Mumbai Court February 1995 Judgments
Shashikant Janardan Pimpalpure Vs. Development Corpn. of Vidarbha Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-1995
Reported in: (1996)IIILLJ570Bom
ORDER1. This batch of four writ petitions arises out of the common order passed on September 13, 1986 by the 1st Labour Court. Nagpur in the matter of different applications filed under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the 'Act of 1947') and in view of the common questions of facts and law involved, all these writ petitions have been heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Since broad facts of all the four writ petitions and identical, to appreciate the real controversy between the parties. the facts of Writ Petition No. 3352 of 1989 may be noted. The petitioner was appointed as Clerk-cum-Assistant by the respondent Corporation vide office order dated February 22/28. 1977 initially on probation for a period of six months with the stipulation that after completion of probation period satisfactorily, the petitioner would be taken up on regular establishment. In the appointment order, it was mentioned that the petitioner shall be gove...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. A.K. Menon, Custodian and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-1995
Reported in: 1996(5)BomCR564
S.N. Variava, J.1. This Court has been functioning since June 1992. Now so far as two Notified Parties are concerned, viz., the Harshad Mehta Group and Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd., the time is approaching for distribution of their assets under section 11 of the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 (hereinafter for brevity's referred to as 'the Special Court Act'). For this purpose, the Court has already appointed Auditors who are looking into and preparing accounts including list of assets and liabilities of these parties. In case of Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd., under directions of Court, the Custodian has also issued a Public Notice calling upon the parties to lodge their claims, if any. The Custodian has also received claims, from some parties.2. In the meantime, the Income Tax Department has filed before this Court a large number of applications, for payment in priority, of tax, interest and penalty. There are approximately...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs (P) Vs. Motibai N. Koli
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1995
Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT67Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This Misc. application is filed under Rule 40 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, contending that the order of this Tribunal bearing No. 811/WRB/94, dated 6-5-1994 is not being implemented by the Dept. on some excuse or the other.2. It may be observed that one vessel which is the subject matter here was seized by the Dept. and was ordered confiscation by the adjudicating authority, which order was set aside by the Collector (A).As the Dept. came in appeal by filing the appeal, the Tribunal vide their afore-mentioned order, though allowed the appeal, but simultaneously observed that the order of the adjudicating authority which was for absolute confiscation of the vessel was not warranted and modified the same by granting option to the appellant to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in lieu of confiscation. It is reported that the amount of redemption fine has already been deposited by the appellants within the time extended by this Tribunal and in spite of that the vessel which was initially r...
Tag this Judgment!Saoner Taluka Ginning, Pressing and Dal Mill Prakriya Sahakari Sanstha ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1995
Reported in: (1997)IIILLJ385Bom
1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner is seeking to challenge legality and correctness of the order passed by the respondent Regional Provident Fund Commissioner on April 28, 1989 ordering damages for delayed payment amounting to Rs. 43,605.15 and further directing the petitioner to pay the said amount within 15 days on receipt of the order. Mr. Dastane, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised two-fold contentions in support of the writ petition. Firstly Mr. Dastane contended that initiation of the proceedings by the respondent under Section 14-B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short 'the Act of 1952') was grossly belated inasmuch as the damages were sought to be imposed for the defaults for the months of January 1973 to September 1982. In this connection Mr. Dastane placed reliance on the decision in K. T. Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. R. M. Gandhi and others : (1994)ILLJ66Bom . The sec...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State, Bombay Vs. Sai Publicati ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)MhLj268
B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this reference under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, made at the instance of the Revenue, the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this Court for opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and correct interpretation of the provisions of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, as amended by Maharashtra Act No. 9 of 1989, dispensing with 'profit-motive' from the concept of the 'business', was the Tribunal justified in holding that the respondent is not a 'dealer qua its activities' of publication and sale of books, booklets and allied publications including photos and stickers ?' 2. The controversy in this case is whether the trust, Sai Publication Fund, which has been set up by some devotees of Saibaba of Shirdi for spreading the message of Saibaba of Shirdi can be held to be a dealer in respect in respect of sale of books, booklets and other publications containing the message of Saibaba and the tu...
Tag this Judgment!Ramada Hotels (India) Ltd. Vs. Sunrise Emporium
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1995
Reported in: 1996(5)BomCR540
E.S. Da Silva, J.1. I see no merit in this revision.2. Upon hearing learned counsel at length and perusing the records I am of the view that the impugned Order dated 1st December, 1994 does not suffer from any error or illegality deserving unsettlement or modification by this Court in discharge of its revisional authority.3. The exercise of powers under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code cannot affect any error of law or fact other than the one which involves jurisdictional error. The mere wording of the aforesaid section 115 gives a clear indication that the High Court in the discharge of such powers can interfere only when it appears that the Court below has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested or has acted in exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Being so the question of Court interfering with the findings of fact or law recorded by the courts below when such error or jurisdiction is not to b...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Shet Gaonkar Vs. Abdulla Khan Karol and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1995
Reported in: 1996(5)BomCR441
T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. Admit. By consent heard forthwith.2. The petitioner who is the accused in Criminal Case No. 63/P/1991 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, F.C., Sattari has filed this petition under section 397 of Cr.P.C.3. The petitioner on receipt of summons from the Magistrate filed a petition requesting the Magistrate to discharge him from the case mentioned above. The Magistrate refused his prayer by his Order dated 7-12-1994. Against that order the petitioner approached this Court by filing this revision petition.4. The facts of the case in short is as follows :---The petitioner is a Range Forest Officer at Sattari at the relevant time. He had to book a case against the first respondent along with eight other persons suspecting them to have committed some offences under the Indian Forest Act. In the process of the investigation of that forest case the petitioner had to call the respondent to his office on 14-9-1991 at 10.30 a.m. and arrested him and released him...
Tag this Judgment!Kisan S/O Jemla Jadhav Vs. Dinkar S/O Ganpat Bhagat and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1995
Reported in: 1996(2)BomCR61; (1995)97BOMLR661
B.U. Wahane, J.1. This Court issued rule on 13th January, 1995 to the respondents/contemnors calling upon them to show cause as to why they should not be dealt with under the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, as they wilfully disobeyed the order passed by the learned School Tribunal dated 3-2-1994.2. The petitioner was appointed as a Physical Instructor by the respondent No. 1 Secretary, Sujata Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha, Dhanora Kd., Tahsil Mangrulpir, district Akola with effect from 1-7-1987. His services being terminated on 4-7-1992, he preferred an appeal No. 98 of 1992-A before the School Tribunal, Amravati and Aurangabad division, Aurangabad. The appeal was decided on merit. The learned School Tribunal allowed the appeal of the petitioner and passed the following order on 3-2-1994.'The appeal is allowed.2. The impugned oral termination dated 4-7-1992 done by the respondent No. 2 is hereby set aside.3. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to reinstate the appellan...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Mandakini Wd/O Radhakrishna Damkondawar Vs. Smt. Nirmaladevi Wd/O ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1995
Reported in: 1996(2)BomCR80; (1995)97BOMLR534
R.M. Lodha, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner is seeking to challenge the order passed by the Resident Deputy Collector, Chandrapur on 19-4-1990 confirming the order of the Rent Controller dated 22-2-1990, whereby permission has been granted to the respondent to determine the tenancy of the petitioner under Clause 13(3)(vi) of the Rent Control Order, 1949.2. Smt. Nirmaladevi - respondent (for short 'landlady') filed application before the Rent Controller, Chandrapur against Smt. Mandakini (for short 'tenant') on 1-4-1986. By the said application, landlady sought permission of the Rent Controller to determine the tenancy of the tenant under Clause 13(3)(vi) of Rent Control Order, 1949. It was averred by the landlady in the said application that she was owner of the premises situated at Plot No. 151 of Bhanapeth, Chandrapur, where Shrikrishna Talkies is located. The said premises were initially taken on rent by one Radhakrishna, husband of the tenant for a period of 5 years from 1-8-...
Tag this Judgment!Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd. Vs. Solidaire India Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1995
Reported in: 1995(4)BomCR161
S.N. Variava, J.1. By this petition the petitioners seek to recover a sum of Rs. 1,57,20,616.44 with interest on the principal amount till payment or realisation.2. The admitted facts are that on 3rd March, 1992 the petitioners granted to the 1st respondents a loan in a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/-. On 20th March, 1992 the petitioners granted to the 1st respondents another loan of Rs. 25,00,000/-. On 23rd March, 1992 a further loan of Rs. 25,00,000/- was also granted. Thus in all a sum of Rs. 1 crore has been lent and advanced by the petitioners to the 1st respondents.3. By their letter dated 15th July, 1992 the 1st respondents confirmed having received the above mentioned amounts on the above mentioned dates.4. The petitioners were Notified on 2nd July, 1992. After the petitioners were notified, the Custodian made inquiries with the 1st respondents. In pursuance of these inquiries, by their letter dated 17th May, 1993, the 1st respondents admitted receipt of the abovementioned amounts. They...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »