Mumbai Court September 1994 Judgments
Mohammod HusseIn Kasau Motiwala Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1994
Reported in: 1995(3)BomCR633; 1995CriLJ2364
V.H. Bhairavia, J.1. Having been dissatisfied with the functioning of the Police Department of Greater Bombay, the Petitioner knocked the door of this Court and invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus and habeas corpus together against the Respondent-State in the matter of alleged abduction of his wife by Respondents Nos. 4 to 6. It would be necessary to give here the synopsis, the petitioner himself has given in this petition which are liable to be dismissed in our judgment as absolutely false and fabricated :- SYNOPSIS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------...
Tag this Judgment!Brian O.D. Pasgon and ors. Vs. Bombay Education Society and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1994
Reported in: [1995(70)FLR845]
Per Pendse, J.1. The short question which falls for determination in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is whether the Director of Education was justified in directing that the pay-scales and allowances are payable to the employees of the respondent No. 2 School only from April 1, 1989 in exercise of powers under sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act 1977. The facts which gave rise to the filing of this petition are not in dispute and are required to be briefly stated to appreciate the claim made by the petitioners. The respondent No. 2 school is a primary and secondary school recognised by the State Government as an Anglo-Indian School. The service conditions of the employees are governed by the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act 1977 and the Rules framed thereunder. It is not in dispute that the management is bound to follow the provisions ...
Tag this Judgment!Chetanlal Jivanlal Shah Vs. Master Tutorial High School and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1994
Reported in: [1995(70)FLR739]
M. L. Pendse, J.1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner is challenging legality of order dated September 1, 1982 passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Bombay. The facts which gave rise to the passing of this order are not in dispute and are required to be briefly stated to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner. 2. On June 14, 1973 the petitioner had applied for appointment as an Assistant Teacher in the respondent No. 1 School. By letter dated October 8, 1973 the petitioner was informed about his appointment as Assistant Teacher with effect from November 5, 1973. The petitioner was informed on March 28, 1975 that his temporary service stands terminated after one month in accordance with Rule 77(1) of Secondary School Code. The petitioner was reappointed on June 16, 1975 and the appointment letter recites that the petitioner is allowed to join on condition that his probation period will be extended by one year after the usual prob...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Shantaben Shantilal Shah and anr. Vs. the Union Territory of Dadr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1994
Reported in: 1995(2)BomCR600
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioners have impugned order dated. 8th September, 1983 passed by the delegate of the Administrator exercising Appellate and Revisional powers of the Administrator under the Dadra and Nagar Haveli Land Reforms Regulations in Revision Application No. 1 of 1983 and also order dated 31st day of December 1982 passed by the Dy. Collector (L.R.) Silvassa in Appeal No. 13 of 1976. By the impugned order dated 8th September, 1983, the revisional authority held that the revision application preferred by the applicants was not competent in law in view of amendment to section 46 of Dadra and Nagar Haveli Land Reforms Regulations. We propose to examine the challenge made to the Appellate order dated 31st December, 1982 passed by the Dy. Collector in the above referred appeal.2. For the reasons indicated below the petition is dismissed.3. It must be stated at the outset that the respondents have already take...
Tag this Judgment!Angelo Paes Vs. the Estate Officer, Goa Tourism Development Corporatio ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1994
Reported in: 1995(3)BomCR149
M.S. Vaidya, J.1. This writ petition has arisen on account of the decision dated 27th June, 1994 given by the learned Additional District Judge 'B' Court, South Goa, Margao in Regular Civil Suit No. 53 of 1993. The original appellant/petitioner has filed this petitioner contending that the learned Additional District Judge has not adverted to any of the points raised on behalf of the petitioner in the context of the liability which was sought to be fastened on the petitioner in a proceeding under section 12 of the Goa Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1988.2. On perusal of the copy of the Appeal Memo annexed at page 103 of the Paper Book, we find that the only point which was raised in that Appeal Memo by the petitioner was concerning omission (in hearing the petitioner), on the part of the respondent No. I in respect of the monetary claim that was made against him by respondent No. 2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found, on examination of the relevant p...
Tag this Judgment!Maximiana Fernandes and anr. Vs. the Director of Education and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1994
Reported in: 1995(4)BomCR115
G.D. Kamat, J.1. The essential controversy in this batch of writ petitions instituted by teachers is whether Pre-primary education is included within the meaning of 'school' under the Goa, Daman and Diu Education Act, 1984 and whether the action of the Government in not providing grant-in-aid to Pre-primary schools is discriminatory.2. This controversy has arisen as a result of new policy introduced by the State Government in providing grant to non-Government Primary schools so as to bring the Primary school teachers on par with teachers in Government Primary schools viz. scales of pay and other service conditions.3. To appreciate the controversy in these petitions, it is useful to set out the historical back-ground. Goa became a part of Union of India upon liberation in December, 1961. Prior to liberation of Goa, the education policy recognized learning Portuguese. For that purpose, the Government had established Primary schools with Portuguese as medium of instruction in some places ...
Tag this Judgment!Onkarmal Bachhraj Through Partners Vs. Kum. Priti D/O Sitaram Mundada
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1994
Reported in: (1995)97BOMLR835
R.M. Lodha, J.1. This revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the C.P.C.) has been filed by the applicants dissatisfied with the order dated 1-7-1991 passed by the 7th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Akola, whereby the said Court allowed the application filed by the plaintiff non-applicant under Order X, Rule 2 of the C.P.C. after the issues had already been framed for trial.2. Brief facts of the case are that the non-applicant (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) filed a suit for recovery of the amount against the applicants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) in the trial Court. On service of the plaint, the defendants filed the written statement and the trial Court on consideration of the pleadings of the parties framed the issues on 1-10-1989 for trial.3. On 14-1-1991 the plaintiff moved an application purporting to be under Order X, Rule 2 of the C.P.C., stating therein that to restrict the controversy between the pa...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Barrister Prasad and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1994
Reported in: (1995)IILLJ536Bom
V.P. Tipnis, J.1. Respondent No. 1 in Writ Petition No. 3613 of 1991 was employed as a watchman by the petitioner-company at its installation at Sewree on and from 13.11.1980. Initially, he was employed as a security watchman at Sewree installation on purely temporary basis. At the relevant time, he was serving as a security watchman at Sewree installation and was entrusted with the job of guarding the installation which is a storage point for petroleum products of highly inflammable and hazardous nature. On an earlier occasion, respondent No. 1 was given a warning for remaining absent without prior permission. On 8.6.1981 respondent no. 1 was on duty as a watchman to guard the company's property at Sewree installation in the third shift i.e. between 2330 hrs. and 7.30 hrs. On a surprise check, respondent No. 1 - workman who was working as a security watchman was found sleeping at 1.30 hrs. or thereabout by the Operation Officer Alurkar. Again at 4.30 hrs. on the same night havaldar Pi...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Lever Employee's Union Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissio ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1994
Reported in: 1995(2)BomCR90; [1995(71)FLR46]; (1995)IILLJ279Bom; 1995(1)MhLj312
V.P. Tipnis, J.1. Writ Petition No. 527 of 1992 is filed by the Hindustan Lever Employees' Union whereas Writ Petition No. 530 of 1992 is filed by Hindustan Lever Research Central Employees' Union. However, as both these petitions challenge the very same orders passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Maharashtra and Goa, and as the issue involved is identical, both the petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The petitioners are trade unions representing the employees of Respondent No. 2 - Hindustan Lever Ltd. It appears that for a considerable period, running over several years. Respondent No. 2 has been including the amount of leave encashment in the amount of employments for the purpose of calculating the employer's as well as the employees' contribution towards payment of provident fund. However, by letter dated 3-7-1991 which was in reply to the letter sent by the Central Secretary, Hindustan Lever Mazdoor Sabha, the Regional P...
Tag this Judgment!Shrichand Raheja and Another Vs. S.C. Prasad, (Appropriate Authority) ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1994
Reported in: 1995(2)BomCR145; (1994)122CTR(Bom)131; [1995]213ITR33(Bom)
ORDER BY VENDEE--Failure to tender apparent consideration within stipulated time.Ratios :(i) Where by reason of failure to tender apparent consideration purchase order stood abrogated, such abrogation could be settled by transferor, still, the transferee had locus standi to challenge purchase order. (ii) Where part of sale consideration received from transferee was returned by transferor consequent to the purchase order passed under s. 269UD, agreement stood revoked still, the transferee could challenge order. Held :The right of the transferees to challenge purchase order could not be denied on the ground that the transferees had received back the part consideration. The transferees were entitled to receive back the part consideration. The plea that the issue whether purchase order stood abrogated for failure to tender amount within stipulated period was between the transferors and the Central Government and the transferees could not challenge the purchase order on that ground, could n...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »