Mumbai Court September 1995 Judgments
Candy Filter (India) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Labou ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-1995
Reported in: (1996)ILLJ1113Bom
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. Heard learned counsel on all sides. Heard forthwith for final hearing. 2. Prior to the 13th March 1992, a sum of Rs. 14,61,991.65 was due and payable by petitioner No. 1 company to the workmen in terms of the award made by the Industrial Court in Reference (IT) No. 18 of 1988. The said amount was due and payable in respect of wages for the lock out period i.e., 28th September 1987 to 28th February 1990. 3. On or about 13th March 1992, respondent No. 4 Union and the petitioner No. 1 employer filed consent terms before the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 720 of 1991 connected with the implementation of the said Award. By clause 1 of the said consent terms it was provided that the respondent No. 4 were agreeable to accept a sum of Rs. 7 lacs in full and final settlement of their claim for the lock out wages. By clause 2 of the said consent terms it was provided that the petitioner No. 1 company shall pay the said amount of Rs. 7 lacs by three instalments as set ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Eskay Engineers (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1995
Reported in: (1995)LC578Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeal from the Revenue is against the order of the Collector (Appeals) bearing No. V-2 (Ch. 84) 31/B.III/91, dated 12-6-1991 allowing the appeal of the respondents.2. The facts of the case are that the respondents were availing modvat credit in respect of certain inputs. The Department objected to this, on the ground that the inputs were not covered by a proper declaration.The demand was raised for an amount of Rs. 20,326.78 by the Superintendent, while assessing the RT. 12 returns. When this demand was sought to be enforced, the respondents approached the Collector (Appeals), who held that since no appeal was filed against the assessment order and the appeal has been filed only against the letter written by the Superintendent seeking to enforce the demand, he rejected the appeal. When the matter came up before the Tribunal, the Tribunal (vide Order No. 170/90-WRB, dated 8-2-1990) held that the demand cannot be enforced against the respondents. It is a settled law that mere en...
Tag this Judgment!Abdulsattar Husen Kudachikar Vs. Mrs. Shahina, Abdulsattar Kudachikar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Bom134; 1996(1)BomCR553; (1996)98BOMLR591; 1996(1)MhLj892
1. This is an appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated September 20, 1994 directing the father to hand over the custody of the minor son Mohammad Wasim to the mother Smt. Shahina Abdulsattar Kudachikar. There is no dispute before me that the original application was made by the mother under Section 24 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. On evidence being ted, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the mother was entitled to the custody of the child. Consequently, Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 81 of 1994 for custody has been allowed. Hence, this appeal.2. A few admitted facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal may be staled as under: The parties are Sunni Muslims and were married at Pune on 17th November, 1988. The father is working as a Medical Representative with Eber's Pharmaceuticals Limited and gets a salary of Rs. 4,500/- per month. He is stationed at Miraj in Sangli District, but from the very nature of his job he is required to travel around. The moth...
Tag this Judgment!Damodhar Son of Vishwanath Deshbharatar and anr. Vs. Vijay Son of Mura ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1995
Reported in: 1996(3)BomCR68; (1995)97BOMLR383
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. In this second appeal, the original defendant Nos. 1 and 2 respectively challenge the concurrent judgements granting a decree of specific performance in favour of the original plaintiff-respondent. Both the courts below have concurrently held that on the basis of an agreement of sale dated 22-12-1983 of a house for a total consideration of Rs. 22,000/-, the plaintiff was entitled to have specific performance of that agreement. The courts below have also held that the defendant No. 2, who was a subsequent purchaser, was also liable to join the defendant No. 1 in the specific performance by a sale in favour of the original plaintiff, on the basis of that agreement.2. Shortly stated the plaintiff's case is that he agreed to purchase the house of defendant No. 1 for a total consideration of Rs. 20,000/- by way of an agreement which was executed by defendant No. 1 for that purpose on 22-12-1983. Rs. 5000/- were paid as the earnest money and the registered sale-deed was ...
Tag this Judgment!Vishal Ramesh Doshi Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1995
Reported in: (1995)97BOMLR613
V.P. Tipnis, J.1. The detenu in this petition is a co-detenu of the detenu in criminal writ petition No. 588 of 1995. Admittedly, neither in the grounds of detention nor any time thereafter the detenu was informed by the detaining authority that he has a right to make a representation also to the detaining authority. Under the aforesaid circumstances In view of the clear exposition of law by the Apex Court in paragraph 38 of its judgment in the case of Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel v. Union of India : 1996(53)ECC123 the continued detention of the detenu is rendered illegal and unconstitutional.2. Accordingly, the order of detention passed on April 28, 1994 under the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 in respect of the detenu by name Ramesh Bhailal Doshi by the Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, (Preventive Detention), Home Department, is hereby quashed and set aside. The detenu is directed to b...
Tag this Judgment!Pradeep Vs. Smt. Suneeta and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1995
Reported in: I(1996)DMC448
R.M. Lodha, J.1. By this criminal writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner is seeking to challenge the concurrent orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Umarkhed on 19.5.1990 and affirmed in revision by the Additional District Judge, Pusad on 26.12.1994.2. Mr. Dahat, the learned Counsel for husband submits that right from the beginning, his client has been making bonafide and genuine efforts to persuade the wife to reside with him, but due to her admancy, she is not joining the matrimonial home and, therefore, the Courts below were not justified in awarding maintenance. Mr. Dahat also submits that the husband made application before the Judicial Magistrate, F.C., Umarkhed that he prepared to keep the wife, but the wife did not accede to the request and offer of the husband and here also the husband is making offer that he is prepared to keep the wife and, therefore, t...
Tag this Judgment!Maharashtra State Electricity Board Vs. Suresh Vaidyanath Pagar and an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1995
Reported in: (1996)ILLJ935Bom
B. N. Srikrishna, J.1. These two writ petitions arise under almost similar circumstances and raise an identical issue of law; hence, they can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The Petitioner in both writ petitions is the Maharashtra State Electricity Board and the Respondents in each writ petition was a workman employed in the service of the Petitioner Board. 3. The Respondent in each case was employed with the Petitioner Board as an Artisan 'D' on 18th August, 1983 for a period of four months. On 14th August, 1984 he was appointed as an Artisan 'D' on purely temporary basis and posted to work at T.R.W., Manmad. The letter of appointment dated 14th August, 1984, (Exh. `A' to the writ petition) stipulates certain conditions of service. Particularly, Clauses 3, 4 and 6 of the letter of appointment need to be reproduced, as they are material: '3. Your appointment is on purely temporary basis. 4. Your services will stand terminated on completion of 3 months period or ear...
Tag this Judgment!Santukarao S/O Rangnath Sakhare Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1995
Reported in: 1996(2)BomCR638
N.P. Chapalgaonker, J.1. Rule, taken up forthwith by consent. 2. This writ petition challenges the order passed by the Assistant Register, Co-operative Societies, Bhokardan dated 23-6-1995 convening a meeting of the members of the Committee of Vividha Karyakari Sahakari Seva Sanstha Maryadit, Longaon, Taluka Bhokardan, District Jalna to consider a vote of no confidence against the Chairman of said Society.3. On 6-6-1995, a requisition purporting to have been signed by six members of the committee of the said Society was submitted in the Office of the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bhokardan requesting to call for special meeting of the committee to consider vote of no-confidence. Though this was received in the office of the District Deputy Registrar on 6-6-1995 and it was noticed by the authorities on 7-6-1995, no action was taken to convene meeting within 7 days and as late as on 17-6-1995 District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jalna was pleased to authorize...
Tag this Judgment!Manikchand S/O Mahadeo JaIn Vs. Smita Wd/O Arunrao Veginwar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1995
Reported in: 1996(2)BomCR277
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. This Second Appeal is filed by the original defendant-tenant against whom First Appellant Court has passed a decree for eviction. The trial Court had dismissed the suit. However, the Appellant Court has reversed the judgment of the trial Court and decreed the suit. The following factual matrix shall highlight the controversy in this appeal.2. Plaintiff's case in short is that she was the owner of 5 shops situated at Mouza Gondpipari and out of them, one shop, being the subject matter of the suit, was let out to the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 150/- for a period from 15-1-1977 to 15-11-1977 and this transaction was evidenced by a lease-deed dated 20-1-1977. It was contended by the plaintiff that even after the lease came to an end by a flux of time on 15-11-1977, the defendant continued to be the monthly tenant paying Rs. 150/- per month as the rent. It is further contended that the tenancy month began from 15th of each month and treating the tenancy month as...
Tag this Judgment!Madhukar R. Javle Vs. Baskar Ramnath Shibad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Bom96; 1996(2)BomCR408; 1996(1)MhLj245
ORDER1. By this petition under Art. 227, the petitioner seeks to challenge an order passed by the Small Causes Court Bombay, granting respondent notice inspection of the flats situated on the section and third floor of the suit building, which are not subject-matter of the suit. Apparently, the Small Cause Court has taken recourse to provisions of O. 39, R. 7 (a) of the C.P.C. The short question is whether the lower Court was right in granting inspection of premises which are not the subject - matter of the suit and are in possession of third parties. 2. Before I deal with the rival contention I would like to state briefly the facts leading this petition, which are few and almost undisputed. The petitioner is the owner of the building known as 'Fair Filed Annexes' situated at Veer Savarkar Marg, Mahim, Bombay. The respondent is the tenant of flat No. 3 on the second floor of the said building. The petitioner has filed R. A. E. & R. Suit No. 1504/ 5511 of 1982 against the respondent for...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »