Mumbai Court June 1994 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.
P.G. Virgincar and Co. Vs. S.V. Nevagi, Presiding Officer, Educational ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1994
Reported in: 1995(2)BomCR304
E.S. Da Silva, J.1. These two Writ Petitions which can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment challenge the Award dated 9th November, 1989, whereby the Industrial Tribunal (hereinafter called 'the Tribunal') held that the termination by the petitioner's of the services of the respondents No. 2 to 5 was neither legal nor justified. By the aforesaid Award the Tribunal has further held that the retrenched workmen were not entitled for reinstatement of service and instead the petitioners were directed to pay to each of them a sum of Rs. 30,000 by way of compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. In Writ Petition No. 214/1990 the petitioner specifically challenges the adequacy of the compensation awarded to him by the Tribunal.2. The case of the petitioner's is that they are partnership firm running four departments dealing with different lines of business, namely, (i) Burmah-Shell Dealers,(ii) Automobile Dealers in respect of premier cars and Commercial Vehicles and Ba...
Ramrai Ganpat Goltekar and ors. Vs. Shri Peter Michael Fernandes and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1994
Reported in: 1995(2)BomCR463
E.S. Da Silva, J.1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenges the judgment and order of the Administrative Tribunal dated 22nd April, 1988 in Tenancy Revision No. 1/81 filed by the petitioners against the respondents whereby the learned Tribunal has upset the judgment and order of the Deputy Collector, North Goa, Panaji, dated 4-5-1979 in Tenancy Case No. TNC/AP/5/78 and restored the judgment and order of the Mamlatdar of Bardez dated 24th September, 1977 passed in Tenancy Case No. 1/74.2. The late original petitioner (hereinafter called the petitioner) who is now represented by his legal heirs had filed before the Mamlatdar an application under sections 4, 7 and 18 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 (hereinafter called 'the Tenancy Act') seeking for a declaration of his tenancy and restoration of possession. The subject-matter of the dispute is a paddy field known as 'Maina' surrounded by a loose stone wall along with other tree...
Ratandeep Textile Mills (import and Export Division) and 5 ors. Vs. Un ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1994
Reported in: 1994(55)LC449(Bombay)
ORDERM.L. Pendse, J.1. All these eight Motions can be conveniently disposed of by this order. The dispute raised in these Motions is inter alia connected. The facts which gave rise to the filing of these Motions are not iii dispute and are required to be briefly stated to appreciate the claim made in these Motions.2. Ratandeep Textile Mills and Jayantilal Mehta filed Writ Petition No. 1681 of 1983 under Article 226 of the Constitution on the Original Side of this Court to challenge show cause notice dated June 15, 1983 served by Collector of Customs, Bombay. The show cause notice called upon the petitioners to explain why penalty should not be levied in respect of import of certain cargo. The Department submitted that the import was made illegally and the petitioners are liable to pay a large amount of duty. The petition was admitted on July 16, 1983 and interim relief was granted on condition that the petitioners shall furnish 100% bank guarantee in respect of the claim of duty and I....
Shri Gurudev Photo-colour Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-1994
Reported in: 1995(1)BomCR665
B.P. Saraf, J.1. The petitioners imported one automatic film developing and processing machine with micro processor based system. It filed the bill of entry covering the said machine and sought clearance of the same under OGL Appendix 2, Item 9(24) of the Import Export Policy AM 83-84. It was contended by the petitioners that it was assessable at concessional rate of duty under chapter Heading 84.66 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. As the customs authorities were of the opinion that the said machine was not covered under OGL as claimed by the petitioners and needed a specific licence for import, petitioners were asked to explain as to how they were claiming clearance of the goods under OGL. In reply, the petitioners by their letter dated 6-7-1984 explained that on enquiries being made from Government agencies/importers, they were given to understand that the import of Automatic Film Developing and Processing Machine with Micro System was covered under OGL vide Item 9(24) of Appendix 2 ...
Kisan Yeshwant Dhirade Vs. Sonabai Bappu Lohar Since Deceased Through ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-1994
Reported in: 1995(2)BomCR172
M.S. Vaidya, J.1. Heard Mr. C.K. Shinde, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. V.D. Hon, for respondent Nos. 1(a) and 1(b). Mr. D.R. Jaibhar, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 absent.2. This writ petition is directed against an order dated 31st March, 1981 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune, in Tenancy Revision Application No. 2 of 1979. The petitioner and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, being the sons of one Yeshwant Dhirade, are brothers. Yeshwant Dhirade was, admittedly, a tenant in Consolidated Survey No. 250 of village Belpimpalgaon Tq. Newasa. The land admeasured 13 acres and 5 gunthas. Sobanai (respondent No. 1) was the landlady of that land and, under a notice dated 12-1-1956 issued before the tillers' day, she had terminated the tenancy of Yeshwant Dhirade under section 31 of the BT & AL Act, on the ground that she required the suit land bona fide for her personal cultivation. Sonabai was not a widow, as such, at that time, therefore, there was no questi...
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Another Vs. Blue Stars Ltd ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Bom38; 1995(1)BomCR124; (1994)96BOMLR633; 1995(1)MhLj476
1. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay has preferred this appeal against order dated 14th February, 1978, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judge of Court of Small Causes at Bombay in Municipal Appeal No. 288 of 1977. By the said order, the learned Additional Chief Judge has directed Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay to charge Octroi on compressors in question at 2% ad valorem under Item 50 of Schedule-H appended to the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act and refund the amount of Rs. 269.75 to Blue Star Limited, appellants in Municipal Appeal No. 288 of 1977.2. Blue Star Limited deals inter alia in refrigerators and spares, water coolers, air-conditioners and spares etc. The Blue Star Limited is hereinafter referred to as the respondents. On or about 16th June, 1977, the Municipal Corporation collected from the respondents Octroi at 4% ad valorem on three cases of compressors under their Receipt No. 90867 amounting to Rs. 593.50. The compressors in question are open typ...
Allabuksh Karim Shaikh Vs. Smt. Noorjahan Allabuksh Shaikh and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1994
Reported in: (1994)96BOMLR761; 1994CriLJ2826; 1994(2)MhLj1376
A.M. Bhattacharjee, C.J.1. An application was filed by a divorced Muslim wife and minor daughter against their husband and father under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming maintenance for each of them. The application has been dismissed so far it related to the claim of the divorced wife, but has been allowed so far it relates to the claim of the minor daughter. The husband/father has filed this appeal challenging the grant of maintenance to the daughter on the ground that no such application, even by a daughter, is any longer maintainable in view of the provisions of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. The application was filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate at Bandra, but the same thereafter stood transferred to the Family Court at Bandra under the provisions of Section 8(c) of the Family Court Act, 1984 and has been disposed of by the Family Court in the manner stated above. 2. Under section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, as it st...
Central Bank of India Vs. State of Goa and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1994
Reported in: 1995(2)BomCR169
E.S. Da Silva, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Addl. District Judge, South Goa, Margao, dated 22nd June, 1989 in Civil Suit No. 15 of 1982, filed by the appellant against the respondents and Union of India who was defendant No. 1 in the said suit, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the suit with costs. The appellant had filed the suit for permanent injunction against respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 as well as the Union of India, seeking to restrain them from selling the movables belonging to respondent No. 3 which had been attached by the remaining respondents. It was the appellant's case that the respondent No. 3 had obtained a loan from them to the tune of Rs. 1.71 crores as on 31-3-1982 by giving security of its entire assets by way of mortgage of immovable properties and hypothecation of these properties. The respondent No. 3 had also hypothecated goods manufactured or in transit in its units. However, the respondent No. 2 has attached some of these...
Smt. Neelabai Mahadeo Salunke and Others Vs. Shamrao Tatoba Pawar and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1994
Reported in: 1995ACJ36; AIR1995Bom55; 1995(1)BomCR67; (1994)96BOMLR83; [1995(70)FLR360]; (1995)ILLJ833Bom; 1994(2)MhLj1656
1. This appeal involves consideration of important question of law relating to interpretation and application of Section 110AA of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. 2. This is an appeal by the original applicants against an order dated 8th January, 1986 passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation in Workmen's Compensation Case No. (LCS) 1 of 1980. By the impugned order, the learned Commissioner dismissed the above referred application as not maintainable in law byinvoking Section 110AA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. 3. Section 110AA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 reads as under:-- '110AA. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of (923), where the death of or bodily injury to any person gives rise to a claim for compensation under this Act and also under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) the person entitled to compensation (may, without prejudice to the provisions of Chapter VII-A claim such compensation) under either...
Razak Haji Jumma Vs. United India Insurance Co. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1994
Reported in: II(1995)ACC454; 1995ACJ402; (1995)ILLJ168Bom
ORDERD. R. Dhanuka, J. 1. One Razak Haji Jumma (Opposite Party No. 2) has preferred this appeal against Order dated 22nd January 1987, passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Bombay in Application (WCA) No. 115/B-8 of 1983. By the impugned order, the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation directed Shri Razak Haji Jumma (Opposite Party No. 2) i.e., the employer to pay a sum of Rs. 21,600/- along with simple interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from the date of the said order as more particularly set out therein. By the said Order, the learned Commissioner also directed the said Shri Razak Haji Jumma, the appellant herein to pay an amount of penalty at the rate of 25% on the amount of compensation of Rs. 21,600/-. 2. The appellant was the 'Employer' of the deceased workman. 3. I have gone through the record of the case with help of learned counsel for Respondent no. 1 and 2 in this behalf. 4. One Nabirasul s/o. Babasaheb Mullaner was in employment of Shri...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »