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.
Ritz Hotel (Vegetarian), Pune Vs. E.S.i.C., Pune
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-1994
Reported in: [1995(70)FLR613]; (1998)IIILLJ309Bom
D.R. DHANUKA, J.1. M/s. Ritz Hotel of Pune has preferred this appeal against order dated 17th August 1980 passed by the Employees' State Insurance Court, Pune in Application (ESI/LCP) No. 3 of 1980. By the impugned order, the trial Court dismissed the above referred application and held that the establishment of the appellant was covered by and under the provisions of Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. 2. Sometime in the year 1961, Ritz Hotel (Vegetarian) was registered under the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948. At the material time the said hotel employed about 14 to 17 employees. The appellant stores and preserves milk curds in a refrigerator kept in its hotel. The said refrigerator is operator by power with 3 horse power capacity. The milk which is stored in the freeze is used for preparing tea for the customers. The curd which is kept in the freeze is used for preparing buttermilk to be served to the customers or for preparation of kadi (a liquid preparation). No power...
Bhupal Premchand Shah and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Bom317; 1994(2)MhLj1558
ORDERA. M. Bhattacharjee, C.J.1. Thequestion that has been referred to the Full Bench is whether the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, and S. 5 thereof in particular, would apply to an application made to the Collector under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Jahagirdar, J., who has made the order of reference, has pointed out that while the aforesaid question has been answered in the negative by a Division Benchof this Court in P. W. Gadgil v. P. Y.Deshpande, : AIR1983Bom342 , speaking through Jahagirdar, J. himself, it has been held by an earlier Division Bench of this Court in Ramu Dhondi Todkar v. TheSpecial Land Acquisition Officer (Writ Petition No. 585 of 1979 decided on 12th August 1981) speaking through Pendse, J., that the provisions of S. 5 of the Limitation Act apply to the proceedings under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.2. There has been considerable argument at the Bar and a good number of precedents have been piled up on each side. But we do not intend to...
Shankar Kondiba Gore Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1994
Reported in: 1994(4)BomCR586; 1995CriLJ93
Sahai, J.1. The appellant aggrieved by the order dated 13th November 1992 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, in Sessions Case No. 782 of 1989 convicting him under Section 302 of IPC and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for two months, has come up in appeal before us. 2. The prosecution case in brief, as contained in the FIR lodged by PW 1 Govind Tukaram Deogikar is that the decessed Arun Kisan Bhosale and the appellant belonged to the village of the informant. The deceased was working in Shrikrishna Tea House, Vithalwadi, Kalba Devi. He, the informant and some others used to sleep in the same compound. The appellant is said to have been working at Hanuman Tea House, C.P. Chawl, Abdul Rahman street. It is said that the appellant and the deceased were friends and used to have a common lunch; each bringing his own tiffin. It is stated that about 9 to 10 days prior to ...
Bank of India Vs. Workmen Represented by Bank of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1994
Reported in: [1995(70)FLR175]
Pendse, J.1. The Government of India by order dated April 14, 1986 passed in exercise of powers conferred under section 10(1)(d) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2 Bombay. The dispute referred was a follows :- 'Whether the action of Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Pune is not taking into account temporary period of employment from 4-8-1974 to 2-10-1974 as part of probation period of Shri A.M. Jadhav, Agricultural Clerk in accordance with provisions of para 20.8 of Bipartite Settlement of 19-10-1966 is justified and legal? if not to what relief the workman is entitled to?' 2. To appreciate the dispute, two facts are required to be stated. The appellants are a Banking company while the respondent No. 1 is a worker's organisation. Shri A.M. Jadhav was appointed as an Agricultural Clerk for a period of one month from August 1, 1974 to August 31, 1974 at Rashivade Branch in Kolhapur District. Another appoi...
Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. Hindustan Cocoa Products Ltd ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1994
Reported in: 1995(1)BomCR403; (1994)96BOMLR193; [1995(70)FLR233]; (1999)IIILLJ183Bom; 1995(1)MhLj497
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. The Employees' State Insurance Corporation has preferred this appeal under section 82(2) of Employees' State Insurance Act 1948, against Order dated 8th December 1989, passed by Employees' Insurance Court, Bombay in Application (ESI) No. 91 of 1986. By the impugned Order under appeal, it was held that the workers engaged by the contractors M/s. B. E. Billimoria & Co. Pvt. Ltd. for construction of residential building for use of the officers of the Respondent in the appeal were not 'employees' within meaning of Section 2(9) of the Act and the amounts paid to them by the Respondent company to the contractor would not be 'wages' within meaning of Section 2(22) of the Act. By the said Order it was also declared that the Respondent was not liable to pay any amount of contribution on the payments made to these workers engaged through the contractors M/s. B. E. Billimoria & Co. Pvt. Ltd. 2. The Respondent is a wellknown Public Limited Company incorporated under the Companie...
Dainik Deshdoot and ors. Vs. the Employees' State Insurance Corporatio ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1994
Reported in: (1995)97BOMLR845; [1995(70)FLR863]; (1995)IILLJ145Bom; 1995(1)MhLj853
Bhattacharjee, C.J.1. This is an appeal against an order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court dismissing an appeal under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, in limine. The order assailed is not a speaking order as the learned Judge has dismissed the appeal by a one-word order to the effect 'dismissed'. 2. In Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. : [1966]1SCR466 , Subba Rao, J., in his separate but concurring judgment, while pointing out that the orders of appellate Court should contain the reasons therefor, has nevertheless relieved such Courts from making a speaking order when they dismiss an appeal or a revision in limine. It has been observed therein that in the latter cases, a non-speaking order may be justified because the appeal or revisional Court in that case must be presumed to have agreed with the reasoned judgment of the subordinate Court and to have found no legally permissible grounds to interfere therewith. These observations in Madhya Pradesh Ind...
Employees State Insurance Corporation, Pune Vs. Kirloskar Consultants ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1994
Reported in: 1995(1)BomCR401; (1994)96BOMLR191; [1995(71)FLR1004]; (1996)IILLJ76Bom; 1995(2)MhLj420
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. The Employees' State Insurance Corporation has preferred this appeal against order dated 30th January 1987, passed by the Employees' Insurance Court, Pune in Application (ESI) No. 6 of 1982. 2. By the impugned order under appeal, the trial Court has declared that the provisions of Employees' State Insurance Act are not applicable to the establishment of Respondent in this appeal i.e. M/s. Kirloskar Consultant Ltd. 3. The establishment of Respondent herein is registered as 'a commercial establishment.' The Respondent company provides consultancy services to its clients is respect of Industrial, technical, marketing and management and prepares project report for its clients. The respondent is engaged in Industrial Consultancy and carrying on 'economic activity' as part of its business. The only question which is required to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the establishment of the respondent is liable to be considered as 'shop' under the notification issued b...
Arun R. Gupte Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1994
Reported in: 1995(2)BomCR43; (1995)97BOMLR885
V.A. Mohta, J.1. Shri Arun Gupte, the petitioner is a Senior Counsel for Central Government (Prosecution) and a Special Public Prosecutor for cases under the N.D.P.S. Act in Special Courts at Bombay. He have legal practice for last more than 30 years and as a Senior Counsel has been representing the Central Government and its various wings in various courts.2. It is unfortunate that occasion has arisen for him to be a petitioner in the Court. The petition seeks expunction of unjustified adverse remarks reproduced in prayer (a) of the petition passed against him by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Shri S.A. Merchant) in an order granting bail in R.A. No. 265 of 1993 dated 5-11-1993 to a foreign national apprehended under the Customs Act.3. Joseph Hudec - a Czech Republic National, resident of Prague was found in possession of 52 contraband gold bars collectively weighing 6063.2 grams and valued at Rs. 21,82,750/- IMV and Rs. 27,10,250/- IMV on his arrival from Singapore by flight No. ...
Faredoon Maneckji Dalal Vs. Phiroz Bomanji Javeri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1994
Reported in: 1995(3)BomCR112
I.G. Shah, J.1. The plaintiff has filed this suit for eviction of the defendant on the ground that the defendant is in wrongful occupation of a premises on the ground floor of a building situated at 21, Meghraj Sethi Marg, Bombay 400 008, and that he is a trespasser. The plaintiff claims that the plaintiff has been the owner of the property consisting of a building of one storey situated at Meghraj Sethi Marg, Bombay 400 008, and one Maneckji M. Javeri was a statutory tenant of the premises on the ground floor of the said building till his demise on 17th of April, 1968. On the death of the said Maneckji M. Javeri, at the request of his sister Miss. Cooverbai M. Javeri and his brother Kaikhushru M. Javeri, the statutory tenancy standing in the name of the said Maneckji M. Javeri was transferred by the plaintiff in the name of Miss. Tehmina M. Javeri another sister of the said deceased Maneckji M. Javeri. The plaintiff also claims that although the said Maneckji M. Javeri and the said Mi...
Sitaram Shivchandrai Garodia and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1994
Reported in: 1995(3)BomCR104; (1994)96BOMLR23
M.L. Dudhat, J.1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition for setting aside the acquisition of the land forming part of Survey No. 249 of village Ghatkopar, Taluka Kurla, Bombay Suburban District (hereinafter referred to as 'the said land'). The petitioners on 5-12-1966 submitted a proposed lay out of a plot of land bearing Survey No. 249, Hissa No. 1 (part) admeasuring about 30,000 sq.yds. to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, respondent No. 5 herein. On 17-3-1967 respondent No. 5 approved the proposed lay out as per the conditions stated in the letter dated 17-3-1967. However, the petitioners received a communication from respondent No. 5 (Municipal Corporation) on 31-5-1967 stating in it that the land in respect of which proposed lay out was approved is affected by the arterial siding proposed by the Central Railway. The petitioners thereafter on 16th June, 1967 addressed letter to respondent No. 5 (Municipal Corporation) to the effect that the sanction of the propos...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »