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.
Hindustan Hosiery Industries Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1993
Reported in: 1991LC502(Bombay); 1993(67)ELT474(Bom)
ORDERPendse, J.1. This Notice of motion is taken out by the petitioners for directing the respondent No. 2 to refund the amount of Rs. 20,66,760.21 alongwith interest at the rate of 15% p. a. from July 30, 1991 till the date of payment. The petitioners also request that respondent No. 2 should be committed under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act for deliberately flouting and disobeying writ issued by this court on July 30, 1991. To appreciate the grievance of the petitioners, only few facts are required to be stated. The petitioners filed writ petition No. 284 of 1984 in this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for setting aside the order passed by respondents rejecting the claim for refund of excise duty recovered without authority of law on the ground that the claim was barred by limitation. The Division Bench of this court by judgment dated July 30, 1991 set aside the order passed by respondent No. 2 and directed the respondent No. 2 to verify the claim for refund wit...
Additional Third Income-tax Officer Vs. Smt. S. S. Patil.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1993
Reported in: (1994)48TTJ(Mumbai)286
ORDERO. ANANDARAM, A.M. :The Revenue has filed this appeal contesting the appellate order dt. 31st December, 1987 passed by the CIT(A), Bombay in appeal No. CIT(A) X/CIII/64/87-88.2. Smt. S. S. Patil, a resident individual filed return of income for the asst. yr. 1985-86 on 31st March, 1986 declaring total income of Rs. 3,32,100 along with the statement of income for the said period. Subsequently on 9th December, 1986 Smt. Patil filed a revised return declaring loss of Rs. 37,230. In the revised return she declared long term capital gains on land and building to the extent of Rs. 21,346 instead of Rs. 6,36,989 declared in the original return. Along with the revised return Smt. Patil filed a statement of capital gains and correspondence with Vakharia & Co. Solicitors, etc.3. The assessee has sold on 16th July, 1984 a property at Dinsha Compound, Gowalia Tank Road, Bombay 400,036 to M/s. Mafatlal Sawalchand Bafna and others for a total consideration of Rs. 21,09,000. The property consist...
Universal Generics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1993
Reported in: 1993LC190(Bombay); 1993(68)ELT27(Bom)
Pendse, J. 1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners are challenging legality of show cause notice dated December 26, 1983 and corrigendum to show cause notice dated December, 26, 1983. The show cause notice was issued by the respondents calling upon the petitioners to explain why the consignment of Cod Liver Oil imported should not be confiscated, as the import was covered by Appendix 9 of Import Policy, 1984 and amended by public notice dated July 29, 1983. 2. The petition was admitted by the learned Single Judge on January 25, 1984 with observation that import of Cod Liver Oil is not covered either by the canalising notification or by the ban notification. The learned Judge, by interim order, permitted the respondents to clear the import of Cod Liver Oil on completion of the requisite formalities. The learned Judge further permitted the respondents to complete the adjudication proceedings conducted in pursuance of show cause notice. It is not i...
Shri Babu B. Kadam Vs. Sagar Printing Press and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1993
Reported in: [1994(68)FLR1092]; (1994)ILLJ778Bom
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. By this petition the petitioner seeks to challenge award of the Labour Court dated February 3, 1989 by which Reference (IDA) No. 659 of1987 was rejected on the ground that in the statement of claim the workman has not asked for reinstatement and, therefore, the workman was not entitled to reinstatement.2. The facts giving rise to this petition are as follows:-(a) By Reference No. 659 of 1987 made by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation) to the Labour Court, the petitioner's demand for reinstatement with continuity of service and full back- wages with effect from December 15, 1986 came to be referred. Pursuant to the said reference a statement of claim was filed by the workman. As per the said statement of claim, it is alleged that the services of the workman was terminated orally by the employer with effect from December 15, 1986, that the parties were called for preliminary discussion from time to lime before the Conciliation Officer; that the demand of t...
Shaikh Alyas Ayyub Vs. Dy. Chairman, Bombay Port Trust
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1993
Reported in: (1994)ILLJ844Bom
S.H. Kapadia, J. 1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by the petitioner, watchman of B.P.T., the order of the disciplinary authority dated June 7, 1988 is challenged.2. The facts giving rise to this writ petition briefly are as follows:(a) The petitioner was appointed as the watchman in the security organisation of the Bombay Port Trust with effect from August 16, 1983. (b) By a charge-sheet dated October 7, 1986 the petitioner was informed about the statement of imputation of misconduct. According to the imputation, on September 14, 1984 at 2.30 p.m. Shri Pawaskar and Shri Desai, Zonal Officers of the security organisation with their staff i.e., watchman Nos. 93 and 99, while patrolling in their jeep in the docks and along Warehouse No. C came across the petitioner watchman who was coming out from Warehouse 'A' riding on a bicycle and going towards blue gate No. 10. On seeing the said jeep the petitioner tried to hide himself. The petitioner was in plai...
Indian Plastics Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-1993
Reported in: 1994(3)BomCR91; 1993(68)ELT308(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. petitioners are a Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1913 and are engaged in the manufacture of phenolic resins in the factory situated at Poisar Bridge, Kandivli. After manufacture of phenolic resin, certain fillers, pigments, plasticisers and other additives are added so as to modify the phenolic resins into what is popularly known as phenolic formaldehyde moulding power. The Company also manufactures Urea Formaldehyde resin and Melamine Formaldehyde resin at the factory. After these resins are fully manufactured, certain fillers, pigments, plasticisers and other additives are added so as to modify the resins into what is known as Urea Formaldehyde moulding powders and Melamine Formaldehyde moulding powders. Section 3 of Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act') provides that there shall be levied and collected duties of excise on all excisable goods which are produced or manufactured at the rates set forth in the...
Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. Vs. Bhaskar Moreshwar Karve and Another.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-1993
Reported in: 1994(1)BomCR3; (1994)96BOMLR831; [1994]81CompCas132(Bom); 1993CriLJ3370
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. This proceeding is reminiscent of the allegoric reference to the proverbial serpent that attempted to sting the hand that was feeding it milk. Harsh as this may seem, a narration of the facts would indicate how appropriate the analogy is. The central issue canvassed in the case being one that is customarily pleaded as a defence in prosecutions under section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956, the law on the point requires to be settled. It has almost become routine in this class of litigation, for a contention to be adopted by the defence, that a promise was made to the accused ex-employee by or on behalf of the company that the premises in question would be sold to the employee at book value or, in other words, for a fraction of the real market value or, in the case of rented premises, that the tenancy would be surrendered in favour of the occupant. This contention is pleaded in all seriousness and it is contended that the accused is entitled to enforce his rights by i...
Smt. Usha Sakharam Bhide and ors. Vs. Waman Manoharrao Halde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-1993
Reported in: 1994(3)BomCR390; (1993)95BOMLR787
V.S. Sirpurkar J.1. In this petition, the petitioners challenge the orders passed by the Resident Deputy Collector as well as the Rent Controller. Both the authorities have allowed the application filed by the landlord under the provisions of Clause 13(3)(i), (ii) and (vi) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949.2. The case as pleaded by the landlord was that the tenant Sakharam had become habitual defaulter as he failed to pay the rent regularly and the rent piled up and he was in arrears of rent. It was also claimed that the premises were needed for his bona fide personal occupation. Written statement came to be filed opposing the claim and it was pleaded that in fact the application was not maintainable against Sakharam alone as it was Sakharam's father who was the original tenant and after his demise, the tenancy rights devolved upon all the heirs and therefo4. Ordinarily the rules of natural justice require that an adequate opportunity should be given ...
Nagpur Municipal Corporation Vs. Nagpur Mahanagar Palika Samanvaya Chi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1993
Reported in: [1995(70)FLR546]
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. Both these writ petition can be disposed of by this common judgment since the similar questions are involved. 2. The order passed by the Industrial Court, Nagpur, holding that the Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Nagpur (for short called 'Corporation') has engaged itself in an unfair labour practice within the meaning of Item 9 of Schedule IV to the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short called 'Unfair Labour Practices Act') and, further, consequential directions that the members of the respondent/Union shall be paid the salaries in the revised pay-scales, is in challenge in these petitions. 3. In Writ Petition No. 2753 of 1988 as also in Writ Petition No. 2797 of 1988, complaints came to be filed on behalf of the Nagpur Mahanagar Palika Samanvaya Chikitsak Sangh (for short called 'the Union'). In short, the contention of the Union was that its membership consisted of the doctors who were working as Medic...
Suresh S. Patil Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1993
Reported in: (1994)ILLJ245Bom
1. The learned Single Judge has followed a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Munchandani Electrical and Radio Industries Ltd v. Workmen reported in : (1975)ILLJ391SC . This judgment of the Supreme Court was of a Bench of three judges. The Supreme Court considering a standing Order which was worded in identical language as the Standing Order which was for consideration before the learned single Judge here. There is no difference at all in the language of the two Standing Orders. The Supreme Court interpreted Standing Order 24(1) which was before it viz. Commission of any act subversive of discipline or good behaviour within the premises or precincts of the establishment' to mean that an act wherever committed should be such that it would have the effect of subverting discipline or good behaviour within the premises or precincts of the establishment. In the case before the Supreme Court, the workmen concerned had committed assault in the train between Thane and Mulund, which w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »