Mumbai Court October 1995 Judgments
Dattatraya Dagduji Borkute Vs. Mohanlal Chandmal Phapal and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-31-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ987
ORDER1. The impugned orders challenged in this Criminal Writ Petition are the order of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Telhara dated 18-1-1995 in Criminal Case No. 175 of 1989 (Annexure-IV) and the Judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola dated 13-3-1995 in Criminal Revision No. 56 of 1995. It need hardly to be mentioned that the challenge is as per Article 227 of the Constitution and under Section 482, Cr.P.C. The petitioner filed a private complaint before the learned Magistrate, Telhara. The learned Magistrate took cognizance under Section 418 read with Section 34, I.P.C. The complainant filed the complaint in the year 1983 which on transfer was renumbered of the year 1989. The question arose like this. While recording, the complainant (sic) he moved Annexure-I Application stating that P.W. 7 has to attend Election duty and hence is unable to appear before the Court and, therefore, the case has to be adjourned, another application Annexure-II was moved by the c...
Tag this Judgment!Yeshwant Gangaram Pandav and ors. Vs. Asea Brown Bowery Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-31-1995
Reported in: (1999)IIILLJ1333Bom
B.N. Srikrishna, J. 1. By this Writ Petition, substantially under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Awards of the Labour Court, Nasik, dated 31st December, 1987 and 4th January, 1991 made in Reference (IDA) No. 10 of 1984 under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') are impugned. 2. The petitioners are ex-employees of the 1st respondent which owns and runs a factory at Pune Manufacturing Engineering Goods. 3. On 25th March 1982 the workmen working in the industrial department of the 1st Respondent resorted to a strike which was continued from 8.45 a.m. on 26th March 1982 till 21st August 1982 on which day it was withdrawn. The said strike was held to be an illegal strike by an order of the Labour Court, Nasik, dated 30th April, 1982 made in Reference (ULP) No. 5 of 1982 under Section 25(1) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. 14 workmen of the 1st Respondent w...
Tag this Judgment!Abdullah Jameel Ahmed Ansari and ors. Vs. M.H. Saboo Siddik Polytechni ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-30-1995
Reported in: [1996(73)FLR1505]; (1996)ILLJ1165Bom
1. These 4 petitions raise a common question. The 4 matters giving rise to these petitions have also been disposed of by the learned Presiding Officer, Schools Tribunal, Bombay Region, Bombay by a common judgment. It would, therefore, be in the fitness of things to dispose of these 4 petitions by this common judgment. 2. It is not necessary to go into details of the facts of the cases for the point that is involved and which we propose to decide being short point on which elaboration of facts is not necessary. 3. Suffice it to say that the petitioners in these 4 petitions were in the employment of Respondent No. 1 which is managed by Respondent No. 2. Their services came to be terminated. Two of them challenged that termination initially by way of writ petitions which were rejected in limine. Against that rejection, they preferred appeals before the Division Bench of this Court, and pending the appeals, they approached the school tribunal with appeals under Section 9(1) of the Maharash...
Tag this Judgment!Alfa Laval (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-25-1995
Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT668Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. P-64/90, dated 6-3-1991 of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune.2. The only issue involved in this appeal is the eligibility of Argon gas for Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Rules. The Assistant Collector held that argon gas is not actually used in the manufacture of final product and this gas is used as consumable in the cutting torch and therefore it cannot be said to be used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product. In this view, he denied the Modvat Credit and ordered reversal of credit to the extent of Rs. 31034/-. On appeal before the Collector (Appeals), the Collector (Appeals) held that argon gas is to protect the electric arc and the molten metal from atmospheric contamination, as it shields them from direct contact with the air. Argon gas is therefore, only one of the raw materials which help in shielding the molten mass from the air and is therefore, in the nature of an appliance, which is excl...
Tag this Judgment!Sudarshan Rajesham Metaku Vs. Manager, Sales Depot, Maharashtra State ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-25-1995
Reported in: (1997)IIILLJ1233Bom
1. Heard Shri K. M. Babhulgaonkar, Advocate for the Petitioner and Shir V. N. Dankh. Advocate for the respondents. 2. Rule. Taken up for bearing forthwith by consent. 3. This writ petition challenges an interlocutory order passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court, Aurangabad dated October 10, 1995, rejecting the prayer for interim relief. The petitioner has been retrenched since found to be surplus according to the employer and this was challenged in Industrial Court. Later on, it was found that the jurisdiction vests in the Labour Court and, therefore, the matter was refiled in the Labour Court. 4. The Labour Court granted status quo on December 9, 1994 confirming the similar order passed by the Industrial Court but on September 21, 1995, after hearing both the parties, the said order was vacated. This was challenged in Revision No. 73 of 1995 before the learned Member of the Industrial Court at Aurangabad. Since this was only in respect of interim order, the revision shou...
Tag this Judgment!Baburao Vishwanath Mathpati and Etc. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Bom227; 1996(3)BomCR15; (1996)98BOMLR384
ORDERMane, J.1. The petitioner challenges the validity of the order dated 29-7-1994 made by the Minister of State for Urban Development, Government of Maharashtra, exercising the powers of the State Government under S. 55 A of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils Act, 1965 (for short, the Act).2. The petitioner was elected as President of the Parbhani Municipal Council on 17-12-1991 for a period of five years defeating his opponent-respondent No. 4 herein, namely, Shri Suresh Deshmukh who is also petitioner in companion Writ Petition No. 3329/1994. The candidature of the petitioner was supported by the opposition parties who defeated the official-Congress I nominee-the respondent No. 4.3. At the out-set it is relevant to state few facts which are either admitted or not seriously disputed as averred in the pleadings.Since January 1993 attempts appeared to have been made to dislodge the petitioner from the office of the President. Two non-confidence motions were moved on f 5-1-1993 and 5-6...
Tag this Judgment!Costao Fernandes, Preventive Officer, Customs Vs. the State at the Ins ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-1995
Reported in: 1997BomCR(Cri)885
T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. This petition is directed against the order dated 8th June 1995 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Panaji, in Sessions Case No. 4 of 1993 whereby protection under sections 106 and 155 of the Customs Act sought by the accused/petitioner was rejected by the learned District Judge.2. For the purpose of this petition the bare facts involved in this case can be stated as follows:-The petitioner/accused was committed to the Sessions Court to stand trial for an offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the J.M.F.C., Margao. The prosecution case is that on 16th May 1991 at about 12.30 p.m. when Alvarnaz Alemao was returning to his house in a white Contessa Car No. GA-02-A-4567, the petitioner, who was working as a Preventive Officer of the Customs, started chasing the said car and at a particular point he could get into the car and thereafter inflicted knife injuries on Alvarnaz. When Alvarnaz was removed to the hospital, he succumb...
Tag this Judgment!Jairam Jethmal Tapadia Vs. Kamal Kishor S/O Bhagirath Agrawal and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-1995
Reported in: 1996(2)BomCR357; (1996)98BOMLR380
N.P. Chapalgaonker, J.1. Heard Shri S.A. Deshmukh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.C. Bora, learned Counsel holding for Shri Ajay Deshpande, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2.2. In an application under section 15 of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954 by the landlord, a decree for eviction against the tenant was passed. The order is challenged in an appeal under section 25 of the said Act before the learned District Judge, Parbhani. When the appeal was filed, an application under Order 41, Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 was submitted before the learned District Judge. Since the respondent appeared by caveat, the learned District Judge started hearing the application. This hearing started at about 1.30 p.m. The advocate for the appellant prayed that the matter be expedited since the appellant tenant is likely to be dispossessed within a short time. Shri Ubale requested the Court for a short time for filing say and Shri Ubale, ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Bajaj Tempo Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-1995
Reported in: (1995)(80)ELT531Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Both the Reference Applications have been moved by the Revenue in respect of this Bench's final Order No. 1551-53/93-WRB, dated 27-8-1993, allowing the appeals of the respondents by a common order.2. The respondents M/s. Bajaj Tempo Ltd. are manufacturer of Motor Vehicles. They carry on the manufacturing activities in more than one unit. Likewise M/s. Swil Ltd. are the manufacturers of copper wire, rods, sheets, stainless steel & nickel wire and they also carry on the manufacture in more than one unit. In both the cases, the respondents receive the inputs such as steel, copper etc. (which are hereinafter referred to as basic inputs) and take Modvat credit of duty paid on them. They use these basic inputs in the manufacture of final products, part of which are produced in the same unit and part of the final product are manufactured in another unit. They remove the intermediate goods (hereinafter referred to as intermediate inputs) for captive use within the same factory or remov...
Tag this Judgment!Cinematograph Exhibitors Association of India and ors. Vs. Union of In ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-1995
Reported in: 1996(2)BomCR631; (1996)IILLJ1044Bom; 1996(1)MhLj787
Dr. B.P. Saraf. J. 1. By this writ petition, the petitioners the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association of India, a representative body of exhibitors and owners of Cinema Theatres and one of its members M/s. Crescent Exhibitors, have challenged the validity of sec. 24 of the Cine Workers & Cinema Theatre Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1981 ('Cine Theatre Workers Act') and notification dated 30th April, 1986 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour. By sec. 24 of the above Act, which came into force with effect from 1st October, 1984, the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ('Provident Funds Act') were made applicable to employees of Cinema Theatres in which 5 or more persons are employed. The validity of this section has been challenged as arbitrary and discriminatory and violate of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. This challenge is based on the ground that though the Provident Funds Act applies to industrial est...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »