Mumbai Court February 1995 Judgments
Sigma Coatings Bv Vs. agios Nikolaos and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Bom281
1. SIGMA COATINGS BV.,a company incorporated under the laws of Netherlands has filed this action in rem on the admiralty side of this Court against a foreign flat vessel known as m.v. 'AGIOS NIKOLAOS' at present lying in the part and harbour of Bombay and Cristeta Shipping Ltd., for recovery of sum Guilders (NLG) 58, 745.10 and Rs. 3,88,762.03 together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of the suit till payment. The plaintiffs have also sought an order from this Court to the effect that the 1st defendant vessel alongwith her engines, gears, tackles, bunkers, machinery, apparel, plant, furniture, appurtenances and paraphernalia be arrested under a warrant of arrest of this Hon'ble Court.2. The plaintiffs have made an application for interim relief seeking arrest of the 1st defendant vessel or in alternative for an appropriate order of injunction in aid of their assertion to the effect that the plaintiffs have maritime lien over the 1st defendant vessel in respect o...
Tag this Judgment!Maharashtra State Electricity Board Vs. Lamachand Baliram Chaudhari an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-1995
Reported in: (1998)IIILLJ380Bom
B. N. Srikrishna, J.1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges an order of the Industrial Court dated 5.10.1987 made in Complaint (ULP) No. 129 of 1984 under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The petitioner is a statutory Electricity Board. The First Respondent is an employee of the said Board. The First Respondent joined the service of the Petitioner on 18.5.1979 as Chargeman Grade II on work-charge establishment at Chandrapur. Despite breaks in his service from 18.11.1979 to 25.11.1979 and from 26.5.1980 to 1.6.1980, he continued in service. On 23rd August, 1980, the First Respondent was appointed as a temporary employee on the establishment of the Nasik Thermal Power Station. In 1982, he was selected by the Selection Board as a permanent employee and placed on the rolls of the Permanent Employees of the Board. On 12.4.1983, t...
Tag this Judgment!Gulab Govindrao Lanjewar Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporat ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-1995
Reported in: 1995(4)BomCR402; (1996)ILLJ308Bom
R.M. Lodha, J.1. By this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order passed by the Industrial Court on July 5, 1989, whereby the said Court dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 28 of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The petitioner has also prayed for declaration that passing of departmental promotional examination, after attaining age of 45 years was not mandatory in view of the Government Resolution dated November 1, 1977 to the employees of the Corporation. In the writ petition, the petitioner has also prayed that Clauses 39, 44 and 62 of Mah. State Road Transport Corporation (Recruitment, Promotion, Seniority and Recategorisation) Procedure may be declared ultra vires.2. The petitioner (for short 'employee') was initially employed as conductor with the respondent (for short 'employer'). According to the petitioner, in view of his...
Tag this Judgment!Appa Babaji Misal Patil and Others Vs. Dagdu Chandru Misal, Since Dece ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Bom333; 1995(2)MhLj765
ORDERPENDSE, J.1. These two appeals raise an interesting question of Hindu Law relating to succession of property inherited by a woman prior to Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It is necessary to set out the relevant facts to appreciate the question involved in these two appeals.The land bearing survey No. 114 of Village Chinke in Sangola Taluka of Solapur District admeasures 28 acres and 33 gunthas. The land originally belonged to one Sukhdeo who was a common ancestor. The geneology of Sukhdeo is as under :--(See geneology below)Sukhdeo had three sons Balu, Yesu and Sheshappa. Yesu died of young age and his branch was extinct. Balu had two sons, Shahaji and Ijappa. Ijappa's Son is Chandru and Chandru's son is plaintiff. Sheshappa had two sons, Pandu and Daji and Daji had two children, Bajrang and Kasabai. Krishnabai, a widow of Daji died in the year 1940. Dagadu, original plaintiff, claims that a partition was effected between Ijappa, Shahaji and Sheshappa prior to year 1912 and land allot...
Tag this Judgment!Abhijat Samayadarshika Maharashtra Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1995
Reported in: [1995(71)FLR61]; (1999)IIILLJ144Bom
Tipnis, J. 1. This case demonstrates how at times the public authority enjoined with a duty of protecting the public interest itself commits default and penalises the person who is not at fault at all. We are saying this because the facts of this case show that the authority who passed the order has shown total lack of application of mind while dealing with the matter. 2. Abhijat Samayadarshika (Maharashtra) Limited, is a Government company incorporated under the Companies Act. It is wholly owned subsidiary of the Western Maharashtra Development Corporation limited. The petitioner company was established on 12th July 1978 and it commenced its commercial production from 30th August 1979. Under the provisions of section 16 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, the company was entitled to infancy benefit and accordingly the provisions of the Act became applicable to the petitioner company from 1.9.1982. The petitioner company immediately contacted the I...
Tag this Judgment!Maharashtra State Electricity Board and ors. Vs. Badrinath Pandit Kolh ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1995
Reported in: (1998)IIILLJ691Bom
B. N. Srikrishna, J.1. This is a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India directed against the order of the Industrial Court, Nasik, dated 16-11-1987, made in Complaint (ULP) No. 8 of 1986, under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The Petitioner is a State Electricity Board constituted under the Maharashtra Electricity Act and carries on the business of generation and distribution of electricity within the State of Maharashtra. The Respondent is an employee of the Petitioner-Board. 3. The Respondent was initially employed as a line-helper and was subsequently promoted on 21st August, 1971, as Assistant Lineman. It appears that the prospects of promotion for the employees in the service of the Petitioner-Board were dim, either because in several years there were no well defined channels of promotion, or because there were no clear vacancies in whi...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Daji Jadhav Vs. National Textile Corporation Ltd. (South Mahara ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1995
Reported in: [1995(71)FLR960]
V.H. Bhairavia, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. That the petitioner is seeking for enforcement of the order passed in Application (BIR) No. 697 of 1985 in favour of the petitioner, directing the Respondent-Company to reinstate him. The complaint of the petitioner came to be dismissed by the order of the Member, Industrial Court, Bombay dated 30.9.94 on the ground that the respondent-company is a continuous sick unit covered under section 22 of Sick Industrial Companies Act (Special Provisions) 1985. 3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner as regards the non-applicability of the provision of section 22 in the case of the petitioner-workmen is unsustainable. The learned Member of the Industrial Court has given finding of that effect and as required under section 22(1) the petitioner-workmen has admittedly not obtained consent from the B.I.F.R. 4. I, therefore, do not see any substance in the submission of the learned counsel. Hence this petition...
Tag this Judgment!Kalappa Narsappa Sangle Vs. Shri Panchaganga Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1995
Reported in: (1996)IILLJ19Bom
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Industrial Court, Kolhapur, dated October 15, 1986, made in Appeal (IC) No. 16 of 1985 under the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')2. The Petitioner was in the employment of the First Respondent, a Co-operative Society manufacturing sugar, from February 1,1969. His services came to be terminated with effect from January 21, 1982 by an order dated January 16, 1982. On February 16, 1982, the Petitioner sent an approach notice to the First Respondent for reconsideration of the order of termination of his service and demanded reinstatement in service. The Petitioner's request was rejected by the First Respondent by its reply dated March 1, 1982 which was received by the Petitioner on March 3, 1982. The Petitioner then filed an application in the Labour Court at Kolhapur on June 29, 1982, under Section 79 read with section 78 of the Act. The First Respond...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Jyoti Sunil Shinde Vs. Mrs. Shobha Laxman Khedekar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1995
Reported in: (1995)97BOMLR526
M.L. Dudhat, J.1. By this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated November 30, 1992 passed by the Additional Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Bombay, in Municipal election Petition No. 74 of 1992. Government of Maharashtra Urban Development Department-respondent No. 3 issued a notification dated October 11, 1991 and November 29, 1991 declaring that there would be 221 Wards of the Bombay Municipal Corporation for the purpose of elections which were held on February 25, 1992. Out of the said 221 Wards, 10 Wards were reserved for the Scheduled Caste candidates and Wards No. 69 was reserved for scheduled caste women. It is an admitted position that Ward No. 69, where from petitioner also contested the election, was reserved for scheduled caste women. In the said Ward the petitioner, who was the Congress candidate, contested the election along with respondent No. 1, the Shiv Sena candidate. On February 27, 1992 results of the elections were declared and as per the said r...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Sugar and General Engg. Vs. Collr. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1995
Reported in: (1995)(77)ELT907Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal against the Order-in-Original No. S/10-55/90 Gr.II, dated 9-8-1990 ordering confiscation of a consignment of hydraulic cylinder valued at Rs. 15.77 lakhs, which was sought to be cleared against 38 REP licences endorsed with the flexibility provisions contained in Paras 175 and 177 of AM 1988-1991 Policy. The objection was taken by the department on the ground that this is a single item exceeding the value of Rs. 10 lakhs and has also exceeded 10% of the value limit prescribed in each of the REP licence and clubbing of the licences for covering the value of the imported item is not permissible. In that view, adjudication proceedings were held and the impugned orders passed.2. Shri Nankani, the Id. Advocate mainly pleads by referring to Para 177(1) of the Policy indicating that Hydraulic cylinder is figuring in Appendix 3 Part A, Sr. No. 587B and hence would be governed by the flexibility provisions contained in that Para. According to sub-para (1) of the aforesaid ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »