Mumbai Court August 1996 Judgments

Executive Engineer, Mechanical Division, Ahmednagar and Others Vs. Mad ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1997(2)BomCR145; (1997)IILLJ1068Bom; 1996(2)MhLj922

1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns an order of the Industrial Court, Solapur, dated September 28, 1988 made in Complaint (ULP) No. 187 of 1986 under the provisions of the Maharashtra i Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') 2. The petitioners are the Officers of the 10 State Government. The first respondent is an 1 employee working as 'Helper' on Ujjani Calial Division, Mechanical sub-division, Pandbarpur. By office Order No. 950 dated October 31, 1986 the first respondent was transferred to the office of the Executive Engineer, Vishnupuri Pump House Division, Nanded, and directed to report there within the given time. Instead of complying with the transfer order, the first respondent rushed to the Industrial Court at Solapur and moved Complaint No. 187 of 1986 invoking Item 3 of Schedule IV of the Act and obtained an order restraining the petitioners from transferr...

Cosmos Cooperative Bank Ltd., Pune Vs. R.K. Banswal, Member, Industria ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1997(1)BomCR266; [1997(75)FLR617]; (1997)IILLJ1173Bom; 1996(2)MhLj955

1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India impugns an order dated December 6, 1989 made by the Member, Industrial Court, Pune in Appeal (IC) No. 4 of 1985 under Section 84 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The material facts relevant for deciding this writ petition lie in a narrow compass : The petitioner is a Bank in the Cooperative Sector covered by the provisions of the Act. The First Respondent is the Member of the Industrial Court, Pune, constituted under Section 10 of the Act. The second Respondent is a Trade Union which is the representative and approved Union of the Employees in the Co-operative Banking Industry in the local area of Pune under the provisions of the Act. 3. The second Respondent moved an application, being Application (BIR) No. 3 of 1985, before the Second Labour Court, Pune, alleging illegal change on the part of the petitioner in the matter of promotion of certain employee...

Prabhakar Anandrao Dhote, and Others Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1997)IILLJ1083Bom

1. By the instant writ petition, five petitioners who are working as clerks with the Respondent No. 2 are challenging the award passed by the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Nagpur Bench. By this award, the Industrial Court recorded the amicable settlement between the management and the employees who were represented through the elected representatives, and converted it into an award. The petitioners prayed that the said award is liable to be modified and should be made binding and applicable to all the 1 workmen of Respondent No. 21 Industry. Few facts should be necessary : 2. The Respondent No. 2 is an industry. It is an admitted position that there is no representative union under the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter called 'the BIR Act' for the sake of brevity). There is only panel of elected representatives. A Charter of Demands was presented asking for various benefits including the pay revision, washing allowance, dearness allowance, rent allow...

Prakash D. Bandiwadekar Vs. Killick Slotted Angles and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1996)IILLJ833Bom

B.N. Srikrishna J. 1. This Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns an order dated 17th December 1990 made by the Industrial Court, Bombay. Dismissing the Petitioners Complaint (ULP) No. 568 of 1988 under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. 2. The petitioner was an employee of the 1st Respondent company. On 17th September 1981 the 1st Respondent abruptly terminated the services of the petitioner without complying with any provisions of law and the Standing Order. The petitioner being aggrieved raised an industrial dispute for his reinstatement in service with continuity and back-wages. The industrial dispute was processed under the law and resulted in Reference (IDA) No. 293 of 1982 for adjudication of the Labour Court, Bombay. Pending the Reference, the industrial undertaking in which the petitioner was employed was permanently closed with ef...

Arif Yusuf Sab Deshmukh and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1997BomCR(Cri)868

N.P. Chapalgaonker, J.1. This is an appeal challenging the conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai on 10th March 1993 in Sessions Case No. 106 of 1988 holding the appellants guilty of an offence punishable under sections 147, 148, 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.2. The appellant No. 3 Faiz Mohammad Khan Mubarak Khan Pathan died during the pendency of this appeal.3. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 --Arif Yusuf Sab Deshmukh and Sadiq Yusuf Sab Deshmukh are the real brothers inter-se. One Basheer Yusuf Sab Deshmukh was their step brother and their relations were strained. According to the prosecution version, Arif and Sadiq had a grievance that the ancestral property is not properly distributed and they are not given the due share by Basheer and since Basheer refused to give a sum of Rs. 15,000/-, he was ass...

Uhde Gmbh Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. Consequent to the assessee moving a miscellaneous application, the Tribunal, vide order dt. 18th May, 1995 in MA No. 70/Bom/1995 had recalled its order to the extent of the consideration of the issue that has been raised as ground Nos. 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4. Accordingly the present hearing has taken place by the hearing the representative of the assessee, Mr. F. B. Andhyarujina and Mr. R. L. Rinawma, the Departmental Representative. For the sake of facility, grounds raised as 3.1 to 3.4 are reproduced below : "3.1 The CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee had a permanent establishment as defined in the Agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation (AADT) between India and West Germany, in India. 3.2 The CIT(A) erred in holding that the installation project site of the Indian customer is to be held as the permanent establishment of the non-resident assessee, as per art. II(1)(h)(cc) of the AADT with West Germany. 1. the assessee was merely rendering supervisory services and had no ...

Motor Industrial Co. Ltd., Nasik Vs. Deelip Daulat Deore and Others

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1997(2)BomCR138; [1997(75)FLR464]; (1997)IILLJ1162Bom; 1996(2)MhLj967

1. Rule, Returnable forthwith. Ms Seema Sarnayak, Adv. waives service for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Y. P. Malavankar, A.G.P. waives service for Respondents Nos. 3 and 4. By consent the writ petition is taken up for final 5 hearing at this stage. 2. The question, that may be of some importance is whether the Industrial Court exercising 1 1 its power of superintendence under Section 44 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 give directions contemplated Under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short I.D. Act, 1947) assuming the power of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. The Respondents No. 1 and 2 were employed in the Petitioner company which is public limited company corporate under the Companies Act, 1956. 'Me Respondent No. 1 herein was employed as Operator G-1 in Quality Control Range of the Petitioner company, while Responden...

Uhde Gmbh Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1997)57TTJ(Mumbai)447

ORDERA. KALYANASUNDHARAM, A.M. :Consequent to the assessee moving a miscellaneous application, the Tribunal, vide order dt. 18th May, 1995 in MA No. 70/Bom/1995 had recalled its order to the extent of the consideration of the issue that has been raised as ground Nos. 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4. Accordingly the present hearing has taken place by the hearing the representative of the assessee, Mr. F. B. Andhyarujina and Mr. R. L. Rinawma, the Departmental Representative. For the sake of facility, grounds raised as 3.1 to 3.4 are reproduced below :'3.1 The CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee had a permanent establishment as defined in the Agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation (AADT) between India and West Germany, in India.3.2 The CIT(A) erred in holding that the installation project site of the Indian customer is to be held as the permanent establishment of the non-resident assessee, as per art. II(1)(h)(cc) of the AADT with West Germany.3.3 The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that :1....

Caprihans India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT294Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Original No. 45/88, dated 15-6-1988 of the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-III requiring the appellants to reverse the proforma credit availed of in relation to certain items for which entry was not made in RG 23 Part I account, though, D-3 declaration were filed and the receipt of the goods was verified. The adjudicating authority has felt that this was a material lapse, and has passed the impugned order.2. Heard Shri Vinayak Thakur the Senior Manager for the appellants and Shri R.K. Talajia the Ld. JDR for the Respondent.3. With D-3 declaration already filed and their being no challenge to the position that the goods have been received and utilized, mere lapse of not mentioning at entry in RG 23 Part I could not be taken as grave lapse resulting into denial of proforma credit. The fundamental applicable, in this regard, have already been identified in various decisions given by the Tribunal. The distinction made by the ld.Collector...

Standard Alkali Chemicals Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT717Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant declared in its declaration filed on 14-3-1986, potassium chloride classifiable under Chapter 28 as an input in the manufacture of final product. This was objected to and notice issued proposing denial of credit. After the usual proceedings, the Asstt.Commissioner [whose order was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals)], held that credit was not available on this product for the reason that it was not an input specified during the date on which the declaration was made and it was only specified as input from 29-7-1986 and that no new declaration was filed thereafter.2. Advocate for the appellant explains that although, potassium chloride as such was not specified as input, the declaration was filed on the basis of earlier tariff which was in force till 1-3-1986, in which the commodity was classified under Item 68. In that tariff it was considered as fertilizer and on that basis the declaration was made. In any case the commodity has been declared. There is no provisi...