Mumbai Court March 1996 Judgments

Abdul Khalil Sk. Bhuru Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Labour and Others

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1996(4)BomCR535; (1997)IIILLJ808Bom; 1997(1)MhLj449

1. In this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays that the communication dated June 9, 1989 sent by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Chandrapur to the petitioner closing proceedings in the application under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act be quashed and set aside. 2. The petitioner Abdul Khalik Sk. Bhuru (for short, the 'workman') was employed as conductor with the Respondent No. 3 Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (for short, the 'employer'). The workman was charge-sheeted for his misconduct while working as conductor on Tadoba to Chandrapur Road and upon conclusion of the departmental enquiry, by the order dated February 5, 1986, the workman was dismissed from service. Under the prevalent discipline and appeal procedure of the employer, the workman preferred appeal before the Divisional Controller, Appellate Side, and the appeal was dismissed on December 19, 1986. A further appeal was preferred by th...

Blue Star Ltd. Vs. Blue Star Workers' Union and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1996(3)BomCR480; (1996)IILLJ1032Bom

G.R. Majithia, J.1. The petitioner, Blue Star Ltd., has challenged order dated June 14, 1993 passed in Complaint (ULP) No. 1419 of 1989 by the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Bombay, in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Respondent No. 1 Blue Star Workers' Union, filed a complaint against the petitioner, its Vice-President, Personnel, and its Manager AC & R Sales, complaining unfair labour practice under Section 28(1) read with Item 9 of Schedule IV and Item 4(a) of Schedule II of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act'), stating therein that the petitioner was not paying salary to Shri N. Vasudevan and that the petitioner violated the existing settlement dated November 1, 1985. 3. The petitioner appointed Shri Vasudevan as a Stenographer from October 26, 1964 vide its appointment letter of the same date on the terms and conditions mentioned therein, inter alia, that his appoi...

Ghatge Patil Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT482Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Both the appeals have been listed for considering admission. Though stay application has been moved in regard to the disputed amounts of Modvat credit covered by these two appeals, Shri Bambhorikar, Manager of the appellants stated that the disputed amount has already been reversed and hence stay application is not pressed.2. In view of the aforesaid position, stay application becomes infruc-tuous and is dismissed.3. Though the Commissioner (Appeals) has taken the view regarding admissibility of Modvat credit in respect of argon gas used for testing molten metal against the appellants based on the decision of the South Regional Bench in the case of Kunal Engg. 1992 (62) E.L.T. 560 (T), the facts in this case are to be considered in the context of the legal position, since the issue has a recurring revenue effect.4. In the circumstances, both the appeals are admitted for hearing in due course....

Philips India Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the order of the CIT(A), Pune, and pertain to the asst. yrs. 1990-91 and 1991-92.Since the issues involved are identical, for the sake of convenience, these appeals are consolidated and disposed of by a common order.2. Briefly the facts : The assessee is a company. It has its place of business at Shivsagar Estate, Block A, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Bombay-400 018. It is assessed by the ITO, TDS Circle, Thane. During the relevant assessment years, the assessee initiated a Scheme of Voluntary Separation, in respect of the workmen employed at its factory at Kalwa, Thane. In the asst. yr. 1990-91, a total of 56 workmen opted for this Scheme of Voluntary Separation, while in the asst. yr.1991-92, 13 workmen opted for this scheme.3. Under the Voluntary Separation Scheme, the workmen were entitled to receive various amounts of compensation in accordance with the terms of settlement. The said workmen were immediately prior to their separa...

Bombay Gas Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Central Government and Others

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1996(3)BomCR312; [1997]89CompCas195(Bom)

D.R. Dhanuka, J. 1. By this application, the applicants have impugned order dated June 29, 1988, passed by this court in Company Petition No. 134 of 1986 sanctioning the scheme of amalgamation after several years of the said scheme having been acted upon on several technical grounds. It did appear to the court at one stage that the technical grounds urged on behalf of the applicants had at least an air of plausibility and required scrutiny. On scrutiny of all the grounds urged, the court has reached the conclusion that there is no substance whatsoever in any of the grounds and the application lacks merits. There is some merit in the contention of the petitioners that the application herein is not made bona fide. The application herein is dismissed with no order as to costs. 2. On April 26, 1862, the Bombay Gas Company Limited was incorporated as a company in the U.K. under the Joint Stock Companies Act, 1856-57. The said company is now known as 'The Bombay Gas Public Limited Company'. ...

Babulal Chottelal Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1996(3)BomCR570; 1996CriLJ3145

ORDER1. Heard Mr. M. S. Mohite for the petitioner and Ms. J. S. Pawar for the State of Maharashtra. Rule returnable forthwith by consent. The APP waives service. By means of this application preferred under section 482/439 Cr.P.C. the petitioner prays that the order dated 27-2-1996 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune cancelling the provisional bail order dated 5-12-1994 passed in favour of the petitioner by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune be quashed. The facts giving rise to this application may be briefly set out as under :- It appears that the petitioner is being prosecuted for offences under Section 307/341/352/506(2)/109, 120B r/w 34 IPC, Section 3 r/w some other section of Indian Arms Act and Section 37(i) r/w 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 2. Certain facts in the instant case are not disputed by the counsel for the parties. They are :- (a) The petitioner was granted provisional bail vide order dated 5-12-1994 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune on the groun...

Ghanshyam S/O Shiyember Nathoo Kewat Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1996CriLJ3421

1. The charge against the appellant-accused was that he was found in possession of one kilogram of Ganja on 18-1-1991 at night at 12.30 a.m., i.e., in the night between 17th and 18th January, 1991. It was the case of the prosecution that the Investigating Officer, Kiran Dhote (P.W. 2) got an information through one informant that accused was in possession of Ganja and was living in a slum near Ashtabhuja Temple. He, therefore, called two Panchas of Shastrinagar, arranged a raiding party and Straightway went to the spot. He called the accused by his name, who came out, and it was confirmed that it was accused Ghanshyam. The raiding party offered its search, which was declined to be taken by the accused, and thereafter the search of the said hut was taken whereunder a Farahi (tile) which was newly fixed, one kilogram of Ganja was found. The investigating Officer immediately conducted the spot panchanama vide Exhibit 9. He also gave an opportunity to the accused for being searched in pres...

Dinesh S/O Balkrishna Dande Vs. Somani Radio Corporation and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1996(4)BomCR236; (1996)98BOMLR180

R.M. Lodha, J.1. One of the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the review application filed by the respondents (for short 'the tenant') before the Resident Deputy Collector, Amravati, for reviewing the order dated 9-8-1989 was hopelessly time barred but despite that the Reviewing Authority did not consider the question of limitation and allowed the review application filed by the tenant and thus the order passed by the Resident Deputy Collector, Amravati, in review application on 31-5-1990 deserves to be quashed and set aside.2. Since the writ petition can be disposed of on the aforesaid contention, the facts in details need not be adverted to and suffice it to say that the petitioner (for short 'the landlord') made an application under Clause 13(3)(vi) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (for short 'the Rent Control Order') before the Rent Controller, Amravati, on 11-6-1984. The case set out in the application by the l...

Ramkrushna S/O Shankarrao Raut Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Co ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1996(4)BomCR31

A.D. Mane, J.1. In this writ petition, the question arises is whether the courts below were justified in dismissing the complaint under section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, filed by the petitioner in the matter of his dismissal from the service of the respondent No. 1 for his alleged misconduct in the discharge of duty as a Conductor under Clause (7) of the Discipline and Appeal Procedure.2. The petitioner was working as S.T. Bus conductor. On 10-11-1982 he was on duty on a bus from Vaijapur to Waluj via Gangapur. When the bus reached the stop from Aurangabad to Waluj, the Checking Inspector checked the bus. The Inspector noticed that some passengers were not given tickets of proper denomination. Moreover, the petitioner also failed to fill up the way bill and it was also not closed. Moreover, less cash was found in the Cashbag. It was further alleged that the petitioner was questioned by the Inspector but he beh...

Shri Ravjibhai Chhotubhai Patel Vs. the Oriental Insurance Company Lim ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: II(1996)ACC572; 1996(4)BomCR532

R.M. Lodha, J.1. By this writ petition the petitioner is impugning the legality and correctness of the order dated 5-2-1990 passed by the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act (Labour Court) Bhandara (for short 'the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner'). By the order dated 5-2-1990 the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner modified the order passed by him on 13-3-1989 since in the operative part of the order, according to the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, some error crept in and the operative order was inconsistent with the finding given in the order dated 13-3-1989 by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner.2. The only ground of challenge in this writ petition is that the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner had no jurisdiction to review the order passed by him on 13-3-1989 and, therefore, the order dated 5-2-1990 impugned in the present writ petition is liable to be set aside.3. Shri T.C. Jain, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 urged that the petitioner has...