Mumbai Court April 1998 Judgments
The Goa Co-operative Printing Press Ltd. Vs. the Industrial Tribunal a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-24-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)BomCR1; (1998)3BOMLR476; (2001)IIILLJ19Bom
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. The point which is sought to be raised in the present petition is whether the Industrial Tribunal, the respondent No. 1 herein, having held that the findings arrived at by the Inquiry Officer were not based on legal evidence and were therefore perverse, acted with material irregularity and in breach of procedure in denying the opportunity to the petitioner to lead fresh evidence to prove the misconduct on the part of the respondent No. 2 and to justify its action. 2. The facts, in brief, which are relevant for the decision are that on 5-2-1985, the respondent No. 2 herein was charge-sheeted by the petitioner to the effect that he was guilty of various acts of misconduct. After holding inquiry, the respondent No. 2 was dismissed by the petitioner by its order dated 31-7-1986. Thereupon, a reference was made by the Government to the Industrial Tribunal to decide as to whether the action of the petitioner in dismissing the respondent No. 2 was legal and just...
Tag this Judgment!Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Through Its Divisional Co ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-24-1998
Reported in: 1998(5)BomCR380; [1999(82)FLR526]
ORDERD.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Mr. S.C. Bora, Advocate for petitioner-M.S.R.T.C. in all these petitions and also Mr. D.R. Irale Patil, Advocate for respondent in all these petitions.2. These petitions arise in the following manner.Against Complaint No. 100/91 filed by the respondent No. 1 before the Labour Court, the present petitioner filed revision No. 170/96 and Writ Petition No. 1616/97 is filed against the same.3. Against Complaint No. 125/94 filed by respondent before the Labour Court, petitioner-Corporation filed Revision No. 174/96 and Writ Petition No. 1628/97 is filed against the order in the said revision.4. Against Complaint No. 213/93 filed by respondent No. 1 before the Labour Court and the order passed therein, the petitioner-corporation filed Revision No. 176/96 and against the order in revision, Writ Petition No. 1629/97 is filed.5. The respondent, who was the employee of the Corporation as an artision, has put in 18 years of service tilt this date. First inquiry was ...
Tag this Judgment!Goa Co-operative Printing Press Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-24-1998
Reported in: (2001)IIILLJ19BBom
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. The point which is sought to be raised in the present petition is whether the Industrial Tribunal, respondent 1 herein, having held the findings arrived at by the inquiry officer were not based on legal evidence and were therefore perverse, acted with material irregularity and in breach of procedure in denying the opportunity to the petitioner to lead fresh evidence to prove the misconduct on the part of respondent 2 and to justify its action.2. The facts, in brief, which are relevant for the decision are that on February 5, 1985, respondent 2 herein was chargesheeted by the petitioner to the effect that he was guilty of various acts of misconduct. After holding inquiry, respondent 2 was dismissed by the petitioner by its order, dated July 31, 1986. Thereupon, a reference was made by the Government to the Industrial Tribunal to decide as to whether the action of the petitioner in dismissing respondent 2 was legal and justified and, if not, what relief be grant...
Tag this Judgment!Mazda Camera Centre Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-23-1998
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT773Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appellant in pursuance of an order placed by it opened a letter credit on 16-7-1992 for import of parts of photographic camera. Prior to 30-6-1992 import of such parts was under Open General Licence (OGL).By notification issued on 30-6-1992 the Director General of Foreign Trade extended the definition of "consumer durables" occurring in the policy so as to include in it the accessories and spare parts. As a result parts of cameras which come OGL now required an import licence.Therefore when the goods arrived in Mumbai on August, 1992 they were held liable to confiscation in the absence of such a licence. In the order impuged in the appeal the Assistant Collector whose order has been confirmed the Commissioner (Appeals) ordered such confiscation with option to redeem the goods on payment of fine Rs. 44,000/-. Hence this appeal.3. The notification dated 30-6-1992 was published in the Gazette of India as required by law. This Gazette was made available to the public for sale on 22-7-1...
Tag this Judgment!Lakhanpal National Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-23-1998
Reported in: (1998)(62)ECC336
1. The Appellants are manufacturing excisable goods dry battery cells falling under Heading 85.06 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. They were availing of modvat credit on inputs under Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules. Proceedings were initiated against the Appellant by issue of show-cause notice on 31.7.88 alleging that during the period 1.3.86 to November, 1987 they had irregularly availed of modvat credit. It was alleged that they had taken the credit on gate passes which were not in their name: that declaration for modvat purposes for some of the inputs had been filed after the receipt thereof in their factory and also that they had utilised the modvat credit in the manufacture of final products which were exempt from duty in violation of provisions of Rule 57C. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand on this ground and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld that order.2. The R.C. Saxena, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the demand in this case i...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatesh Iyer Vs. Bombay Hospital Trust and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-23-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)BomCR503
ORDERDr. Pratibha Upasani, J.1. The plaintiff, Mr. Venkatesh Iyer has filed his suit against Bombay Hospital Trust through its Medical Director and Superintendent (defendant Nos. 1 and 2) and Dr. Arvind Kulkarni, erstwhile Head of Department of the Radiation Therapy of Bombay Hospital, claiming a sum of Rs. 47,00,000/- as damages for allegedly treating the plaintiff with negligence. The break up of the claim for special and general damages as given in the particulars of the claim at Annexure II to the plaint and in the prayers is as follows :Rs. 2 lakhs for medical expenses and Rs. 10 lakhs for future surgery. (These are the claims under the head of Special Damages). Rs. 15 lakhs for loss of future earnings and Rs. 20 lakhs for loss of amenities, mental and physical shock and torture, totalling to Rs. 47 lakhs. Interest is claimed on this amount at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till payment or realisation.2. The case of the plaintiff as revealed from the...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. S.S. Miranda Ltd. Vs. Shri Rangbahadur Singh and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-23-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)ALLMR62; 1998(3)BomCR814; 1998(2)MhLj861
ORDERF.I. Rebello, J. 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent heard forthwith. 2. Both these petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment though they arise from two references. The incident in respect of which the respondents in both the cases were charge sheeted and the date of the incidents are the same. The evidence is also the same. Questions of law that arise for consideration are the same and consequently this common judgment. 3. Separate Charge Sheets were issued to the respondents in both the cases which are dated 26th September, 1986. It was therein alleged that on 23rd September, 1986 the Charge Sheeted workmen not only resorted to but also instigated others to strike without notice and further gherao and instigated other workers to gheraoed Shri Wagle. It is then contended that the respondents workers along with few others indulged in disorderly and indisciplined behaviour. The next incident alleged is of 24th September, 1986 wherein it is alleged that when th...
Tag this Judgment!Madhukar S/O. Shrimant Mhaske and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-23-1998
Reported in: 1998(5)BomCR801
ORDERV.K. Barde, J.1. The appellants are convicted for offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code, in Sessions Case No. 128/1993, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, and both of them are sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, each, in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for three months.2. The appellant No. 2, Kadubai, died during the pendency of this appeal.3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows :(a) On 1-12-1992, at about 8 p.m., Sarjerao Tulsiram Mhaske, Sarpanch of village Akhatwada, and one teacher from that village, Laxman, made a report at the Police Station, Paithan, that one lady had sustained burn injuries in their village. Entry regarding that information was entered into station diary and thereafter P.S.I. Shaikh Feroz proceeded to the village in Police van along with Police Constables. Kantabai, the lady who had received burn injuries, was taken to hospit...
Tag this Judgment!industrial Perfumes Ltd. Vs. Industrial Perfumes Workers Union
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-23-1998
Reported in: [1998(79)FLR367]; (1998)IILLJ1177Bom
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Heard parties.This petition is directed against the order dated January 29, 1998 whereby the Industrial Court at Mumbai in Complaint (ULP) No. 216 of 1997 has held the petitioner guilty of unfair labour practice under Item No. 9 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act. The Industrial Court has further directed the petitioner to desist from continuing the unfair labour practice with farther directions to pay wages to the employees concerned, under the terms and conditions of employment. The workmen have been directed to refund the balance amount from the amount received from the petitioner company after deducting upto date wages therefrom within a period of three weeks from the date of the order.2. The Union of employees representing the workers has filed this complaint on the ground that the closure is not bonafide and in fact there was no closure. It was their further contention that the respondent Company had not closed down their business and was carrying ...
Tag this Judgment!Raju Somkaran Salian and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-23-1998
Reported in: (1998)100BOMLR439
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this appeal, the appellants challenges the Judgment and order dated 27th April, 1995 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 246 of 1994, convicting and sentencing them in the manner stated hereinafter :-(i) Under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC undergo life imprisonment.(ii) Under Section 201 read with 34 of IPC to undergo one year R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. l.000/- in default to suffer further R.I. for a period of two years.The substantive sentences of the appellants were ordered to run concurrently.We may mention that along with the appellants, two others namely Mohan Namu Poojari and Anand Jayram Kotian were also tried and prosecuted but, they have been acquitted vide the impugned Judgment and the State of Maharashtra has not challenged the acquittal by preferring an appeal under Section 378(1) of Cr. P.C.2. In short, the prosecution case runs as under :-The informant Mukundrao Sangani P.W. 2 had his tailoring shop ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »