Mumbai Court July 1995 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Dbs Financial Service (Pvt.) Ltd. and ors. Vs. Maharashtra General Kam ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1995
Reported in: [1996(73)FLR1492]; (1996)ILLJ1160Bom
B.N. Srikrishna, J. 1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India impugns an interlocutory order of the Industrial Court, Bombay, dated October 21, 1993 made .in complaint (ULP) No. 1176 of 1990 under the provisions of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The First Petitioner is a private limited; company, which was previously known as 'Diners Club India Ltd.' and used to carry on the business of credit cards. The other Petitioners are Directors of the First Petitioners-Company. The First Respondent is registered trade union representing the erstwhile workmen of the First Petitioner.3. Some time in the year 1990, finding that their finances were unable to support the rapidly increasing credit card business, the Petitioner started negotiations with Citibank for selling their credit card business to them. Though it was intended that the credit card business wou...
V.T. Hundlani Vs. Robert C. Kenny
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Bom48; 1996(1)BomCR452; (1995)97BOMLR176; 1995(2)MhLj592
1. This is a writ petition directed against the judgment dated 30-6-1995 in Civil Appeal No. 258 of 1995 on the file of VIth Additional district Judge, Thane Heard both the sides. 2. The petitioner-landlord filed a suit for eviction against the respondent-tenant in the trial court. It appears, the summons could not be served on the respondent-tenant. Hence the summons was served by affixture by resorting to substituted service under O. V, R. 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Ex parte decree came to be passed. During execution, the tenant was thrown out and the decree holder got possession of the suit premises. After coming to know of the decree, when the tenant was dispossessed, the tenant filed an appeal against the ex parte decree in the appellate Court. The appellate Court heard both the sides and found that the summons has not been duly served and that there are illegalities in effecting service and, therefore, set aside the decree passed by the trial Court and further ordered res...
Bandopant Sitaram Bapat and Others Vs. Sankar Sitaram Bapat and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Bom56; 1996(1)BomCR304; (1995)97BOMLR552; 1996(1)MhLj815
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21st August, 1975 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangli at Sangli in Special Civil Suit No. 39 of 1973 by which the suit filed by the appellants herein has been dismissed with costs. 2. The suit giving rise to this appeal was filed by the appellants herein claiming partition of the properties owned by one Sitaram Sadashiv Bapat who expired at Audumber on 24th December, 1944. The parties to the suit are closely related to each other, the 1st appellant herein being the elder brother of respondents 1 and 2 and the appellant 2 to 6 and the 3rd respondent being the sons of the 1st appellant. The deceased Sitaram Sadashiv Bapat (for short, 'the deceased') during his life-time was in possession of self-acquired properties. He had executed his last Will and Testament on 2nd December, 1944 (for short, 'the said Will'). Smt. Bhagirathibai was the wife of the deceased who died on 12th July, 1970. 3. In clause 2 of the ...
Chief Officer, Ichalkaranji Municipal Council Vs. Anna Shridhar Gath a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1995
Reported in: (1997)IIILLJ1241Bom
1. These three Writ Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugn the orders made by the Industrial Court, Kolhapur, in Complaints filed under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Petitioner in each Petition is the Chief Officer of Ichalkaranji Municipal Council (hereinafter referred to as 'Petitioner Council'), a Municipal Council set up under the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965. The 1st Respondent in each of the Writ Petitions (hereinafter referred to as 'Respondent Workman') is an employee of the Municipal Council. 2. By an Award dated April 12, 1975, made in Reference (IT) No. 479 of 1979 several conditions of service of the workmen of the Petitioner Council were settled. Demand No. 11 pertained to the drawing up of a seniority list every year and that all promotions should he strictly granted in accordance with seniority. The material port...
Shri Rosario F. Barreto Vs. State of Goa and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1995
Reported in: 1997(4)BomCR135
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the land admeasuring 1146 sq. mts. situate at Village Cansaulim surveyed under No. 4/3. The petitioner has built two houses on the said land bearing Village Panchayat No. 205 and No. 205(A). 2. On 24th July, 1987, a Notification was published by the Government of Goa bearing No. 22/92/87-RD under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 stating therein that various plots of land specified in the Schedule appended to the said Notification were likely to be needed by the Government for the public purpose set out therein, i.e. land acquisition for construction of road from Madalem Candatem to Cansaulim Church via Arosim in Village Panchayat, Cansaulim. By the said Notification duly published in the Government Gazette on 24th July, 1987, it was notified that the Government intended to acquire 24,675 sq. mts. of land belonging to several owners for the public purpose set out in the said Notification. By the said Notification it ...
Gandhi Special 07 Tubes Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-1995
Reported in: 1995(79)ELT545(Bom)
Kapadia, J.1. Being aggrieved by the rejection of request for de-registration made by the petitioners to the Assistant Collector of Customs vide Order dated June 30, 1987 the present Writ Petition has been filed. 2. Facts giving rise to this Writ Petition, briefly, are as follows : 3. Petitioner No. 1 is a Company set up with the object of setting up special Plant for welded steep tubes in Nurpur, Gujarat which is a backward area. On April 1, 1985 the Central Government announced Import Policy for April 1985 to March 1988. Under Para 288 of the Hand Book concessional duty was payable on goods, components and raw material for initially setting up of a Project under Tariff Heading 84.66. On April 19, 1985 respondent No. 1 issued Notification No. 132 of 1985 exempting goods imported for Project Imports from Customs duty in excess of twenty per cent (ad valorem). Subsequently respondent No. 1 issued Notification No. 155 of 1988 exempting Project Imports from auxiliary duty more than twenty...
Smt. Vishnu Tukaram Kumbhar and ors. Vs. Sitaram Bhagwant Naik and anr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-1995
Reported in: (1995)97BOMLR409
ORDERD.R. Dhanuka, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants as well as learned Counsel for respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 1 is duly served.2. For the reasons briefly Indicated hereinafter, we modify the impugned order dated 4th October 1994 as under :The application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is hereby granted and an amount of Rs. 25,000/- is awarded to the claimants. The liability of the owner of the bus, that is, Kadamba Transport Corporation bus No. GDX-95, that is respondent No. 2 as well as the liability of the owner of the scooter bearing No. GA-02/6/3/57, that is, claimant No. 1, shall be joint and several. The claimants shall be at liberty to recover the entire sum of Rs. 25,000/- from either of the vehicle owners.It is hereby clarified that the direction for apportionment of the liability contained in the impugned order dated 4th October, 1994 is deleted in view of the clear provision of law contained in Section 140(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19...
Jeevan Vyankat Thokal Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)BomCR99
L. Manoharan, J.1. This application under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code is by one of the accused in Crime No. 44 of 1995 of Police Station, Ladkhed. The said crime was registered under sections 147, 148, 149, 188, 302 and 307 of I.P.C. and under section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.2. According to the prosecution, there was an election to the Gram Panchayat at village Kamathwada on 20-4-1995. Two parties were contesting the election. One Ramesh Ajabrao Pawar was the head of one group and one Dattatraya Punjaram Dhote and others constituted the other group. After the election, results were announced, accused Punjaram Dhote and his associates, including the present applicant, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of committing murder attempt to murder and other offences, armed themselves with sticks, iron pipes, iron rods and swords, and they assaulted the brother of the complainant and injured him. Receiving the injuries - Sitaram Ajabrao Pawar,...
Voltas Ltd. Vs. V.K.D. Kochargaonkar and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1995
Reported in: 1996(2)BomCR34; (1996)ILLJ1173Bom; 1996(1)MhLj291
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raises a ticklish point of law pertaining to the interpretation of the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The petitioner is an establishment engaged in the manufacture of engineering goods and supply of engineering services and owns a factory at Thane employing about 700 workmen. The provisions of the Act are applicable to the industrial establishment of the petitioner. 3. The second respondent was intermittently employed as a temporary workman from the year 1982 onwards in unskilled category. His service came to be finally terminated on 23rd November, 1987. It is not in dispute that, in the period of 12 calendar months viz., prior to 23rd November, 1987, the second respondent had completed working for 240 days. 4. The second respondent moved a Complaint, Complaint (ULP) No. 47 of 1988, before the Industrial Court, Thane, al...
Prabhu Rama Shinde and anr. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1995
Reported in: 1996(3)BomCR240
G.R. Majithia, J.1. The appellants, Prabhu Rama Shinde, and Bhau @ Sudhakar Prabhu Shinde, Original accused Nos. 1 and 2, father and son, respectively were charged for intentionally or knowingly causing death of Shrikant @ Bitu Vasantrao Godase. They were also charged for committing an offence punishable under section 135 of the Bombay Police Act by Joint District Judge & Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Sessions Case No. 120 of 1993. The charge having been proved, they were convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. They were, however, acquitted of the offence punishable under section 135 read with section 37(1) of the Bombay Police Act. They were allowed the set off under section 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code, by judgment and order dated August 19, 1993.2. The prosecution ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »