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.
Sandeep Balkrishna Kulkarni Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-1995
Reported in: 1995(79)ELT583(Bom)
Kapdia, J. 1. By this petition, petitioner seeks to challenge action on the part of respondent No. 3 in not allowing petitioner's transfer of residence claim in respect of three items. Facts giving rise to this petition briefly are as follows :- Petitioner left India for Dubai for employment on March 29, 1984. Petitioner arrived back in India on April 3, 1986 after completing two years of employment in Dubai on contract basis. Petitioner was therefore entitled under Transfer of Residence Rules, 1978 to bring free of customs duty household items which he had purchased during his stay in Dubai. Petitioner arrived in India on April 3, 1986 and sought clearance of the three items under Form No. 007208, dated April 8, 1986. After examination of the goods, respondent No 3. granted transfer of residence concession to the petitioner in respect of all items except the three items viz. Video Cassette Recorder, Music System and Recorded Video Cassettes. The concession was denied to the petitioner...
Akhil Maharashtra Kamgar Union Vs. Warden and Co. Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-1995
Reported in: (1997)IIILLJ586Bom
1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against an interlocutory order of the Industrial Court, Thane, dated September 23, 1994 made in Complaint (ULP) No. 166 of 1993 under 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 registered trade union which represents some of the workmen working in the industrial establishment of the 1 st Respondent at Wagle Estate, Thane. The Petitioner filed Complaint (ULP) No. 166 of 1993 before the Industrial Court at Thane alleging, inter alia, therein that the workmen of the 1st Respondent had not been paid their wages from February 1992, though their services had not been terminated by following any procedure known to law. It was also pointed out that right from February 1992, neither was any manufacturing activity going on in the industrial establishment of the 1st Respondent, nor was any attempt made to...
Manabhau Damu Khairnar and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-1995
Reported in: [1995(71)FLR1006]; (1996)ILLJ990Bom
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugnes an order of the Industrial Court, Nasik dated 21st June 1989 made in Revision Application (ULP) No. 6 to 9 of 1989 and Revision Applications (ULP) No. 19 to 21 of 1989, 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 petitioners were employed as Muster Assistants to do the clerical work in the Forest Department and their duty consisted of recording attendance of unskilled labourers who were employed in the Panlot Niyajan Scheme which was taken up under the Employment Guarantee Scheme formulated by the State of Maharashtra under the provisions of the Maharashtra employment Guarantee Act, 1977. The Petitioners were working as Muster Assistants continuously from March 1984. It is not in dispute that the Petitioners were not required to do manual unskilled work at any time and ...
Miss. Ezlinda Fernandes Vs. Mr. Chetan Sanghi, Sub-divisional Magistra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-1995
Reported in: 1997(4)BomCR641
D.R. Dhanuka1. Right to personal liberty is one of the most cherished fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India and is available to citizens and non-citizens both. No person can be deprived of his personal liberty even for a minute except in accordance with law. The State and its officers are enjoined to act reasonably and not arbitrarily with utmost care and caution in respect of matters likely to affect personal liberty of a person. This is one of the shocking cases where a non-lunatic was detained in the Government hospital i.e. the Institute of Psychiatry & Human Behaviour at least for a few days illegally and arbitrarily. This case involves consideration of relevant principles applicable to cases of this kind discussed below.2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has complained of her illegal detention in the Institute of Psychiatry and Human Behaviour during the period commencing from 7-10-1991 until...
Smt. Najama W/O NizamuddIn Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)BomCR181
Ashok Agarwal, J.1. Petitioner is the wife of one Nizamuddin Sirajuddin who has been detained pursuant to an order passed by the Secretary (Preventive Detention) to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department and Detaining Authority. The detention order bears No. SPL-3(A)/PSA 0191/469, is dated 18th November, 1991 and is passed under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA Act). By the present petition, the petitioner seeks to impugn the aforesaid order and the consequent incarceration of the detenu.2. Though several grounds have been advanced for the purpose of impugning the detention of the detenu, it is enough to mention only one of them, as, according to us, the same is sufficient for the disposal of the petition.3. It is contended that the seizure on the basis of which the impugned order of detention has been issued against the detenu was effected on 14th May, 1991. The detenu...
Shaikh Raja Sk. Kasim Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-1995
Reported in: 1995(4)BomCR549
B.N. Deshmukh, J.1. In these petitions, petitioners have challenged the rules and/or procedure for admission to B.Ed. Course for this year. By resolution dated 30th December, 1994, the Government has prescribed guidelines for admission to B.Ed. Course for the year 1995-96 prescribing the eligibility, distribution of seats District-wise as well as for candidates from all Universities in the State, fees for the candidates to be admitted in Government B.Ed. Colleges, Government aided private Colleges and non-aided private Colleges run by private managements.2. It seems that for the first time, the Government thought it fit to keep reservation for the candidates belonging to respective districts where the B.Ed. Colleges are located. Fifty per cent of seats were reserved for District-wise Colleges i.e. for the Colleges located in that District irrespective of whether the College is Government College, Government aided College or non-aided private College. From the arguments advanced at Bar,...
Bharat Bijlee Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1995
Reported in: 1995(4)BomCR519; 1996(83)ELT496(Bom)
M.L. Pendse, C.J.1. The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) appellate Tribunal, West Regional Bench, Bombay has made this reference in exercise of powers under Section 35G(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 for expressing opinion on the question set out in the reference. The facts which gave rise to this reference are as follows :- M/s. Devidayal Electronics and Wires Ltd. are the manufacturers of paper covered copper strips. The said copper strips were liable for payment of excise duty and the Excise Authorities had classified the copper strips for payment of excise duty under Tariff Item No. 68. Item No. 68 is a residuary item and applicable to manufacture of all commodities which are not covered by any other tariff item. M/s. Bharat Bijlee Ltd. are the manufacturers of transformers and in the process of manufacture, requires paper covered copper strips. The copper strips were purchased from M/s. Devidayal and at the time of sale, M/s. Devidayal had paid the requisite excise...
Pratap Mardokar Vs. Goa Shipyard and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1995
Reported in: (1997)IIILLJ561Bom
Dhanuka, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby the petitioner has sought a declaration that all the workers employed in the Canteen on the premises of Goa Shipyard Ltd. are the direct employees of the Respondent No. 1, i.e. Goa Shipyard Ltd., and for issue of writ of mandamus and grant of consequential reliefs. The petitioner has invoked Section 46 of the Factories Act, 1948 for the purposes of reliefs claimed in this petition. The petitioner seeks enforcement of statutory obligations of Respondent No.1 emanating from Section 46 of the Factories Act, 1948 and the rules made thereunder. The subject matter of this petition is covered by direct decisions of the Supreme Court in favour of canteen employees of the factory. 2. We shall first set out the relevant facts having bearing on subject matter of this petition. 3. The Respondent No. 1 is a public sector undertaking working under the Ministry of Defence Production. It employs about 2,000 workme...
Kasim Babamiya Shaikh @ Mistri Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)BomCR296; (1995)97BOMLR357
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. By means of this criminal appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment and order dated 4-6-1993 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No. 438 of 1992 convicting and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life under section 302 I.P.C. and to five years R.I. under section 201 I.P.C; the substantive sentences to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case in brief runs as follows:The appellant and the deceased Mohammed Nazir Mistry were employed as masons by Shrikrishna Narendra Hawal, P.W. 1 in constructing a building near Akashwani, Hadapsar, Pune. It is alleged that at the aforesaid building, the appellant and the deceased were working from about three months prior to the incident giving rise to this case. It is said that the building had been nearly completed. It is also alleged that the appellant and the deceased were staying in one room of the aforesaid building and were eating together. One Dilip Savlaram Jadhav P.W. 3 is alleged to be ...
P. Jayantilal and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-1995
Reported in: 1995(79)ELT585(Bom)
Kapadia, J. 1. By this Petition, Petitioners seek declaration that raw materials and components imported by the Petitioners against import licence in respect of goods to be supplied to Oil India Limited stands exempted fully from Customs Duty including additional duty under Section 3 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 in terms of Notification No. 210/82, dated 10-9-1982. Petitioners also seek declaration that Notification No. 513/86 and 517/86 both dated 30-12-1986 shall have no effect with regard to import of goods against the licence issued in favour of the Petitioners. 2. Facts of the case, briefly, are as follows. Petitioners entered into a contract with Oil India Limited. Pursuant to Notification No. 210/82, dated 10-9-1982 under which raw materials and the components required to be imported for manufacture of goods to be supplied to Oil India stood exempted from payment of Customs duties and additional customs duties. The said exemption was for five years upto 10-12-1987. By Notificatio...