Mumbai Court October 1996 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.
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Y.S. Chaudhary and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-30-1996
Reported in: [1997(75)FLR346]; (1998)IIILLJ917Bom
D.G. Deshpande, J.1. The petitioner/appellant is the employer and Respondent No. 1 is the employee. The employee was discharged from service by the petitioner pursuant to enquiry held against him for his misconduct. Charge-sheet in that regard was served on the Respondent No. 1 on Junel7, 1985 and he was discharged from service from, January 31, 1986. The matter was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT). By part-I award the CGIT came to the conclusion that enquiry was fair and proper but by part II of the award dated June, 10, 1991 the punishment of discharge was found to disproportionate and unjustified, even though the CGIT came to the conclusion that the charges were proved and the employee was guilty of misconduct. Consequently, the dismissal was not in the opinion of the CGIT warranted and discharge order was set aside. The petitioner challenged the order by filing writ petition before this Court and the same was. heard and decided by Justice Kapadia by his...
Prabhakar Sadashiv Penurkar Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-30-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)BomCR165
1. Rule. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith.2. Smt. Usha Purohit who appears for the petitioner and also Shri Borulkar, learned P.P. have stated that the present case is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Fida Hussain Yusuf Ali v. State of Maharashtra, Cri. Writ Petition No. 1279 of 1995, decided by Shri Ashok Desai and M.L. Dudhat, JJ., on 11th January, 1996. Petitioner in the instant case was arrested on 30th March, 1987 for the offence under NDPS Act. By the order passed on 22nd October, 1991 he was convicted and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1.00 lakh and in default to suffer further R.I. for one year. The aforesaid order of conviction and sentence was confirmed in appeal on 9th November, 1993. The petitioner has been under detention right from the date of his arrest i.e. 30th March 1987, till date. By the present petition, which has been submitted by the petitioner through jail, petitioner claims benefit of remission. This has b...
Satchidanand Kakodkar and ors. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-30-1996
Reported in: 1997(4)ALLMR71; (1997)99BOMLR45
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The appellants by this Appeal partly challenge the Award dated 18th April, 1991 in Land Acquisition Case No. 69/88. The State Government has also filed cross-objections which are dated 23rd September, 1991. In the Appeal Memo the main contention of the appellants is that interest ought to have been paid to the appellants from the date of taking possession of the land which was 29th September, 1979 and further special compensation under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, also should be paid from the said date. In the cross-objections the State Government challenged the enhancement of the market value.2. The Government by Notification dated 13th August, 1984, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was published in the Government Gazette dated 14th August, 1984, acquired several pieces of land at Kakora, Quepem Taluka, for the purpose of construction of Nanda lake at Kakora. Amongst the plots acquired, two plots belonged to the appellant here...
Modern Cement Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-29-1996
Reported in: (1997)LC716Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These two Stay Applications arise on same issue from different orders of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Baroda, it related to the duty demand on lime stone during the period 20-3-1990 to 16-9-1990.2. On hearing the ld. Counsel Shri J.C. Patel appearing for the applicants and Shri D. Gurunani the ld. JDR, we find that the appeal itself lies in a short compass lime stone powder and hence grant stay and take up the appeals itself for disposal. The duty has been demanded in both these appeals by Show Cause Notice on the same date 11-1-1995 on the same period 20-3-1990 to 16-9-1990, on the ground that the appellants have to pay duty on lime stone which is crushed and further used captively for the manufacture of Clinker in a Cement Factory. The demand has been raised on the ground that Notification No. 16/90 extended only to lime put to such use and did not cover lime stone which was subsequently included in the exemption Notification by an amendment thereto issued on 17-9-1990. Bo...
Bajirao Rajaram Patil Vs. Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank Ltd. and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-29-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)BomCR577; (1996)98BOMLR702; [1997(75)FLR320]; (1997)ILLJ781Bom; 1997(1)MhLj526
R.M. Lodha, J.1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Mr. Shetty waives service for Respondent No. 1. 2. The learned counsel for the parties submit that Respondent No. 2 is formal party and service on Respondent No. 2 may be dispensed with. Order accordingly. 3. By consent writ petition is heard finally at this stage. 4. The important question that arises in this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India is whether the complaint filed by an affected employee relating to his transfer from one place to another covered under them 3, of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short, 'M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, 1971') could be filed by such affected employee or has to be filed by recognised union 5. The aforesaid question arises in the following manner. The petitioner (for short, 'employee') was appointed in the Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank Ltd. (for short, 'employer') on the post of Juni...
Gosalia Shipping Pvt. Ltd., Goa and anr. Vs. Regional Provident Fund C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-29-1996
Reported in: 1997(3)ALLMR642; [1997(75)FLR609]; (1997)IILLJ38Bom
1. The Petitioners, a Private Limited Company by this Petition impugns the Recovery Certificate dated April 7, 1993, Demand Notice dated April 23, 1993 and order dated April 30, 1993 passed under Section 8-F of the Provident Fund Act and Show Cause Notice dated March 9, 1994. By subsequent Amendment, the Petitioners have also sought quashing of the Assessment orders dated March 26, 1981 and May 7, 1985 made under Section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Maharashtra and Goa. It may be noted that ultimately, it is these last two Orders that are the subject matter of this Petition. The Petitioners have also prayed for writ of mandamus to direct the Respondents to refund forthwith the excess amount of Rs. 58,881.05 together with interest thereon at the rate of 18 % per annum from May 10, 1993, till the date of the refund, which amount according to the Petitioners was paid in excess. 2. The facts which g...
Transport and Dock Workers Union and anr. Vs. Chowgule Steamships Ltd. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-29-1996
Reported in: 1997(4)BomCR33; (1997)3BOMLR387; 1997(1)MhLj574
Dr. B.P. Saraf, J.1. The controversy in this appeal pertains to the true meaning of the expression 'hours of work' appearing in the Fourth Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The facts giving rise to this controversy briefly stated, as follows : One Mr. Tulsidas Vittal Morajkar was working as a telephone operator with respondent No. 1 Chowgule Steamship Ltd. (referred to as 'the Company'). The Company had been employing a number of telephone operator-cum-receptionists in its office. There were two shifts for the working of the operator-cum-receptionists, one shift from 9.30 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. with rest interval of one hour and another shift from 11 a.m. to 6.30 p.m. with rest interval of one hour from 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. On 28th August, 1984, some changes were made by the Company in the above timings. The working time of the operators was changed from 2 shifts to 3 shifts. The first shift was from 9.30 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. with lunch break for 1 hour between 12.45 and 1.45 p.m. the...
Anil Lala Soundade Vs. the State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-29-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)BomCR156
Ashok Agarwal, J.1. Petitioner, who is a life convict for an offence of murder punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, has presented the present petition claiming that he is entitled to be released on his completing 22 years of imprisonment including remission period. He has been found guilty of committing the murder of one Leela Lahanu Gaikwad, whose husband, at the relevant time, was incarcerated for an offence committed by him. In his absence, deceased Leela appears to have developed illicit relations with the petitioner. As far as the details of the incident in question are concerned, the same can be gathered from the dying declarations made by the deceased prior to her death. In respect of the declaration made by her to P.W. 6 Dr. Gulshan Gupta, he has deposed as follows :'In his absence, one Anil Soundade whose whereabouts were not known to the patient, always came to her to meet and ask her to live with him, for which she always refused. On 11-7-1982, at 9.00 p.m....
Bhagirathibai Ramchandra Shelar Vs. Hajee Hassen Adamjee Laher
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-29-1996
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR307
V.P. Tipnis, J.1. The plaintiffs landlords filed R.A.E. Suit No. 1830 of 1965 in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay against defendant No. 1. Ganu Rama Gaikwad and defendant No. 2. Ramchandra Ramji Shelar for possession of the suit premises. The suit premises are tenement No. 38 in a building known as 'Patel Building' at Naigaum, Mumbai, owned by the plaintiffs. The grounds for possession are that defendant No. 1 failed and neglected to pay arrears of rent from August 1962 that defendant No. 1 has made a permanent construction of a loft in the suit premises and that defendant No. 1 has unlawfully sub-let a portion of the suit premises to defendant No. 2 sometime in 1962. The suit was originally filed only against defendant No. 1, but subsequently, at the request of defendant No. 2, defendant No. 2 was added as party to the suit. Defendant No. 1 remained absent. Defendant No. 2 resisted the suit and specifically contended that he has been staying in the suit premises right from 1937 as ...
Hatkesh Co-operative Housing Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-28-1996
Reported in: (1997)60ITD662(Mum.)
1. These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), E-Range, Mumbai, and pertain to the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89.2. Briefly the facts : The assessee is a Co-operative Housing Society.It is registered under section 10 of the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925. During the assessment year 1987-88, a sum of Rs. 1,06,150 and for the assessment year 1988-89, a sum of Rs. 1,05,130 were received on the transfer of plots. These amounts were reflected in the accounts as "transfer fees".It was stipulated in the Agreement that if the building is used for not less than 10 years then at the rate of Rs. 250 per sq.yd. and in other cases at the rate of Rs. 500 per sq.yd. should be charged from the seller of the plot towards transfer fees.Before the Assessing Officer it was contended that such transfer fee is not exigible to tax in view of the principle of mutuality. This contention was not accepted. The amount of "Tr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »