Mumbai Court April 2000 Judgments
M/S. Precipenium Valve Manufacturers Vs. the Presiding Officer and anr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-2000
Reported in: (2001)IIILLJ757Bom
ORDERR. J. Kochar, J.1. Both the above Petitions arise from a common impugned Award dated 30.12.1994 given by the Presiding Officer, 5th Labour Court, Bombay in Reference (I.D.A.) No. 294 of 1986. The parties would be referred to by me as 'Employer' and 'Workman'. Both are aggrieved by the said Award of the Labour Court and both have filed the above mentioned Writ Petitions challenging the said Award. Both the Writ Petitions are being disposed of by me by the present Common Judgment and Order. 2. The workman was in employment of the employer company for a period of about five years as a Setter-cum-Operator and his last drawn wages were Rs. 27.35 per day. It is his case that the Order dated 21.9.1985 by which he was dismissed from employment is illegal and improper. According to him, the dismissal order is a punitive order wherein the allegation of assault on a co-workman Shri B. K. Raman on the factory premises was levelled against him and he was dismissed on that ground without any ch...
Tag this Judgment!Kishore Textiles Mills Vs. Union of India, Through the Director of Sup ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)BomCR688; 2000(3)MhLj395
ORDERVijay Daga, J. 1. The award dated 24th December, 1998 delivered by Shri S.B. Sharan, Additional Legal Adviser to the Government of India, Ministry of Law and Justice, New Delhi, who was appointed as a sole arbitrator by the Director General of Supplies and Disposals, New Delhi is the subject matter of challenge in this petition.2. The facts in brief relevant to the subject matter are as under :The petitioners were invited to participate in an advertised tender enquiry for supply of drawers cotton short white at the rate of Rs. 6/- per pair of quantity of 53,495 pairs. The petitioners supplied about 33,625 pairs and failed to supply the balance quantity. The delivery period was extended by the respondents but the petitioners did not accept the same.3. The petitioners claimed to have offered 33,625 pairs with some additional quantity, which the respondents refused to accept and rejected the same. The period of delivery was extended from 15th May, 1992 to 30th September, 1992 however...
Tag this Judgment!The Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Private Limited Vs. Kherull ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)BomCR30
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. The present petition has arisen from an order dated 7-10-1994 passed by the Presiding Officer, Third Labour Court, Thane in an application filed by the respondent workman under section 33-C(2) of theIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming wages and other benefits from 2-8-1978 to 5-5-1980. According to the respondent/workman he was reporting for work and was not allowed to attend his duties by the petitioner employer and, therefore, he was entitled to get wages for the said period and other benefits such as bonus, leave wages etc. It was the case of the petitioner employer that the workman was not reporting for work and therefore was not entitled to any wages. Both the parties adduced their respective oral evidence before the Labour Court. I am strictly confining to the claim and the case of the respondent-workman in respect of his wages from 2-8-1978 to 5-5-1980. I am not concerned with any other facts of the case in respect of absence or over staying without san...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Precipenium Valve Manufacturers Vs. the Presiding Officer and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)BomCR269
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. Both the above petition arise from a common impugnedaward dated 30-12-1994 given by the Presiding Officer, 5th Labour Court, Bombay in Reference (IDA) No. 294 of 1986. The parties would be referred to by me as 'Employer' and 'Workman',. Both are aggrieved by the said award of the Labour Court and both have filed the above mentioned writ petitions challenging the said award. Both the writ petitions are being disposed of by me by the present Common Judgment and order.2. The workman was in employment of the employer company for a period of about five years as a Setter-cum-Operator and his last drawn wages were Rs. 27.35 per day. It is his case that the order dated 21-9-1985 by which he was dismissed from employment is illegal and improper. According to him, the dismissal order is a punitive order wherein the allegation of assault on a co-workman Shri B.K. Raman on the factory premises was levelled against him and he was dismissed on that ground without any charge-sh...
Tag this Judgment!Newage Fincorp (India) Ltd. Vs. Asia Corp Securities Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)BomCR273; (2000)2BOMLR624; 2000(4)MhLj134
ORDERVijay Daga, J.1. The petitioners have filed this petition to seek interim measures under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short) so as to prevent the respondents from, in any manner, alienating, encumbering, parting with possession of operating upon or creating any liabilities or carrying on any trade on the ring of the Bombay Stock Exchange (hereinafter referred to as 'Stock Exchange' for short) pursuant to, or creating any third party rights in respect of the membership card, which is a subject matter of dispute arising out of terms and conditions of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 16th February, 1998 executed between the petitioners and the respondents herein.2. The main question which this petition raises is; can the dispute relating to membership card be a subject matter of arbitration dispute under Byelaw 248(a) of the Stock Exchange, Mumbai styled as Stock Exchange Rules, Byelaws and Regulation, 1957 framed ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Sector Industries Charitable Trust Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)ALLMR306; 2002(1)BomCR725
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Heard Mr. Arvind Bobde, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. R.B. Raguwanshi, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mrs. A.S. Rasal and Mr. K.B. Choudhary, learned AGP for the State, Mr. Naresh Patil and Mr. Sanyal, learned Counsel for the Jalgaon Municipal Council and the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, (M.I.D.C. for short) respectively.2. Rule. Rule taken up for final hearing forthwith.3. Both these petitions raise common questions of law and hence, they are being disposed of by a common judgment.4. The petitioner establishments claim to the Industrial Units located in the M.I.D.C. area, Jalgaon, represented through their Association/Charitable Trust. They claim that :-(a) in view of the provisions of Articles 243-Q and 243-ZF of the Constitution of India, there has to be a separate industrial township and the industrial area cannot be a part of the Municipal area;(b) the Municipal Council has no authority in law to levy property tax on these industrial...
Tag this Judgment!Rajesh Premchand Suryawanshi Vs. Ujwala Rajesh Suryawanshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)ALLMR554; I(2002)DMC536
B.B. Vagyani, J.1. Heard Mr. D.B. Arole, learned Counsel for the petitioner. The respondent, though duly served with notice of Reference is absent.2. This is a Reference under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter referred to as the Divorce Act for the sake of brevity), for confirmation of a decree for dissolution of marriage made by the Additional District Judge/ Ahmednagar. The learned Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar passed the decree for dissolution of marriage on 23.3.1999 and after expiry of statutory period of six months, as contemplated in Proviso to Section 17 of the Divorce Act, the said decree is placed before us for confirmation. Few facts relevant for the purpose of digesting the point involved in the matter of confirmation of divorce decree, are these.3. The original petitioner Rajesh and original respondent Ujwala profess Christian religion. Petitioner Rajesh married to respondent Ujwala on 31.5.1995 as per Christian religious rites. The marriage t...
Tag this Judgment!Sreeji Colour Chem Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-27-2000
Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT590Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The modification of the Tribunal's order is requested for on the ground that a significant fact that the applicant's factory had been ordered to be detained by the Assistant Commissioner had not been raised in the stay application or during its hearing. The decisions of the Tribunal that the advocate for the applicant produced Agrasen Engineering Works v. Collector - 1990 (47) E.L.T. 90 and Annapurna Malleables Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE -1996 (88) E.L.T. 260 seems to suggest that in exceptional cases of peculiar facts and circumstances, in the interest of justice, matters may be heard again and again. Whether failure by the applicant to point out to the advocate, or being pointed out to the Advocate's failure to raise such a point by the advocate, amounts to such exceptional circumstances is highly questionable.2. Apart from this, the fact of any detention of the goods or plant having been ordered has no bearing upon the stay application. We are concerned with in the stay application giving...
Tag this Judgment!Karnataka Ginning and Pressing Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-27-2000
Reported in: (2001)77ITD478(Mum.)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the penalty of Rs. 38,10,000 imposed under section 271D of the Income-tax Act, for contravention of section 269SS of the Act.2. The assessee is a partnership firm consisting of three partners, engaged in the manufacture of cloth. The partners are Mrs. Poonamdevi Agarwal, Mr. Atulkumar Ganatra and a company by name Shree Navdurga Cotton & Yarn Co. Ltd. The company is the financing partner with 90% share in the profits and 100% share in the losses.3. While completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had received amounts in cash totalling to Rs. 38,10,000 from M/s. Vikas Exim ('VE' for short), a proprietary concern of Mrs.Shashi Agarwal who is the wife of Rameshchandra Agarwal who is the director of the company, which is a partner in the assessee firm. These amounts were received in cash between 1-4-1994 and 31-3-1995. According to the Assessing Officer the amounts had been received in contravention of ...
Tag this Judgment!Florence Gabriel Sequeira and Another Vs. M/S. Hindustan Petroleum Cor ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-27-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)BomCR681
ORDERA.B. Palkar, J.1. This is a suit for specific performance of a clause in thelease deed for renewal of lease dated 9-9-1969 from plaintiffs to defendants coupled with a prayer calling upon defendant No. 2 (the superior lessor) to enter into a lease or renew the lease in favour of defendant No. 1 as per their inter se contract. There is an alternate prayer for damages of Rs. 1,00,00,000/ - if the specific performance cannot be granted. The case of the plaintiffs in briefly is as below.2. Plaintiff No. 2 is a private limited company of which plaintiff No. 1 is the Managing Director. Defendant No. 1 Hindustan Petroleum has taken over the assets and liabilities of M/s. Caltex Oil Refining (India) Ltd. ('Caltex India' for short) and for all practical purposes stands substituted for the said company. Defendant No. 2 the Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay are owners of the suit property described particularly in the plaint.3. Defendant No. 2 by lease deed dated 22-11-1938 demised a p...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »