Mumbai Court July 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.
Dasharath Muktaji Budhwant Vs. the Municipal Corporation of Gr. Bombay ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1993
Reported in: 1994(3)BomCR88
B.P. Saraf, J.1. The writ petitioner Dasharath Muktaji Budhwant is the real brother of one Mrs. Parvatibai Mohan Joshi who died on 4th February, 1987 at Bombay. The said Parvatibai was holder of a municipal licence No. 2124 in respect of stall licence No. 3475 issued by the Bombay Municipal Corporation ('Corporation' hereinafter). The licence related to stall No. 2 situated at Belasis Road No. 3 Bombay and at the time of death of Mrs. Parvatibai, it was for conducting a tailoring shop. The petitioner, being the sole legal heir of Mrs. Parvatibai, applied to the Corporation for transfer of the above licence in his favour. He also filed necessary affidavit, indemnity bond etc. for the purpose. The petitioner, in the meantime, also applied for succession certificate/heirship certificate in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane in respect of the properties left by his sister Mrs. Parvatibai. In the list of the properties the above stall was specifically mentioned. The IInd Joint...
Carona Sahu Co. Ltd. Vs. Abdul Karim Munafkhan and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1993
Reported in: (1995)ILLJ47Bom
Pendse, J. 1. The respondent No. 1 joined the services of the appellant company with effect from April 10, 1974 and was working in the Stitching Department. The employees of the appellant company were members of Carona Sahu Co. Employees' Union. In year 1981 some of the workmen became the members of Maharashtra General Kamgar Union. Due to inter-union rivalry, the workmen resorted to go-slow tactics from June 1, 1982 and respondent No. 1 indulged in instigating and exciting other workmen to resort to go- slow tactics, the respondent No. 1 also indulged in intimidation and violence. The Company thereupon served charge-sheet dated June 13, 1982 and suspended respondent No. 1 with immediate effect. The departmental enquiry was held against respondent No. 1 and the workmen was dismissed from services with effect from April 23, 1983. 2. The respondent No. 1 sought reinstatement and after consideration of failure report, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (C), Bombay in exercise of powers und...
State Bank of India Vs. Himalayan Tiles and Marble Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1993
Reported in: 1994(2)BomCR399; (1993)95BOMLR677
M.S. Rane, J.1. The most important point that arises for consideration in this application is whether an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the judgment pronounced in favour of the plaintiffs for want of pleadings of the defendants under Order VIII, Rule 5(ii) and Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure is maintainable.2. The 3rd defendant has made this application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside, according to him, an ex-parte decree passed on 8th January, 1993 in the suit herein. He has also claimed the stay of the execution of the said decree 3. The plaintiffs are the bankers and the suit herein has been filed for the recovery of the sum of Rs. 11,60,000/- and odd with interest from the defendants in respect of the credit facility granted to them. The 1st defendant, a limited company, are the principal borrower and the 3rd defendant, the applicant herein, is one of the directors of the 1st defenda...
Shivaji Dattu Patil Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1993
Reported in: 1994(2)BomCR310; 1994CriLJ1189
Saldanha, J.1. The appellant before us was put on trial along with two other accused on charges of murder and armed robbery as also unlawful possession of fire arms before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Malegaon, District Nasik. On the night of 22-12-1990 at about 9.00 p.m. it is alleged that the present appellant who was masked with a monkey cap, entered the residential house of PW 1, Hiralal Kankaria while the family was watching a T.V. programme. He is alleged to have taken out a revolver and held it at the head of the daughter Bharti and tried to snatch her gold chain while at the same time warning other persons in the room to stand with their hands up. The accused undoubtedly was armed with a revolver but considering the fact that there were 3 to 4 members in the room, they unfortunately did not heed the warning from the accused and Hiralal the brother of Rikabchand, went for the accused in order to save the girl from the clutches of the accused. It is not absolutely clear...
Navsari Cotton and Silk Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1993
Reported in: 1993LC588(Bombay); 1993(68)ELT730(Bom)
Pendse, J. 1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners are challenging legality to show cause notice dated May 7, 1983 issued by Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay calling upon the petitioners to show cause why the imported goods should not be confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act and the penalty should not be imposed under Section 112 of the Act. The facts giving rise to the issuance of show cause notice are not in dispute and are required to be briefly stated to appreciate the grievance of the petitioners. 2. The petitioners is an industrial undertaking covered by Entry 23 of the First Schedule of Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. The petitioners have been issued an industrial licence by the competent authority on August 8, 1957. The petitioners are permitted to manufacture textiles made wholly or in part of cotton, including cotton yarn hosiery and rope. The licence was issued in accordance with Entry 23(1) of F...
New Hind Textile Mills Vs. Ramnath Dagdu Mungse and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1993
Reported in: (1994)ILLJ592Bom
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, Petitioner Mill seeks to challenge Order dated January 29, 1987 passed by the Labour Court in Application (BIR) No.383 of 1987 as also Order dated March 31, 1989, passed by the Industrial Court in Appeal No.42 and 49 of 1988.2. Writ Petition No.2l3l of 1990 is filed by the workman against the said Order of the Industrial Court, seeking to recover wages for the period January 18, 1982 to July 14, 1983 which have not been awarded to the workman. Hence both the writ petitions are decided together by a common judgment.3. The facts giving rise to the Petition are as follows:(a) The workman joined the Mill in 1974. He was working as a Junior Clerk in the Grain Shop of the Mill. (b) The Textile workers of Bombay commenced indefinite strike from January 15, 1982 On January 18, 1982 none of the workers reported for work. On January 18, the strike was declared as an illegal strike by Labour Court, According to the wo...
The Associated Building Co. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1993
Reported in: 1994(1)BomCR206
M.L. Pendse, J.1. The Associated Building Co. Ltd.-petitioner No. 1 is the owner of building known as `Bombay House' situate at Homi Mody Street, Fort, Bombay. The Tata Mills Limited-petitioner No. 5 is a public limited company engaged in manufacture of cotton textiles and yarn. The petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 are also public limited companies engaged in variety of businesses. The textile undertaking of Tata Mills Limited is located at Dr. Ambedkar Road, Dadar, Bombay. The petitioner No1 had permitted the Tata Mills Limited and petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 to use the part or portion of Bombay House as a registered office. The petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 were collectively known as Tata Textiles. The petitioners claim that specific space or area was not delineated or demarcated for use of Tata Mills Limited in the Bombay House premises and the arrangement was a fluid and flexible one depending upon business needs and exigencies and the changing conditions and circumstances. The petitioner No. 1 used to ...
Madhavrao Keshavrao Surwase and anr. Vs. Jankabai W/O. Atmaram Mane an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1993
Reported in: 1994(1)BomCR541
N.P. Chapalgaonker, J.1. This revision application raises an important question whether an objection that the decree violates section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 raised for the first time in execution proceeding can be entertained and whether such a decree is a nullity.2. Keshavrao, who left behind him some property, was survived by two sons namely; Madhavrao and Nivrutti, wife Harnabai and two daughters Serubai and Jankabai. Jankabai filed a suit for partition and possession of her share from joint family property which included agricultural lands and five dwelling houses. In defence to the said suit, it was pleaded by the defendants that partition had already taken place during the life time of Keshavrao and Jankabai was given Rs. 2500/- and two buffaloes as her share in the family property and over and above, Keshavrao had given a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as token of his love and affection to Jankabai to enable her to purchase a new house. Jankabai is married and has purchased a...
Baboobhai Patel and Company Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-1993
Reported in: 1993LC424(Bombay); 1993(68)ELT734(Bom)
Pendse J. 1. The petitioners imported two consignments of goods described as Diethylene Diamine Hexahydrate and sought clearance under two bills of entries against two REP licences dated August 7, 1981 and September 5, 1981. The petitioners claimed that the consignments imported were under OGL and the goods were not described either as banned items or canalised items under Import and Export Policy April 1982 - March 1983. The customs authorities declined to permit clearance on the ground that the goods imported were Diethylene Diamine Hexahydrate of Pharmacopoeia grade with which were canalised items as per import policy. The show cause notice was issued to the petitioners as to why the two consignments should not be confiscated and penalty imposed. In answer to the show cause notice, the petitioners claimed that the imported goods were neither banned items nor canalised items and the goods were not a drug but drug intermediate used for manufacture of Diethylene Anhydrous or Hexahydrat...
Hindustan Shipyard Ltd Vs. Etpm, a Foreign Company
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-1993
Reported in: 1994(2)BomCR546
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. By this petition filed under section 33 read with section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, the petitioner has impugned Award dated 25th June, 1992 passed by Shri Y.V. Chandrachud, Retired Chief Justice of India and Shri J.G. Gadkari, Joint Arbitrator appointed by the parties. The relevant facts required to be stated for the purpose of appreciating the contentions urged at the bare as briefly summarised below:(a) On or about 3rd of March, 1988, the petitioner awarded a contract to the respondent for carrying out certain work as specified therein. The petitioner issued its letter of intent dated 3rd March, 1988. The contract price payable for the said work was stipulated between parties at U.S. Dollars 20, 88,300/-. It was provided by the said letter of intent that all other terms and conditions shall be as per contract dated 30th September, 1985 referred to therein. Clause 41 of the agreement dated 30th September, 1985 provided that the petitioner shall be bound to pa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »