Mumbai Court October 1998 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.
Shri Harishchandra Arjun Chavan Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALLMR42; 1999(1)BomCR286; [1999(81)FLR873]; 1999(1)MhLj126
ORDERPer Ashok Agarwal, J.1. Petitioner is seen to have obtained employment in a post reserved for Scheduled Tribe by making a false representation that he belongs to Tokare Koli. At the time of obtaining employment he has produced a Caste Certificate certifying that he belonged to Tokare Koli Scheduled Tribe. The said certificate was referred to the Caste Scrutiny Committee. By an order passed on 30th July, 1994, the Scrutiny Committee has invalidated his claim of belonging to Scheduled Tribe. The Committee has found that the petitioner belongs to Koli Caste.2. The petitioner impugned the said order passed by the Committee by filing a Writ Petition bearing No. 4621 of 1994 which was rejected by an order passed on 14th November, 1994. Petitioner's employers i.e. respondents No. 2 and 3 herein have accordingly held Disciplinary Proceedings against the petitioner for misconduct namely that he has knowingly produced a false certificate for obtaining employment in a post reserved for the a...
Smt. Ashalata S. Lahoti Vs. M/S. Hiralal Lilladhar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)BomCR293; (1999)1BOMLR241; [2001]103CompCas1097(Bom); 1999(1)MhLj352
ORDERF.I. Rebello, J.1. Parties in each of the petitions are different. The facts and cause of action is also different. All these petitions are however, being disposed off by a common judgment as one of the questions involved is a question common to all the three petitions and arguments had been advanced by various Counsel on that proposition of law. Arbitration Petition No. 82 of 1997 and 83 of 1997 are filed under the Arbitration Act, 1940. (Hereinafter referred to as the 1940 Act). Arbitration Petition No. 318 of 1998 is filed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Hereinafter referred to as the 1996 Act). 2. Before coming to the common issue, it will be necessary to broadly set out the facts and the grounds raised in each of the petitions. Award 997 is dated 22-12-1995. The Award pertains to certain transactions, transacted on the Bombay Stock Exchange. The transactions are between a member and a non member. By an Award dated 22-12-1995 the Arbitrator held that the Law ...
Indian Organic Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Collector of Raigad and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)ALLMR149; 1999(1)BomCR305; 1999(1)MhLj473
ORDERA.P. Shah, J.1. The petitioner is a company engaged in manufacture of acetic acid, acetic anhydride and certain other chemicals. These chemicals are manufactured from rectified spirit. The State of Maharashtra has framed the Bombay Rectified Spirit (Transport in Bond) Rules, 1951 (for short 'the Rules') for transport of such rectified spirit on terms and conditions specified therein. The petitioner company has been issued requisite licence for transport, possession and use of rectified spirit for manufacture of chemicals. The petitioner company has been allowed to purchase, transport, possess and use rectified spirit under bond and under excise supervision pursuant to R.S. II licence.2. Rule 8 of the aforesaid Rules as it stood at the relevant time reads as follows:'8(1). On arrival of the consignment at the bounded laboratory, the officer-in-charge shall compare the particulars given in Part II with those in Part III of the pass, shall examine the seals and if he has no reason to...
Sudhakar Shridhar Sumant and Others Vs. Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkh ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1998
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR771
ORDERT.K. Chandra Shekhara Das, J.1. The writ petitioners are the agriculturists raising sugarcane cultivation. They have to supply sugar cane to Kisan Ahir Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited, Walva. While supplying the sugarcane to the said Karkhana, it is alleged that they have contravened the provisions of Maharashtra Sugar Factories (Reservation of Areas of Regulation of Crushing in Sugarcane Supply) Order, 1984 (hereinafter called the Order of 1984). The Special Judge, Sangli under Essential Commodities Act had framed the charge against them as follows:- 'That you all on 5-1-1986 at or about 19.30 hours within the limits of village Mouje fung in furtherance of your common intention found transporting sugarcane belonging to accused Nos. 3 & 4 through tractor N.X.W. 533, trolly No. 3308, 3309 unauthorizedly from the area reserved for the factory which comes under Sangli Shetkari Sahakari Karkhana, Sangli and you transported the said sugarcane to the factory named Hutatma Kisan Ahir Sa...
Press Trust of India, Employees' Union and Anr. Vs. Press Trust of Ind ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1998
Reported in: [1999(81)FLR349]; (2000)IIILLJ60Bom
R.M. Lodha, J. 1. This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order, dated July 22, 1998, passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai, rejecting the complainant's application for interim relief. 2. The first petitioner is a trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, and claims to be representing all the workmen employed by the first respondent-company at Mumbai. The second petitioner is the employee of the first respondent- company. The first respondent company is registered under the Companies Act and is active in the field of gathering news and distributing/selling the same to newspapers and magazines through telex, teleprinters and computer consoles. The second and third respondents are the General Manager and Assistant General Manager of the first respondent company. Petitioner 2 was initially employed by respondent 1 company in the year 1966-67 as wireless operator. He was confirmed in the service as wireless operator wi...
Shri Camilo Cardozo Vs. Remedio D'souza (Since Deceased) Through His L ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1998
Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR520
J.A. Patil, J.1. In this Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant has impugned the Order dated 23.6.95 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court in Writ Petition No. 140/95, whereby he summarily dismissed the said Petition filed by the present appellant challenging the Order dated 31.1.95 passed by the Administrative Tribunal. The appeal involves an interesting but important question of law and it is to the effect as to whether in an eviction proceeding under the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act for short), failure on the part of the applicant/landlord to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased tenant after the recording of evidence is concluded, renders the order/decree of eviction a nullity. This question has arisen out of the following facts:Deceased Remedio D'Souza was the landlord of the suit premises. Respondents Nos. 1(a) and 1(b) are his legal heirs. One Mrs. Helena Rodri...
Packart Glass Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1998
Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT414Tri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s. Packart Glass manufactured glass and glass vials. These were packed in cardboard boxes which boxes were supplied to them by M/s.Sarabhai Chemicals during the period September, 1982 to October, 1985.2. The issue of deduction of post manufacturing charges had been raised by M/s. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. before the High Court of Gujarat. The High Court in their order dated 25-9-1987 referred to the judgments given by the Supreme Court and directed the Petitioners to submit the statement of deductions, etc., in respect of price lists already filed for proper determination of the duty liability in accordance with the observations made by the Supreme Court. The assessee were permitted to file revised price lists in certain cases.The Excise authorities were directed to finalise the assessments during a particular period. The department was permitted to raise demand for differential duty and the Petitioners were directed to pay the demand so raised within 6 months from the da...
Shri Genu Laxman Shinde and Ohters Vs. Shri Chandrakant Dagadu Kotulka ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALLMR44; 1999(1)BomCR278; 1999(1)MhLj235
ORDERA.P. Shah, J.1. Rule. Respondent waives service. By consent petition is placed for final hearing.2. This writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal reviewing its earlier order passed in revision and remanding the matter to the Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Maval, for de novo enquiry under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.3. The facts briefly are that the petitioners are owners of the lands bearing Survey Nos. 35/A-3 and 57/1-B admeasuring 5 acres 35 gunthas and 35 gunthas respectively situated at village Khadakale, Tahsil Haveli, District Pune. It is an admitted position that the name of deceased Dagadu Kotulkar, i.e., father of the respondent was shown as tenant prior to 1st April, 1957 in 7/12 extract. An enquiry was held under section 32-G of the Act and in the said enquiry, the sale was declared ineffective as the tenant failed to remain present before the Agricultural Lands Tribunal, ('A.L.T.' for s...
Shri Hiraman Harischandra Bhoir Vs. Shri O.P. Bali, Commissioner of Po ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1998
Reported in: 1999(5)BomCR135; 1999CriLJ748
ORDERN. Arumugham, J.1. The present writ of habeas corpus is directed against an order of detention passed by the 1st respondent Mr. O.P. Bali, the Commissioner of Police, Thane dated 20th February 1998 detaining the detenu by name Arun Hiraman Bhoir by virtue of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (Man. Act No. LV of 1981), as amended upto date. The petitioner herein who is the father of the detenu has impugned the said detention order. Both the order of detention shown in Annexure 'A' and the committal order shown in Annexure 'B' along with the grounds of detention shown in Annexure 'C' were contemporaneously served upon the detenu on 22nd February 1998.2. The prejudicial activities of the detenu as culled out from the grounds of detention against the detenu are as stated hereunder:On 14-4-1996 at about 11.00 hours, the detenu along with his father Hiraman Bhoir an...
Shri Machhindra Tukaram Bongane Vs. Sub Divisional Officer, Baramati D ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1998
Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR485
T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. This Petition is filed against the Order dated 7.9.191 passed by the 1st Respondent against the Petitioner under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 wherein the Petitioner was ordered to execute a Bond of Rs. 2000/-. This order was passed pursuant to a Show Cause Notice dated 26th December, 1990 issued by the 1st Respondent against the Petitioner calling upon him to show cause why he shall not be externed. The Petitioner offered his explanation. After hearing the Petitioner it appears that the 1st Respondent dropped the idea of externing the petitioner. Instead the Petitioner was asked to execute a Bond for Rs. 2000/- as per Order dated 7.9.1991.2. An appeal was filed against this order before the 2nd Respondent which was also dismissed. It is in these circumstances that the Petitioner filed this Writ Petition challenging the aforesaid orders of the Respondents.3. I heard the Counsel Mr. Marwadi, for Petitioner and Mrs. Usha Kejariwal, A.P.P., for R...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »