Mumbai Court August 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.
Smt. Suman Uday Bhobe Vs. State of Goa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1996
Reported in: (1996)98BOMLR873
T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. The petitioner challenges the vires of Rule 278 of the Goa Motor Vehicle Rules, 1991, as being unconstitutional and arbitrary. As per this Rule the State of Goa has prescribed certain court fees to be payable alongwith the application for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.2. Rule 278 of the Goa Motor Vehicle Rules is extracted below:- Rule 278:- Fees -(1) Every application for compensation shall be accompanied by a fee deposited by a challan in accordance with the following scale, viz.Amount of claim(i) Not exceeding Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 10 (ii) Exceeding Rs. 5,000/-, but notexceeding Rs. 50,000/- 1/4th% of the amount of claim(iii) Exceeding Rs. 50,000/-but not exceeding Rs. 1 lakh the amount of claim(iv) Exceeding Rs.l lakh 1% of the amount of claim Provided that, an application under Rule 277 for a claim under Section 140 shall be accompanied by a fee of Rs. 20/- only by challan. (2) The...
M.M. Wadia Charitable Hospital Vs. Dr. Umakant Ramchandra Warerkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-1996
Reported in: [1997(75)FLR814]; (1997)IILLJ549Bom
1. All the above Writ Petitions raise common question of law and fact. All the above Writ Petitions seek to challenge the validity of cannon a Judgment and Order passed by the Labour Court, Solapur in Reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. The central point which arises for determination in all the above Writ Petitions is: tl Whether eminent doctors who have done their M.D.s/M.S. are entitled to seek a protection as a 'workman'under Section 2(s) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is not in dispute that the respondent-doctors in die above writ petitions are having their private practices by way of consultancy. It is not in dispute that even their private patients are permitted to be admitted in the petitioner-hospital on their recommendations, subject to sharing of profits between the Management and these doctors. Basically, in all the above writ petitions, the only point is 10 whether the said doctors are entitled to claim the status of 'worknm' as de...
Bhujaji S/O Mahadu Ingole and ors. Vs. the Additional Commissioner and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1996
Reported in: 1997(4)BomCR123
R.G. Deshpande, J.1. The only point, which needs consideration in the present petition, is as to whether the judgment given by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, in Case No. TNC/Tribal-R-109, vide his judgment and order, dated 27-3-1985 directing the petitioner to restore the field Survey No. 42/B of village Sukali, tq. Basmat, District Parbhani, to the respondent No. 2, could be sustained or not in the specific facts and circumstances as are narrated in short below.2. The petitioners are the legal representatives of original petitioner-Bhujaji Mahadu Ingole. The original petitioner - Bhujaji did purchase the abovesaid survey number from the respondent No. 2 on 17-12-1976 by registered sale-deed and this is an undisputed fact. It is also not disputed that petitioner belonged to scheduled caste, whereas the respondent No. 2 is Andh by caste, which was not a Scheduled Tribe so declared by the Government prior to the said transaction dated 12-12-1976.3. Andh com...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Durga S/O Appa Pawar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Bom137; 1997(3)BomCR138; 1997(2)MhLj500
ORDERDESHMUKH, J.1. This appeal was filed in the High Court by the Advocates, Shri M. S. Phatak, who is admittedly 'A' Panel Counsel appointed by the Government of Maharashtra. The memo of appeal is also signed by Shri Phatak as an Advocate for the appellant. The appellant is the State of Maharashtra, through the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Division Sailu, in the District of Parbhani. This appeal is filed against the respondent, namely, Durga S/o. Appa Pawar.2. The matter relates to the award of arbitration under Section 15 of the Arbitration Act.3. Shri Phatak had produced before us, a letter addressed to him, signed by incharge Superintendent (Legal) to the Government of Maharashtra, Law and Judiciary Department, Aurangabad, dated 20th June, 1996, by which Shri Phatak was informed that the Government has decided to file an appeal in above referred Regular Civil Suit No. 223/1996 decided by the Civil Judge (S.D.), Parbhani, on 30th April, 1996. In the said letter, it is...
R.K. Aminbhavi Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Board
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1996
Reported in: [1996(74)FLR2665]
A.P. Shah, J. 1. The short question which arises for determination in this petition under Article 226 is whether the petitioner is entitled to the higher grade benefit in accordance with the General Order No. 74 of the respondent Maharashtra State Electricity Board. 2. The General Order No. 74 (for short 'G.O. 74') was issued by the respondent on 30th April, 1974. The said General Order provides that if an employee has remained on a given post for ten years or more without the advantage of promotion to a higher post or higher grade for want of clear vacancy, such employee shall be given the higher grade benefit. On 6th May, 1983 the respondent amended G.O. 74 and the condition of ten years service for the benefit of higher grade was reduced to six years, with effect from 1st April, 1980. In short the amended G.O. 74 provides that an employee who has completed six years on 1st April, 1980 and who has not got promotion to a higher post for no fault of his own, but for want of a clear vac...
Shripati Kashinath Ambede and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)BomCR621
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Vide judgment and order dated 30-10-1982 passed in Sessions Case No. 132 of 1981, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner stated hereinafter :---(i) Under section 302 read with 149 I.P.C., imprisonment for life; (ii) Under section 148 I.P.C., RI for four months; (iii) Under section 323 read with 149 I.P.C. to six months' RI; and (iv) Under section 147 I.P.C., but awarded them no separate sentence. Hence this appeal.2. Briefly stated the prosecution case runs as under :---The informant Babu Eknath Bibve P.W. 2 at the time of the incident was serving in Sahyadri Dye Stuff and Chemicals of Mafatal Industries, Vithalwadi, Pune. There were about 400 employees working with the company. There was a Union of which Somnath Naik was the General Secretary. All the workers were members of the said Union. On the Managing Committee there were five representatives of the Union viz. himself (P.W. 2 Babu Bibve), appellant Bhaga...
Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Now Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Lt ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)BomCR117
Dr. B.P. Saraf, J. 1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing the arbitration petition of the appellant for setting aside the award. 2. The relevant facts of the case, briefly stated, are as follows. The appellants, Oil & Natural Gas Commission, ('ONGC') invited tenders for carrying out the construction of 304 Nos. 'B' type Housing Units at Panvel Phase I. In pursuance of the above tender invitation, the respondents, New India Civil Erectors Pvt. Ltd. ('Contractors'), submitted their tender. The respondents, being the successful bidders, were accordingly allotted the work. A written contract was executed between the appellants and the respondents on 14th January, 1985 for carrying out the said work. The work of construction was duly commenced by the respondents. The appellants too made certain interim payments to the respondents. According to the appellants, after receiving payment of Rs. 3,09,052.57, the respondents abandoned the work. As a result, t...
Hico Products Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1996
Reported in: 1997(92)ELT478(Bom)
P.S. Patankar, J. 1. The petitioners are engaged in the manufacture of products based on Silicon Oil which is used by various industries in their industrial process for surface-active properties. The Petitioners are having 3 units, viz. Bombay, Khopoli and Kharsundi. The Petitioners filed classification list in respect of their products/goods claiming that they were classifiable under Tariff Item 15AA of the schedule to Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 and also claimed exemption from the whole of excise duty under Notification No. 101/66-C.E., dated 17-6-[1966]. The Assistant Collector of Customs accepted the Petitioners' claim partly for classification under Tariff Item 15AA with effect from the specified dates and also extended benefit of the said Notification. The Department filed a review application to the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) for review of the said order and order came to be reviewed on 15-2-1988. The Petitioners preferred an appeal before CEGAT. CEGAT partly al...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Joseph Mingel Koli and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)BomCR362; 1997BomCR(Cri)218
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. A perverse Judgment of acquittal dated 6-8-1990 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 259 of 1979, acquitting the respondents for offences punishable under sections 143 I.P.C., 144 I.P.C., 147 I.P.C., 148 I.P.C., 324 read with 149 I.P.C. (on two separate counts namely causing hurt to Antaya Shetty and Krishna Gauda), 323 read with 149 I.P.C., 337 read with 149 I.P.C., 436 read with 149 I.P.C., 450 I.P.C. and 395 I.P.C., has prompted the State of Maharashtra to file an appeal against acquittal under section 378(1) of Cr.P.C.2. At this juncture, we may mention that the appeal against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 namely Pundalik Patil Kesarinath and Maruti Krishna Patil was dismissed by order dated 19-12-1983 passed by a Division Bench of this Court as no action had been taken to serve them. We may also mention that appeal against the respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 8 namely Joseph Mingel Koli, Ramakant Shankar Patil and Tanaji Devji B...
Chindha Nathu Gujar Vs. Murlidhar Shankar Gune
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1996
Reported in: 1997(3)BomCR53
R.G. Deshpande, J.1. The petitioner-tenant in the present matter has come up before this Court challenging the judgment and order dated 22nd April, 1983 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Bombay in Revision Application No. Ten.A. 22G of 1982 arising out of the judgment and order dated 31-8-1982 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chalisgaon in Division Jalgaon in Tenancy Appeal No. 3/1981 which, in turn, arose out of the judgment and order dated 12-1-1981 passed by Tahsildar, Chalisgaon in Tenancy Case No. 2/73 which was initiated on the basis of an application under section 25(2) and 29 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.2. Field Survey No. 73 admeasuring 21 acres and 17 gunthas assessed to Rs. 74.69 situated at Ozar village, Tq. Chalisgaon is the subject-matter of the present petition. The undisputed fact is that the present respondent-landlord was holding this land as Patil Inam land on which the petitioner was a tenant. It is also not disputed that th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »