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.
Sukhdeo Mahadu Ghumare Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-1996
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR108
V.K. Barde, J.1. The appellant who is convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, in Sessions case No. 47/1990, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Beed, has preferred this appeal against the conviction and sentence.2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused Sukhdeo and his brother Ashok are resident of village GhatPimpri (Taluka : Ashti, District: Beed). On 19.6.1989, at about 8.00 p.m., Madhukar Gangaram Talekar, also resident of village GhatPimpri, was called by the accused appellant Sukhdeo and his brother Ashok at their house to settle the account about the amounts advanced by the accused to Madhukar. A quarrel took place between them and the accused appellant Sukhdeo stabbed Madhukar with Gupti. Murlidhar Zanje (PW 4) and Uttam Talekar (PW 5) who were passing from near the house of the accused, saw this quarrel and they were proceeding to the spot of the quarrel, but before that, the stabbing took place. Gangaram (PW 2), father...
Arun Prabhakarrao Choudhari Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-1996
Reported in: 1997(3)BomCR516; (1996)98BOMLR909
B.N. Deshmukh, J.1. This Writ Petition is registered on the basis of a letter received from the Petitioner, party in person, in connection with the protection of the national interests. The grievance relates to the telecasting of a commercial advertisement on Doordarshan in respect of FEVICOL, manufactured by the Pidilite Industries Limited, Respondent No. 4.2. The advertisement was shown on Doordarshan in the month of August 1995. The subject-matter of the advertisement was in connection with Jammu & Kashmir, which is an integral part of India3. In the letter received by this Court, it was contended that the map of Jammu & Kashmir is shown with the words expressed as **tksj yxkdj] gk;'kk] tku yxkdj] gk;'kk After this map of Jammu & Kashmir, the map of rest of India is shown. Again the above words are reiterated, and finally, the name of FEVICOL is shown. According to the author of the letter, the said advertisement indicates that Jammu & Kashmir was a different part and it was joined ...
Bombay Processors Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1996
Reported in: (1997)(72)LC727Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal arises from Order-in-Original dt. 22.2.1988, passed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay by which he was ordered that for duty free entitlements the goods should be such which is permissible in terms of Col. 4 of Appdx. 17-profiles, bars and rods and not steel plates. He has held that since the imported items are steel plates and not profiles, bars and rods therefore, the duty free benefit in terms of Appdx. is not available. Therefore, he has held that the REP licence produced for carbon steel/alloy steel is not valid in terms of para 8 of Appdx. 21 and hence liable for confiscation. Accordingly, he ordered to confiscate the goods imported under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, he has granted an option to redeem the same on the payment of fine of Rs. 4,00,000/-. He has also ordered that since in terms of REP licence covered by Appdx. 21 only Col. 4 items could not be imported, therefore, the goods be released on payment of appropriate customs duty denyi...
Western Coalfields Limited Vs. Vasanji S/O Lalji Suchak and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1996
Reported in: 1998(1)BomCR538
ORDERB.U. Wahane, J.1. The appellant-Western Coalfields Limited, Wardha Valley Area, Chandrapur, in the instant First Appeal under section 20 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, questioned the final order passed by the learned Special Tribunal, dated 11th day of January 1988, assessing the compensation @ Rs. 1.50/- per sq. ft.2. The facts, in short, are as under :In pursuance of the Notification under section 4(1) of the Act, published on10-4-1975, the lands of the respondents including Shri Vasanji Suchak, came to beacquired for the development of Coal Quarries. The respondent No. 1 Shri VasanjiSuchak owned the land Kh. No. 107/41 admeasuring 2.05 acres, situated in mouzaDewai-Govindpur, Tah. and Distt. Chandrapur. The land, as alleged by the respondentNo. 1 is near Shastri Nagar, Chandrapur and contiguous to Shri Din Dayal UpadhyayaHousing Society The respondents 2 to 5, had purchased different plots from therespondent No. 1 Shri Vasanji Suchak under re...
Poonam Investment Company Private Limited Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Comm ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)BomCR17
Dr. B. P. Saraf, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the learned Single Judge dated 19th February, 1995 on an application of the respondents. Oil and Natural Gas Commission, under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 by which the learned Single Judge set aside the award of the arbitrators dated 11th March, 1992.2. The material facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are as below. Under a contract dated 24th January, 1996, the appellants. M/s. Poonam Investments Company Limited, agreed to construct and sell to the respondents. Oil and Natural Gas Commission, a building comprising of 200 'A' Type and 200 'B' Type tenements aggregating to 400 tenements having in area admeasuring 2,32,000 sq. feet built-up area was to be ascertained by a joint survey. The total number of flats/tenements later came to be reduced to 384 flats. The flats were to be constructed at Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (East), Bombay. The deal was a package deal. The rate was fixed at Rs. 305/- per sq. ft. ...
Ghatge Patil Kamgar Karmachari Sanghatana, Kolhapur Vs. State of Mahar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)BomCR422; [1997(75)FLR112]; (1997)IILLJ305Bom
S.S. Nijjar, J.1. The Petitioner Union in this petition under Article 226 seeks declarations to the effect that Model Standing Order (hereinafter referred to as 'MSO') Nos. (1)(a) and (b) and 26 are ultra vires Section 2(a) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Aet') Nos. 25 (1)(a), (b), (c) and 26 are also ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is further prayed that various orders of punishment passed by Respondent No. 2 deserve to be quashed being without jurisdiction. Specimen orders of punishment which are consequently prayed to be quashed are attached as Exhibits A, B, C and D to the writ is petition. 2. The petitioner claims to represent majority of the workers employed in the second Respondent Company. Petitioner states that the writ petition, considering its nature, has been filed in the interest of the entire working class as such. It is claimed by the Petitioner that the employer, needlessly imposes punishm...
Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan, Shegaon, Buldhana Vs. Industrial Tribun ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1996
Reported in: [1997(75)FLR826]; (1997)IILLJ256Bom
1. Petitioner, Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan, Shegaon, District Buldhana (hereinafter referred to as 'the Sansthan' for the sake of brevity), challenges the award passed by the Labour Court in Reference No. 1 of 1983. The said reference was occasioned on account of an industrial dispute between the petitioner/Sansthan and its employees. The employees, who then were 200 in number, had submitted a Charter of Demand and demanded that their pay scales should be fixed and that they should be also given the pay as per their categories. There were number of other demands put up by the employees. The petitioner/Sansthan did not agree with these demands and, therefore, a reference came to be made by the Conciliation Officer. The said reference was answered against the petitioner/Sansthan firstly holding it as an industry and, secondly, fixing the pay scales of all the employees, by categorising them. It is this award which is the subject matter of the challenge in the present petition. 2 Shri A...
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Janardhan D. Mishra and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1996
Reported in: 1997(4)ALLMR367; (1998)IIILLJ908Bom
D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Appellant Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay has filed this appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition challenging the order of the Industrial Court which had rejected the appeal filed by the BEST Undertaking against the order of the 5th Labour Court, Bombay, which had declared the order of termination of respondent No. 1 void ab initio and illegal.2. Respondent No. 1 was working as a driver with the appellant-Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay since 1977. In 1984, he was subjected to medical examination before the Medical Board and was found unfit on account of defective eye-sight. The appellant-Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, therefore, terminated his services vide letter. Exhibit 'B' to the petition, dated September 6, 1994. In the said letter. Exhibit 'B', it was statedthat the General Manager of the Undertaking was satisfied on the basis of the report of the Senior Medical Officer that Respondent No. 1 ...
Shri Baburao Amrutrao Kharekar Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)BomCR447
S.S. Nijjar, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the judgement and order passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Pune Region, Pune in Appeal No. 105 of 1988 dated 20th February, 1989. This appeal had been filed against the action of the respondents whereby the services of the petitioner were ordered to be terminated by an order dated 13th June, 1988. The petitioner has also prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher with full back wages. 2. Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of the present petition may be noticed. 3. The petitioner possesses the qualifications of B.Sc. and B.Ed. Therefore, he was eligible to be appointed on the post of Asstt. Teacher. The petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Teacher in response to an advertisement in a newspaper. He was called for interview and was appointed as an Assistant Teacher by an...
Kishore K. Shahani and ors. Vs. Appropriate Authority, Income Tax Depa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)BomCR609
J.N. Patel, J.1. The petitioners have filed this petition challenging the validity and legality of the order dated 30th November, 1992, passed by the respondent No. 1 under sub-section (1) of section 269UD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 whereby Flat No. 131, Ashoka Apartment, 13th Floor, along with Garage No. 12, 69 Napean Sea Road, Bombay - 400 006 was ordered to be purchased by the Central Government.2. According to the petitioners the said flat was agreed to be purchased by the petitioners from the respondent No. 3 at a fair market value; the order passed by respondent No. 1 - Appropriate Authority is in violation of the principles of natural justice i.e. by not giving reasonable opportunity of being heard and by not disclosing the material relied upon by them and referred to in the impugned order despite being called upon and on numerous other grounds. Therefore, the same is liable to be quashed and set aside.3. The facts in the case can be summed up as under:---On 9th September, 1992...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »