid 1993, after the lapse of 15 years Round one of the litigation is yet to commence, leave alone conclude, and the inevitable appeal which is bound to follow, since the State invariably challenges even orders of acquittal would take the proceedings well into the next century. Is this situation in consonance with the Constitutional guarantee enshrined in Art. 21 can it be allowed to pass or is the petitioner before me justified in his plea that this Court must quash the proceeding and set him at liberty That his rights have been curtailed and that his liberty has also been infringed upon through a procedure prescribed by law cannot be denied, but to my mind when that very law prescribes that the process must b...
Phenoweld Polymer Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-1993
Reported in: 1993LC375(Bombay); 1993(66)ELT614(Bom)
ORDERPendse, J.1. The facts giving rise to the filing of this Notice of Motion on May 6, 1992 are not in dispute and are required to be briefly stated to appreciate the claim of the respondents. The petitioner No., 1 Company filed Writ Petition No. 853 of 1981 seeking refund of duty recovered by respondents without any authority of law. The petition was disposed of by judgment of Division Bench dated July 9, 1991 and the relief sought by the petitioners was granted. The operative part of the order reads as under : 'The Assistant Collector is directed to grant refund claim after verification within a period of four weeks. In case, the amount is not refunded within four weeks from today, then the petitioners are entitled to recover the amount with interest at 15% per annum form today till realisation.' It is not in dispute that the respondents did not carry out the directions of the Division Bench. 2. On September 20, 1991, Section 11B was introduced in Central Excises and Salt Act (here...
Weldekar Laminates Private Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-1993
Reported in: 1993(66)ELT601(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. Both these Notices of Motion can be conveniently disposed of by common order and the facts to be set out hereinafter would indicate the reliefs sought in the two motions. The petitioners, M/s. Weldekar Laminates Private Limited field Writ Petition No. 1996 of 1991 in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to the respondents to refund the amounts which were recovered without any authority of law. The petition came up before a Division Bench and on July 1, 1991 the relief sought by the petitioners was granted. The Division Bench directed that the respondents shall refund the amount within four from the date of order. It was further directed that in case of failure the respondents shall pay the amount with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of order till payment. The respondents failed to pay the amount within the stipulated period. 2. The respondents took out Notice of Motion No. 388 of 1991 seeking extension of time of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »