Mumbai Court August 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.
Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1994
Reported in: 1995(43)BLJR295; 1995(2)BomCR640; 1994CriLJ3105; 1994(2)MhLj1669
Bhattacharjee, C.J. 1. The Order of Reference which has occasioned the constitution of this Full Bench has been passed by Mohta, J., sitting with Bahuguna, J. and the three questions which have been referred to for the consideration of this Full Bench are as under :-(1) Has the specially empowered officer under the COFEPOSA Act also an independent power to revoke the order of detention in view of Section 11 of the COFEPOSA Act read with Section 21 of the General Clauses Act (2) Are observations in Amir Shad Khan : 1991CriLJ2713 regarding power of revocation of specially empowered officer under the COFEPOSA Act not binding on this Court (3) Does failure to take independent decision on revocation of order of detention by the specially empowered officer under the COFEPOSA Act and merely forwarding the same with recommendation to reject, result in non-compliance with constitutional safeguard under Art. 22(5) of the Constitution. 2. We have heard very interesting arguments advanced by Mr....
Alaknanda Manufacturing and Finance Pvt. Ltd., Hong Kong Bank Agency P ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Bom147; [1995]83CompCas514(Bom)
The Judgment of the court was delivered by M.L. Pendse J. 1. As soon as these three petitions were called out for hearing, counsel were informed that this Bench would prefer not to hear these petitions as one of us (M. L. Pendse J.) is a shareholder of respondent No. 2 company. Shri Shah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Advocate-General, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 and Shri Rana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3, stated that not only the parties and counsel have no objection but on the other hand, insisted that the Bench should take up the petitions for hearing. We have proceeded to hear the petitions in view of the specific statement made by counsel. 2. The petitions under article 226 of the Constitution were filed to challenge the legality of order dated November 26, 1991, passed by the Company Law Board, Western Region Bench, Bombay, while disposing of three sets of references made by respondent No. 2 company in accordance w...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Vinayak Dagadu Jadhav
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-1994
Reported in: 1995(2)BomCR467; (1995)97BOMLR832; 1995(1)MhLj318
1. The petitioner - State of Maharashtra in this petition challenges the order dated 6th September 1991 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nandurbar in Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 1991 arising from the order dated 30th November 1990 passed by the Assistant Conservator of Forest (hereinafter in brief referred to as ACF), Dist, Dhule in Divisional offence No. Toranmal C/57/90-91. The ACF has passed the order under section 61-A(3) of Indian Forest Act 1977 (hereinafter in brief referred to as the said Act) confiscating the vehicle involved in the matter herein belonging to the respondents and the Additional Sessions Judge has passed the order under section 61-D(1) of the said Act, reversing the said order of ACF. 2. Few relevant facts : The Range Forest Officers, Toranmal intercepted one Canter being No. MCY-3930 which was passing along Dhakgaon road and proceeding towards Shahada in Dhule district. There were four inmates including Driver and Cleaner in the said canter namely; 1. Sala...
Transport and Dock Workers Union Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-1994
Reported in: [1995(70)FLR193]
1. The petitioner which is a trade union have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for a declaration that the canteen workers employed through respondent Nos. 4 to 15 be treated as regular employees of Bombay Port Trust. The petitioners also claimed that the canteen workers employed by respondent Nos. 4 to 15 be treated as workmen of Bombay Port Trust with effect from the date upon which they have entered into the service. The petitioners also claimed that the wages of the canteen workers employed by respondent Nos. 4 to 15 should be fixed and paid on par with those canteen workers employed by the Bombay Port Trust in the departmental canteens. Only few facts are required to be set out to appreciate the grievance of the petitioners. The Bombay Port Trust is a statutory body formed under the provision of the Major Port Trust Act 1973. Sections 42 of the Act demands that the port trust authorities shall provide certain essential services to the port workers. The port...
Vithal Gatlu MaraThe Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-1994
Reported in: [1995(71)FLR429]; (1996)ILLJ494Bom
A.M. Bhattacharjee, C. J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Counsel for the respondents. Perused the judgments of the Industrial Court and also the Labour Court. The Industrial Court was moved against the judgment of the Labour Court under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The provisions of Section 44 are almost in pari materia with the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This is not so much a revisional jurisdiction, but jurisdiction of superintendence. It has been settled for about four decades that in exercise of this jurisdiction of superintendence and supervision, the Court cannot go to appreciate to re-appreciate the materials on record. It may be that in a given case or cases, we have, in our anxiety to do justice, have done so on occasions. But that is a different matter. 2. After hearing the strenuous arguments of Mr. Sawant for respondent Nos. 1 and...
Builders Association of India and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-1994
Reported in: [1994]95STC516(Bom)
M.L. Pendse, J.1. Petitioner No. 1 is an association of civil contractors, having a membership of 1,357 and whose members are engaged in executing works contracts in the State of Maharashtra. The works contracts consist of constructing buildings, bungalows, canals, culverts, bridges, etc. The petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 are partnership firms and are members of the association. Under entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, the State Government is entitled to legislate in respect of 'taxes on the sale or purchase of goods other than newspapers, subject to the provisions of entry 92-A of List I'. The Supreme Court examined the ambit of entry 48 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Government of India Act, 1935 in the decision reported in : [1959]1SCR379 [Stale of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley & Co. (Madras) Ltd.] and laid down that the expression 'sale of goods' connotes essential ingredients being an agreement to sell moveables for a price and property pass...
Carlos Basilio alias Polly D'Souza Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-1994
Reported in: 1995(3)BomCR159
M.S. Vaidya, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18th May 1993 and 29th June, 1993 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Panaji in Sessions Case No. 86 of 1990 on his file convicting the present appellant of the offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life.2. The prosecution case, in brief, was that the appellant Carlos alias Polly was living in some part of a house bearing No. 609 at Vagathor end. In the remaining portion, deceased Georgy D'Souza and his father Isidor D'Souza were living. The accused/appellant was living all alone inasmuch as his sister, who was married woman, was living at Bombay and he had lost his mother. It is hinted by the prosecution that the relations between the appellant on one hand and the victims on the other hand were strained probably because of some property dispute of the house itself. On that background the incident in question is alleged to have taken place on 6-9...
Uttam Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1994
Reported in: 1996(1)BomCR395; 1995(1)MhLj95
1. An application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Cr.P.C.') has been filed by the complainant Uttam aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati, on 19-1-1994 whereby he set aside the process issued by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amravati and quashed the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 1260 of 1990 Uttam v. Rajendrakumar and others. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts giving rise to the present application under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. are that the applicant filed a complaint on 10-12-1990 under section 500 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the non-applicant Nos. 2 to 18 herein in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class. It was alleged in the complaint that the complainant as well as non-applicant Nos. 2 to 16 are the Government servants serving in the Treasury Office at Amravati. The non-applicant Nos. 2 to 16 herein on 1-2-1990 lodged a false complaint to the Treasury Of...
Afjalkhan Sulemankhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1994
Reported in: 1996(1)BomCR88
R.M. Lodha, J.1. The only point urged by Mr. S.A. Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the petitioner in the present writ petition is that the respondent No. 2 Deputy Commissioner of Police, East Zone, Nagpur, who passed an externment order under section 56 (a) and (b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act') was not authorised and competent to do so under sub-section (2) of section 10 of the said Act. In this connection, Mr. Jaiswal submitted that no notification authorising the respondent No. 2 Deputy Commissioner of Police, East Zone, Nagpur, has been issued and published by the State Government. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 247 of 1993, Raju v. State of Maharashtra, in support of his contention.2. Before I advert to the aforesaid contention, brief facts of the case may be noted. In view of the various criminal cases pending against the petitioner, a show cause notice under section 59(a) of t...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gangavarapur Padmawati and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1994
Reported in: 1996ACJ45
M.B. Ghodeswar and R.M. Lodha, JJ.1. Taking exception to the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Yavatmal, on 9.12.1993 in Motor Accident Claim No. 4 of 1990, Gangavarapur Padmawati v. J. Ramchandra Reddy, whereby the learned Tribunal passed an award for a sum of Sub-clause 1,35,600/- together with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition, i.e., 10.1.1990 till realisation making the non-applicant Nos. 1 to 3 jointly and severally liable, the appellant, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the insurer') has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.2. Twofold contentions have been raised by Mr. D.N. Kukdey, the learned counsel for the insurer in this appeal-(i) that the liability on the insurer could not have been fastened in respect of the death of employee or representative of the owner of the goods who was travelling in the goods vehicle along with the goods, and (ii) that, in any ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »