Mumbai Court October 1999 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.
Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Classic Diamonds (i) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-28-1999
Reported in: (2000)75ITD245(Mum.)
1. The only ground raised in this appeal of the revenue, for assessment year 1992-93, is relating to the claim of deduction under section 80HHC in respect of rough diamonds. The assessee company imports rough diamonds and also purchases some locally and after cutting and polishing these are exported out of India. On scrutiny of accounts the Assessing Officer found that the assessee had returned the rough diamonds amounting to Rs. 33,84,625 without any value addition. He accordingly denied deduction under section 80HHC in respect of that amount treating the export to that extent on account of minerals on which Export promotion deduction is not permissible.2. The learned counsel for the assessee, during the course of hearing of the appeal before us, explained that out of the rough diamonds imported, some diamonds are found not fit for cutting and polishing and accordingly these are exported as such. The Assessing Officer considered the export of rough diamonds as the export of minerals ...
Sakharam Govind Kadam Vs. M/S. David Brown Greaves Ltd. and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-28-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)ALLMR493; 2000(1)BomCR552; 2000(1)MhLj644
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner workman has filed the present writ petition against the Award of the Labour Court, Pune rejecting his reference for reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service. 2. The facts of the present petition are in a very narrow compass that the petitioner was employed by the respondent company as a casual employee from 6-4-1984 and was terminated from employment with effect from 8-12-1985, as there was no work for him. The petitioner workman raised an industrial dispute against the oral order of his termination from employment with effect from 8-12-1985. The industrial dispute was referred by the State Government for adjudication to the Labour Court, Pune. The petitioner filed his statement of claim to which the respondent company filed its reply. Both the parties had adduced their oral and documentary evidence before the Labour Court. 3. According to the petitioner workman, he had completed 240 days continuous service, and therefore, his t...
The Ammunition Factory Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. Vs. Balasaheb ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-28-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)ALLMR511; 2000(1)BomCR555; (2000)1BOMLR955; [2000(85)FLR596]; 2000(1)MhLj238
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner is a Co-operative Credit Society formed by the employees of the Ammunition Factory at Khadki in Pune District. The 1st respondent is its ex-employee, who came to be dismissed from employment by an order dated 28-2-1987 following such a resolution passed by the Managing Committee on 27-2-1987. The charge against the 1st respondent was serious. It was alleged against him that he had physically assaulted the Hon. Secretary Shri Pangarkar in his office. 2. The 1st respondent being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of dismissal on 28-2-1987 filed a Complaint of Unfair Labour Practice under section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Act. He has prayed for relief of reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service. Before the Labour Court the petitioner society filed its written statement in the form o...
Chandrashekhar Narayan Karandikar Since Deceased Through His Legal Hie ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-28-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)ALLMR507; 2000(1)BomCR562; (2000)1BOMLR232; (2000)IILLJ28Bom; 2000(1)MhLj225
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. The legal heirs and representatives of the deceased petitioner are continuing to contest the present writ petition on behalf of the deceased Chandrashekhar Narayan Karandikar, who died on 3-9-1990 during the pendency of the petition. The original petitioner himself had filed the above writ petition to challenge the order of the Industrial Court at Pune passed on 5-9-1989 whereby the petitioner's complaint of Unfair Labour Practice was dismissed. On the death of the petitioner his legal heirs have comeon record. In the present case since the petitioner himself has expired the relief of reinstatement does not survive. We, therefore, have to consider whether the petitioner if alive would have been entitled to get the relief of reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service. The heirs and legal representatives would only be entitled to claim monetary benefits if they succeed in the proceedings.2. The facts are in a very narrow parameters. The deceased p...
Hemant Govind Vaidya Vs. Vasant Dada Sugar Institute and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-28-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)BomCR558; (2000)1BOMLR197; [2000(86)FLR49]
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to challenge the order of the Industrial Court at Pune passed on 5-9-1989 whereby the petitioner's complaint of Unfair Labour Practice was dismissed.2. The facts are in a very narrow parameters. The petitioner was appointed by the respondent Institute on 2-11-1984 as an Instrumental Mechanic. By his letter dated 7-7-1986 he tendered his resignation and requested the Institute to treat the same as three months notice and to pay him the legal dues. On receipt of the said letter of resignation the respondent - Institute wrote back to the petitioner on 21/24-7-1986 that his resignation was accepted with immediate effect and that his legal dues would be paid, if any, in the office. The petitioner appears to have been aggrieved by the acceptance of his resignation with immediate effect and not on the expiry of three months notice. He, therefore, filed a complaint of Unfair Labour Practice under Item 1(b)(f) of Schedule I...
Prabhakar Rajaram Gangan Vs. C.B. Asmar and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-28-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)ALLMR496; 2000(1)BomCR826; (2000)1BOMLR275; [2000(85)FLR50]; (2000)IILLJ9Bom; 2000(2)MhLj6
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner was in employment of the respondent No. 2, bank as a clerk for a total period of about 34 years. According to the petitioner his record was satisfactory and had rendered service without any blemish. The employee-employer relations between the bank and the employees are governed by the Certified Standing Orders framed under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. Its Clause 22(7) determines the age of superannuation as 55 years. The bank had informed the petitioner by its letter dated 13th January 1990 that on reaching the age of 55 years on 27th April 1999, he would stand superannuated i.e. from 30-4-1990. According to the petitioner, he was having good health and has also produced a certificate from the Civil Surgeon to that effect with a request to grant him further extension in employment as provided under the said Standing Order No. 22(7). It is the case of the petitioner that the bank did not grant him extension and intimated by its letter ...
Lakshminarayanapuram Subramanian Natarajan Vs. A.P. Lakhanikar or His ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-28-1999
Reported in: 2000(3)ALLMR275; 2000(2)BomCR164; (2000)1BOMLR273; [2000(85)FLR56]; 2000(2)MhLj103
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner being an employee of second respondent filed an application before the Labour Court under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act praying for computation of money due to him from the Company for the period from 1-12-1986 to 31-1-1987 and Rs. 1,400/-towards leave travel assistance.2. The petitioner had filed the said application saying that with effect from 29-11-1986 the respondent company had instructed him not to enter the office and the work place and had refused to give work to him at their district office at Swadeshi Mills Estate, though he was ready and willing to work as per lawful and reasonable instructions of the opponent. According to him having fulfilled the expressed or implied terms of the company, he was entitled to receive from the company full wages and benefits for the period from 1-12-1986. The petitioner therefore had prayed for direction from the Labour Court against the company for payment and recovery of the said amoun...
Standard Motor Union Vs. Shakuntala P. Shene and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-28-1999
Reported in: [2000(85)FLR428]; (2000)IIILLJ273Bom
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner company has questioned the legality and propriety of the Award dated August 29, 1988 passed by the Second Labour Court, Thane reinstating the workman with continuity of service and full back wages from August 27, 1978. Besides the challenges by the petitioner company in its Writ Petition to the award of reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service, the Company has filed an affidavit dated October 7, 1999 to update the facts and developments which appear to have transpired during the pendency of the present writ petition. In short what the affidavit says is that the company has finally closed its factory at Thane on account of acute financial difficulties as set out in the affidavit and that it was not possible for the company to reinstate the workman in service. It is prayed in the affidavit that these subsequent events also be considered while deciding the present petition.2. The 1st respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the work...
Harish Ghularam Zode Vs. M.D., Vacuum Plant and Instruments Manufactur ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-28-1999
Reported in: [2000(85)FLR417]; (2000)IIILLJ573Bom
R.J. Kochar, J.1. The Petitioner has impugned in the present Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Judgment and Order passed by the Industrial Court, Maharashtra at Pune on July 27, 1989 in Revision Application filed by the Petitioner against the Judgment and of the 2nd Labour Court, Pune on December 16, 1985 in his Complaint of Unfair Labour Practice against the Respondent No. 1. The petitioner was in the employment of the 1st Respondent as a Machinist from September 1, 1970 and was designated as Assistant Supervisor on promotion at the time when his services were terminated with effect from April 8, 1984.2. Being aggrieved by the said order of termination from employment the Petitioner filed a Complaint of Unfair Labour Practice under Section 28 of the MRTU and PULP Act,1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with items 1 (a)(b)(d)(f) and (g) of Schedule IV of the Act. The Petitioner had challenged the said order of termination on the ground that it w...
S.R. Bhosale Vs. Finolex Cables Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-28-1999
Reported in: [2000(84)FLR996]; (2000)IIILLJ579Bom
R.J. Kochar, J. 1. The petitioner workman has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the legality and validity of the award Part II dated June 10, 1991 passed by the First Labour Court at Pune in reference No. IDA No. 371 of 1986. The petitioner was employed as an Assistant Operator vide an appointment letter dated February 10, 1979. According to the petitioner, he was sincere and diligent and had always discharged his duties to the satisfaction of his superiors and had unblemished service record. The petitioner himself has claimed that as a result of his work and clean record he wasgranted annual increment from 1980 to 1985 and that within a very short span he was promoted to the grade of Senior Operator (E Grade). I have specifically mentioned these facts, averred by the petitioner himself to show that he was correctly and properly treated by the employer Company and there was nothing against him as such, though subsequently he has alle...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »