Mumbai Court April 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.
Indian Airports Employees Union Vs. Air India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)BomCR612
Majithia J.1. This judgment disposes of writ petition Nos. 233/91, 1494/89, 2362/90, 504/91, 430/92, 3797/90, 892/91, 1443/91, 619/91, 3527/91, 57/91, 1263/91, 1349/91, 3798/90, 3879/90, 487/90, 431/92, 3253/90, 1439/91, 2641/92, 2642/91, 2644/92, 669/91, 255/91, 705/95 and 692/95. These writ petitions raise common questions of low relating to abolition of contract labour system. 2. The factual matrix is as under. 3. This Court in writ petition No. 3797 of 1991 and other connected writ petitions, issued directions relating to prohibition of employment of contract labour (i) in the jobs of maintenance and utility installation of the establishments of Air India, Indian Airlines and International Airport Authority of India and (ii) in the jobs of sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings in the establishments of Air India, Indian Airlines and International Airport Authority of India, that the Central Advisory Contract Labour Board should investigate in accordance with law unde...
Tata Consulting Engineers and Associates Staff Union Vs. Tata Consulti ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)BomCR643; (1998)IIILLJ910Bom
ChandraShekhara Das, J. 1. The order of the 12th Labour Court Bombay, dated 26.2.1993 is under challenge in this petition. 2. The petitioner-Union filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming overtime wages which has been rejected by the Labour Court. The facts emerging in this dispute are stated by the Industrial Court in para 7 of its judgment as under :- '7. In the present case admittedly, it is undisputed that on 27.2.1985 Tata Consulting Employees Union, i.e., the majority union entered into an agreement with the opponent inter alia providing for 5 days' week with 38 3/4 hours working in a week and the said agreement has been ratified by majority of the workmen by signing the Memorandum of Settlement, and in pursuance of the said settlement working hours in the opponent company have been changed from '9 a.m. to 5 p.m. to 9 a.m. to 5.15 p.m.' with effect from 1.3.1983. The applicant has challenged the change in the working hours and the s...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Kiran @ Karna Dnyaneshwar Sonawane
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)BomCR743
Vishnu Shahai, J.1. Heard Mr. R.Y. Mirza for the petitioner and Mr. S.L. Kapse for the respondent.By means of this application, preferred under section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. the petitioner (State of Maharashtra) seeks to impugn the order dated 2-12-1991 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 34th Court, Vikroli, Bombay granting bail to the respondent in a case under section 302 I.P.C.2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 24-9-1991, at about 5 p.m. the respondent, co-accused Ladu, Balu and Rajesh @ Pappu Suvarna assaulted the deceased Shivaji with knives. Complainant Sanjay Kamble who was an eye witness of the incident thereupon shouted and thereafter respondent and others ran away.After the incident, complainant removed Shivaji, who was still alive, to Rajawadi Hospital for treatment. He then lodged a F.I.R. on the basis of which a case under section 326/114 I.P.C. was registered against respondent and others.3. It appears that Shivaji succumbed to his injuries on 25-9-1991 (next day...
Vaidyanath Cements (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1996
Reported in: (1997)(91)ELT591Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Though notice of hearing has been issued to the appellants, none turned up during the hearing. However, after hearing Mrs. Bharati Chavan, we find that the appeal can be disposed of without the presence of the appellant. The lower authorities have rejected the claim for refund of duty paid during the period 1-4-1986 to 30-9-1986 solely on the ground that the benefit of exemption under Notification 175/86 was not claimed in the classification list. Hence they have rejected the refund claim without going into the merits.2. Mrs. Bharati Chavan also states that the refund claim is otherwise filed within the period of limitation as laid down under Section 11B.It is now a settled law that Section 11A and Section 11B are independent provisions available in the statute for demanding duty or for claiming refund of duty irrespective of the fact that the classification list or price list have been approved. Hence when the appellants have filed the refund claim within the period of limitation ...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Kashiram Textile Mills (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1996
Reported in: (1996)LC229Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Today the matter was listed for admission. However, considering the issue involved, the entire appeal is taken up for hearing.2. This appeal by the Department is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 240/95 (93-AHD)CB/Collr./95, dated 14-8-1995, setting aside the Order-in-Original No. 42/93, dated 28-4-1993 of the Assistant Collector Central Excise, Ahmedabad.3. The respondents filed a refund claim for Rs. 45,000/- on 8-10-1991, for amount paid during the period 23-1-1990 to 12-3-1990. The Show Cause Notice was issued on 25-3-1992 for adjudicating upon the same refund claim. However, the Assistant Collector sanctioned the refund claim. Against the said decision the department went in appeal before the Collector (Appeals), pleading that the issue of unjust enrichment had not been properly considered by the Assistant Collector. While dismissing the appeal of the Department, however the Collector (Appeals) held that though the order of the Assistant Collector was liable to be set a...
income-tax Officer Vs. N.R.P. Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1996
Reported in: (1982)1ITD64(Mum.)
1. This appeal has been filed by the department against the order dated 25-3-1980 of the Commissioner (Appeals). The assessee is a private limited company deriving income from business as selling agents for a group of textile mills. The assessment year involved in this appeal is 1973-74 with the year ended 31-12-1972 as its previous year.2. The first ground in this appeal relates to the question as to whether the surplus realised by the assessee on the sale of a plot of land was to be taxed as capital gains or as business profit. By a resolution dated 14-3-1960, the assessee purchased a plot of land at Borivali, admeasuring 45,533 sq. yards, for a sum of Rs. 1,21,009. The case of the assessee was that the land was purchased for constructing residential quarters for its staff. The purpose for which the land was purchased was not mentioned in the resolution dated 14-3-1960. But the assessee applied to the Municipal Corporation, Bombay, for persmission nto construct res idential quarters...
SudIn M. Sangodcar Vs. State of Goa, Through the Chief Secretary and a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)BomCR165
P.S. Patankar, J.1. All these three writ petitions can be disposed of by this common judgment as the facts involved are same and also the points.2. In these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India three questions arise for our consideration :---(i) Whether Rule 17 of the Goa Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1992 (hereafter referred to as the Rules of 1992) provides for two separate modes of recruitment or whether direct recruitment under Rule 17(b) is to be resorted to only after exhausting the avenue of promotion contemplated under Rule 17(a); (ii) Whether Rules 17(a) and 17(b) provide for quota i.e. 67% by promotion and 33% by direct the recruitment; and (iii) What is the meaning of 'post' contained in Rule 17(b)?3. For the sake of convenience we shall give the averments made in one petition being Writ Petition No. 4 of 1996 and the affidavits filed on behalf of respondents.4. The petitioner was appointed as Civil Judge, Junior Division under Order dated 18-10-...
Nagpur General Merchants Co-operative Market-cum-housing Society Ltd. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1996
Reported in: 1996(4)BomCR543
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. The petitioner, Nagpur General Merchants Co-operative Market-cum-Housing Society Ltd (hereinafter called 'the Society' for the sake of brevity) has filed this petition challenging the order passed by the Judge, Co-operative Court as also the confirming judgment passed by the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court (Bombay), Nagpur Bench, Nagpur.2. This litigation has a chequered history. The petitioner Society is a Housing Society and respondents 1 to 3 are the persons desirous of getting a status of members of that Society. These members filed a dispute bearing No. 173 of 1984 before the Co-operative Court praying for declaration that they were the members of the Society and as such had all the rights and liabilities of the members. They also prayed therein for a direction to the Society to enter their names into the partnership register and to issue them share certificates. Their case was that they were the dealers in medicines and having their shops in th...
Larsen and Toubro Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1996
Reported in: (1996)(65)LC74Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the Order in Appeal No.KPS/619/BI/91 dt. 3.3.1992 of the Collector of CE (A) Mumbai confirming the order in original No. V(83) 18-63/90/6446 dt. 24.6.1990 of the Asstt. Commissioner of CE, Division 3, Bombay-II.2. The appellants are manufacturers of crown corks, P.P. caps and aluminium capsules and availed of Modvat facility in relation thereto.During the period February 1987 to February 1990 they cleared their products to the customers in Free Trade Zone on the strength of CT-3 certificate issued by Range Supdt. A query was however raised as to why Modvat credit availed of should not be ordered reversal in proportion to the input that had gone in the product removed without payment of duty, ultimately demand for Rs. 67,964/- was raised, the payment of which was done under protest. Simultaneously they also reversed the credit to the extent of Rs. 7,050.37 under protest, in respect of P.P.caps supplied to a customer in Kandla Free Trade Zone during Fe...
India United Mills No. 2 Vs. Ram Murat Haridwar Kurmi and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1996
Reported in: [1996(74)FLR2469]; (1997)IILLJ1131Bom
G.R. Majithia, J. 1. The petitioners have challenged the order dated December 12, 1995 passed by the Industrial Court, Bombay allowing the interim relief application and restraining the petitioners from retiring the Respondent No. 1 on his attaining the age of 60 years in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Normally, this Court will not interfere with an interim order passed by a quasi judicial authority. In the instant case, we are not satisfied with the manner in which the Industrial Court has exercised the jurisdiction. Cases have come to our notice where the Industrial Court, on identical facts, refused to grant interim relief and that order was upheld by this Court. 2. The 1st respondent was in the employment of the petitioners. Memo dated June 15, 1995 was issued retiring him from service with effect from July 1, 1995. The order of retirement was issued under Standing Order 20-A. This memo of retirement was challenged by the 1st respondent in the complaint of unf...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »