Mumbai Court March 1995 Judgments
Syed Aref S/O Syed Omer Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-1995
Reported in: 1995(3)BomCR630
A.D. Mane, J.1. A short but important question of public importance is involved in this revision application.2. The petitioner has been convicted under section 224, Indian Penal Code, on a charge that he escaped from the custody of Police Sub-Inspector of City Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad, when he was lawfully detained for offences under sections 147, 148 and 326 read with 149, I.P.C. in C.R. No. 315 of 1988.3. The petitioner challenged the order and judgment of his conviction and sentence for the said offence, made on 29-6-1989 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad, in appeal. But the appeal came to be dismissed on 13-9-1990 against which the present revision application is filed.4. The facts which are either admitted or not disputed are thus :Crime at C.R. No. 315 of 1988 was registered for offences under sections 147, 148 and 326 read with 149, I.P.C., at City Chowk police station Aurangabad. The Police Sub-Inspector Daima was incharge of the investigation of the said off...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Asia Foundations and
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-1995
Reported in: (1995)53ITD421(Mum.)
1. The assessee in this case is stated to be engaged in the business of construction work of major projects in India as well as in foreign countries. Its accounting year ended on 30th June, 1985. It had filed an estimate of advance tax on 13-6-1985 and had paid the first instalment on the basis of estimating its income at Rs. 1,21,00,000.Since the tax worked out to Rs. 76,23,000 and since the tax deducted at source was Rs. 1.05 crores, no advance tax was paid by the assessee in the first instalment. The second instalment was paid on the same basis.Only when the 3rd instalment was to be paid, the assessee revised its estimate on 12-12-1985 and estimated total income at Rs. 2,39,42,873.Since the tax deducted at source was Rs. 1,22,60,000 by that time and since the appellant deposited Rs. 7 lakhs with the IDBI it paid Rs. 9 lakhs as advance tax on 12-12-1985. Subsequently the assessee filed a return of its income at Rs. 2,39,58,881. The assessment was completed on a total income of Rs. 3...
Tag this Judgment!Shankar Amrita Deshmukh Vs. Paper and Pulp Conversions Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-1995
Reported in: 1995(4)BomCR46; [1995(71)FLR859]; 1996(1)MhLj765
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. These three Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are directed against three Awards made by the Labour Court, Thane in Reference (IDA) No. 98 of 1980. Reference (IDA) No. 101 of 1980 and Reference (IDA) No. 99 of 1980 under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Though there were three separate References and three Awards by the Labour Court, Thane, the facts and legal issues being almost the same, it would be convenient to dispose of all three Writ Petitions by a common judgment. 2. The Petitioners in these three writ petitions were employed in the factory of the 1st Respondent at Khopoli Village in District Raigad. The services of 10 workmen, including the three Petitioners, were terminated from 28th June 1979 on the ground that continuation of their services in the employment of the 1st Respondent was detrimental to the Company's interest. All the ten workmen who were thus removed, raised ...
Tag this Judgment!Communidade of Curtorim Vs. Shri Francisco Rebello and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-1995
Reported in: 1996(5)BomCR30
E.S. Da Silva, J.1. The challenge in this revision is the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Margao, dated September 6, 1994 in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 141 of 1990 in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 81 of 1990 filed by the respondent against the petitioner whereby the learned Additional District Judge has upset the order of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Margao, dated July 27, 1990 in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 139 of 1990 attached to Regular Civil Suit No. 66/86/D.2. The case of the petitioner is that they are the owners of a plot of land situated at S. Jose Areal which was earmarked for thrashing ground. Somewhere in the year 1982 the respondent has applied for a grant (aforamento) in respect of a part of that land for construction purpose. The petitioner rejected his application because under the Code the said land could not be granted for residential purposes since it was earmarked for the common use of the Communidade for the purpose of a thr...
Tag this Judgment!Hiralal Tukaram Kumawat and ors. Vs. Latabai Rajendra Kumawat and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-1995
Reported in: 1995(3)BomCR491; I(1995)DMC638
A.D. Mane, J.1. This is an application for quashing criminal proceedings initiated by the respondent No. 1 against the petitioners for offence punishable under section 419 read with section 109 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Respondent No. 1 filed her private complaint on March 15, 1993, being RCC No. 21 of 1993 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chopda against 7 persons including the present petitioners who are accused Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 7. The case of the respondent No. 1 is that she married to one Rajendra on April 23, 1990 in village Prakasha Taluka Shahad in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. Rajendra is the adopted son of the petitioner No. 1. After the marriage she lived with the Rajendra but on pretty matters Rajendra sent her to her parents house at Wadgaontek. But soon thereafter Rajendra filed Hindu Marriage Petition No. 283 of 1990 against the respondent No. 1 for restitution of conjugal rights under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and also for dissoluti...
Tag this Judgment!State of Goa Vs. M/S. Jyoti Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-1995
Reported in: 1996(5)BomCR27
Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. State of Goa, the appellant herein, has come up with this appeal aggrieved by the judgment passed by the Civil Judge S.D. Quepem dated 6-12-1990 in Special Civil Suit No. 35/90 whereby that court has dismissed the application filed by the State of Goa to set aside the award passed by the Arbitrator appointed for resolving the dispute between the State of Goa and the respondent herein. 2. The dispute arose between the appellant and the respondent in respect of a contract awarded by the appellant in favour of the respondent. The Work Order was issued on 7.6.1982. The total amount of contract was for Rs. 1,40,24,076.50. The work was for construction of a Wet-Well-Pump House. The period of contract as specified by the contract was for two years. The date of commencement of the work in terms of the Work Order was 22-6-1982. So under the contract the work had to be completed on 21-6-1984, but actually the work was completed much later than the stipulated date i.e. o...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh S/O Dadarao Kapse and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra and O ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-1995
Reported in: 1995(3)BomCR488; (1995)97BOMLR295; 1996CriLJ1782; I(1995)DMC649
ORDER1. This is an application filed by the original accused for quashing not only the criminal proceedings but also order made by the learned Magistrate issuing process against them for offence punishable under section 494 read with section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Respondent No. 2 is the legally married wife of applicant No. 1. She filed her private complaint being case No. 323 of 1993 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Osmanabad, on July 14, 1993. In her complaint she has alleged that the applicant no. 1 performed second marriage illegally with applicant no. 2 with active assistance of the applicants No. 3, 4 and 5. It has further been alleged that the applicants No. 10, 17, 18, 20 and 21 who are inter se related between the applicants nos. 2 and 10 actively participated in actual performance of the second marriage at village Pimpalgaon (Amba) Taluka and District Latur in Nilkantheswar Mandir on December 19, 1992, at about 11 am. In case of other applicants it has be...
Tag this Judgment!Chemical Mazdoor Sabha Vs. Vital Organics Pvt. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-1995
Reported in: 1995(4)BomCR503; [1995(71)FLR800]; (1996)IIILLJ531Bom; 1995(2)MhLj620
1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an Award dated 30th July, 1987 made by the Industrial Tribunal. Thane, in Reference (IT) No. 3 of 1985 and raises an important question as to the true construction of Rule 81 of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957. 2. The Petitioner is a registered Trade Union which represents workmen employed in the Chemical Industry. The First Respondent is an Employer carrying on the business of manufacture of Organic Chemicals at Roha in District Raigad. During the Financial Year 1984-1985, changes were made in the import policy for the year, which had adverse effect on the Company's business. As a consequence of which the first respondent company decided to retrench as many as 51 workmen out of the total work-force of about 67. By a notice dated 31st August, 1984 displayed on the Notice Board, the First Respondent Company retrenched 51 workmen on the ground that they had become surplus to req...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs. Anil Bapurao Kanase and anr. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-1995
Reported in: (1995)97BOMLR258; (1996)IIILLJ686Bom
1. All these Writ Petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India impugn the same order of the Industrial Court, Kolhapur, dated January 6, 1994 made in a set of 41 appeals under the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and arise out of the same set of facts. Since these Writ Petitions arise out of the same set of facts and the issues of law raised are identical, they can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment. For the purpose of typifying the facts, I shall be referring to the facts in Writ Petition No. 488 of 1994. 2. The petitioner is a Co-operative Society carrying on the business of manufacture of sugar at Shiv Sagar in District Satara. The First Respondent was engaged by the Petitioner by an Office Order dated December 23/24, 1988 saying. 'As the work in the Chemistry Section for the crushing season of 88-89 has temporarily increased, the following candidates are being appointed as 'Daily Mazdoors...
Tag this Judgment!Girish Manohar Wazalwar Vs. Purushottam Parasram Kotangale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-1995
Reported in: 1996(4)BomCR88; (1995)97BOMLR44
R.M. Lodha, J.1. Group of all these civil revision applications arise out of the common order dated 29-10-1994 passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur, in six separate suits deciding the preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction and since common questions are involved in all these six civil revision applications, these revision applications have been heard together and are disposed of by the common order.2. The Nagpur Improvement Trust (for short 'N.I.T.') issued the notice under section 286(2) of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948 (for short 'the Corporation Act') read with section 52 of the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act (for short 'the N.I.T. Act') to Girish Manohar Wazalwar (owner of the property and applicant in all the revision applications), Shri Hokchand Rupchand Jankalyani, Shri Purshottam Parasram Kotangale (tenant and non-applicant No. 1 in C.R.A. No. 1362/94), Shri Dulichand Shriram Dhawariya (tenant and non-applicant No. 1 in C.R.A. No. 1363/94), Sh...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »