Mumbai Court February 1997 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.
Maharashtra State Electricity Board Vs. Janardhan Bhausaheb Desai and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Bom75; 1997(4)ALLMR326; 1997(3)BomCR220; (1997)3BOMLR576; 1997(2)MhLj462
R.M. Lodha, J. 1. On 21st September, 1994, the 3rd Additional District Judge, Kolhapur, dismissed the appeal filed by the present appellant Maharashtra State Electricity Board aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 31st March, 1993 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kolhapur whereby the trial Court had decreed the plaintiffs/respondents suit permanently restraining the defendant from taking extra high voltage transmission line (EHVT) through the suit land bearing Gat No. 165 without following the due process of law and further directing the Board to remove the tower No. 45 from the suit land. Upset by the concurrent judgment and decree passed by the two Courts below, the present second appeal has been preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.2. The Maharashtra State Electricity Board for short, 'Board' is a statutory Corporation constituted under the Electricity Supply Act, 1948. By resolution dated 5th July, 1986, the Board framed the scheme ...
Kalyan Ukandrao Kelkar and Others Vs. Shri Laxman Malhai Sabale and An ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-1997
Reported in: 1998BomCR(Cri)35
ORDERD.G. Deshpande, J.1. In both these petitions, the original accused have challenged the order of issue of process passed by J. M. F C., Khalapur on 4-5-1990 under section 307 and 120-B read with 34 of the I.PC. in complaint case filed by respondent No. 1 Shri Laxman Malhari Sabale.2. The petitioner Kalyan Kelkar in Cr. W.R No. 1291/90 was the Chief Officer of the Khopoli Municipal Council at the relevant time and the petitioners 1 to 5 from Cr. W.P. No. 791/90 were also the employee of the Khopoli Municipal Council (K.M.C.). The petitioner No. 6 from Cr. W.R No. 791/90 was an officer working with the Indian Organic Chemical Co. Ltd. Khopoli, and was the Councillor of the K.M.C. at the relevant time.3. The incident which was the basis of the complaint case of Laxman Sabale was dt. 6-1-89. There are two versions regarding this incident, one as narrated by Laxman Sabale and the other narrated by the petitioner Kalyan Kelkar in his F.I.R. lodged with the Khopoli Police Station. On this...
thermo Touch Vs. Shaikh Nazir Shaikh Abdulla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-1997
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR358
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. The facts of this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India reflect the malaise that has gripped the psyche of the workmen because of the liberal attitude shown by Courts in the matter of reinstatement and back-wages.2. By this writ petition the Petitioner challenges the Award dated 2nd May, 1991 made by the Labour Court, Pune, in Reference (IDA) No. 172 of 1985 under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')3. The First Respondent was a workman employed the service of the Petitioner as Helper. The Petitioner is a small factory employing about 20 workmen and carries on the business of Heat Treatment of metal parts. The case of the First Respondent appears lo be one of chronic absence, as the record speaks. After exhausting all leave available to him, the First Respondent remained absent in the year 1983 for about 52 days, during the year 1984 for 87.1/2 days and till April 1985, he remain...
Kirloskar Cummins Ltd. Vs. Subhash Shripati Darekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-1997
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR340
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order of the Industrial Court Pune, dated 28th August, 1991 in Revision Application No. 22 of 1991, made in exercise of its powers under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The First Respondent was employed in the service of the Petitioner Company in its factory at Pune as a Helper. On 10th September, 1982, he was on duty and his duty hours were from 8.30 A.M. to 5.30 P.M. with lunch break from 11.15 A.M. to 12.00 noon. At about 11.15 A.M. the Assistant Security Officer, Manohar Prabhakar Gate, was observing whether the scooters and cycles had been properly parked or not. At this time the First Respondent was seen hurriedly leaving the cycle stand where he had parked his motorcycle. When the First Respondent left the cycle stand, he was carrying nothing, but goin...
Rafique A. Malik Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-1997
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR535
V.R. Datar, J.1. This is an application by the accused who is involved in a scam presently and popularly known as 'Shoe scam of Mumbai'. It appears that the petitioner had previously applied to the Sessions Court, Mumbai, as well as this Court for grant of anticipatory bail, but these applications came to be rejected. The petitioner then moved to Supreme Court for grant of anticipatory bail and the Supreme Court by its order dated 29.11.1996 directed the petitioner to surrender before the concerned Court and accordingly the petitioner surrendered on 6.12.1996 before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai whereupon he was demanded to police custody for some days and thereafter to judicial custody. Thereafter, he moved the Sessions Court, for grant of bail but that application came to be rejected. That is how, the present application has been filed.2. I have heard Shri Nitin Pradhan for the petitioner and Shri Namioshi with Shri Huldikar, Special Public Prosecutor for the S...
Diwakar Govind Bhanage Vs. Dhananjay Bandoba Dige
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-1997
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR551
D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. This is a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 31.3.1992 passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Kolhapur, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 61 of 1991. By that judgment, the learned Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment passed by the 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur. dated 31.12.1990 in Regular Civil Suit No. 494/1988. By the Judgment dated 31.12.1990, the 3rd Joint Civil Judge had dismissed the Regular Civil Suit No. 494/1988 filed by the present respondent. The Appellate Court has passed a decree of possession, in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner.2. The civil suit was filed by the respondent under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act contending that the petitioner is his tenant in a building situate on City Survey No. 355 E Ward, Station Road, Kolhapur. The petitioner is a tenant of shop premises admeasuring 11' x 22'. The only ground on which the decree has been...
Shri K.S. Saldhana Vs. Managing Director, Jaya Hind Industrial Limited ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-1997
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR95
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns an order of the Labour Court, Pune, dated 10th April, 1992 made in Application (IDA) No. 1267 of 1987 dismissing the application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The Petitioner was employed by the First Respondent as a leading hand and his service came to be terminated abruptly on 28th January,' 1983. The Petitioner challenged' the termination of his service by his Complaint (ULP) No. 28 of 1983 in which he sought a declaration of unfair labour practice on the part of the First Respondent and relief of consequential benefits. By an order dated 28th January, 1986 made in Complaint (ULP) No. 28 of 1983, the Labour Court allowed the complaint and the reliefs prayed for were granted. The First Respondent preferred Revision Application No. 36 of 1986, but the Industrial Court dismissed the revision application by its order dated ...
Mrs. Shweta Vijay Chittal Vs. Mr. Vijay Kamlakar Chittal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-1997
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR537
R.G. Vaidyanatha, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the Appellant against the order dated 20.9.1995 in Misc. Application No. 242/88 on the file of Second Additional District Judge, Thane, Heard both sides.2. The Appellant and the Respondent were husband and wife. The marriage has been dissolved by a decree of divorce on 9.8.1991. The couple have a child by name Nikhil, who was born to the couple on 29.8.1986. It appears the child is residing with the mother, the present Appellant.That is why the Respondent- Father filed a petition in the Court below for custody of the child under Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act. The Appellant filed a reply opposing the application.At the time of recording evidence, the Respondents evidence was recorded, he was not cross examined. The Appellant remained absent and did not adduce any evidence. The Trial Court, therefore, appreciated the materials on record and came to the conclusion that the father is the proper guardian of the child and granted t...
Tarapur Cables (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1997
Reported in: (1997)(71)LC934Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These appeals are directed against order in appeal No.S/49-523/89-TE dt. 17.1.1990 passed by Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.2. After hearing both sides, we allow the application for condonation of delay in appeal No. C/249/91-B2.3. The appellants imported a consignment of components of automobiles wiring harness. The goods were assessed under CTH 8536.90 read with Notification 75/85. Subsequently, the appellants claimed the benefit of Notification 33/88 dt. 1.3.1988. Both Asstt. Collector and Collector held that Notification 33/88 is effective from 1.7.1988 whereas goods were imported in June '88, prior to issue of Notification 33/88 and therefore, the claims were rejected. Hence these appeals.4. Arguing for the appellants, ld. Director of the company submits that Notification 33/88 in fact was effective from 1.3.1988 and the officers have misconstrued para 2 of the Notification which added further condition w.e.f. 1.7.1988.6. We have heard both sides. Notification 33/88 is...
Kamal Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1997
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT63Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) made in Order-in-Appeal No.ADN-259/91-Bom, by the said order, the appellate authority confirmed the order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise disallowing a credit of Rs. 98,873.20 under Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, on the ground that the certificates on the strength of which the appellants had raised credit are not proper duty paying documents under Rule 57G(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. The appellants are holding the Central Excise licence for the manufacture of various commodities falling under Chapters 73, 74 and 85 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. By three show cause notices dated 5-7-1990, 30-7-1990,14-9-1990. Modvat credit was sought to be denied as no proper duty paying documents were furnished. The assessee stated by their replies to the said show cause notices in terms of Trade Notice No. 68/89, dated 15-8-1989 the credit on cert...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »