Mumbai Court June 2000 Judgments
Madhukar Baburao Achari Vs. Shikshak Smarak Sanstha and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)BomCR796; [2000(86)FLR825]
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the award dated 23-7-87 given by the Labour Court, Ahmednagar, rejecting the Reference (I.D.A.) No. 28/85 referred by the State Government for adjudication of the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner against the respondent College praying for reinstatement with full backwages and continuity of service. The Labour Court has rejected the reference for want of jurisdiction to entertain the industrial dispute in view of the other independent remedy available to the petitioner under the Poona University Act of 1974.2. The facts are in a very narrow compass. By an order dated 7-1-1982 the petitioner was appointed as a peon in the prescribed scale with effect from 1-7-1981 on purely temporary basis and the appointment was subjected to approval of the Director of Education. It was also stipulated that his services were liable to be terminated without any notice and without assigning any reasons. It is an admitted position that he cont...
Tag this Judgment!PravIn Krishna Jadhav and ors. Vs. Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)ALLMR341; 2001(1)BomCR18; [2001(88)FLR260]; (2001)IIILLJ1Bom
S.S. Nijjar, J. 1. The petitioners were all employees of the respondent. The petitioners Nos. 1 to 5 have worked during the following periods and assigned work in the following departments.Petitioner No. 1 PeriodDepartment1.09-10-86 to 07-11-1986ANP (Elect.)2.10-11-86 to 21-11-1986DF Office3.22-03-87 to 03-04-1987Tr. IV Bagging4.13-04-87 to 05-05-1987Soil Testing5.20-05-87 to 05-06-1987Soil Testing6.08-06-87 to 29-06-1987Soil Testing7.05-12-87 to 31-12-1987Tr. IV Bagging8.01-01-88 to 19-09-1988Tr. V Bagging9.20-10-88 to 21-11-1988Tr. V. Bagging10.27-12-88 to 24-03-1989Tr. V. Bagging11.15-05-89 to 31-05-1989Old Bagging 12.01-06-89 to 11-06-1989Tr. IV. BaggingPetitioner No. 2 PeriodDepartment1.08-12-86 to 28-01-1987Tr. V Bagging2.10-03-87 to 03-04-1987Tr. V Bagging3.01-05-87 to 25-05-1987Tr. V Bagging4.27-08-87 to 26-09-1987Tr. V Bagging5.06-1 1-87 to 12-11-1987Tr. IV Bagging6.01-01-88 to 19-10-1988Tr. IV Bagging7.27-12-88 to 24-03-1989Tr. IV Bagging8.19-05-89 to 31-05-1989Old Bagging9.0...
Tag this Judgment!The Maharashtra State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. Vs. Asho ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)ALLMR61; 2001(1)BomCR235
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. The petitioner is an Apex Land Development Bank. The petitioner has a branch office at Sangli. The respondent No. 1 secured loan from the petitioner bank for a sum of Rs. 18,000/- out of which he purchased 4 cows. The loan was extended by the petitioner bank to the respondent No. 1 sometime in May, 1980. The said cows were security for the loan. Respondent No. 1 had insured the said cows on May 24, 1980. The insurance was to expire on May 24, 1981. However, it is the case of respondent No. 1, that the petitioner as well as the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who were under obligation to extend or renew the insurance, did not take necessary steps. Unfortunately, on May 25, 1981 one of the cow owned by the respondent No. 1 died. This fact was brought to the notice of the insurance company by the petitioner bank by letter dated May 30, 1981. By the said letter, petitioner also made a request to the insurance company to renew the insurance policy, however, the insurance comp...
Tag this Judgment!Vinodkumar Bansal Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)ALLMR231; 2001(1)BomCR230
R.M. Lodha, J.1. The order passed by the Returning Officer, Agrasen Co-operative Bank Ltd., Yerawada, Pune (respondent No-3 herein) on 17-6-98 rejecting the nomination form of the present petitioner for election to the managing committee of Agrasen Co-operative Bank (respondent No. 4 herein) and the order dated 26-6-98 passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Respondent No. 2 herein) confirming the order of respondent No. 3 are under challenge in this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.2. The petitioner is member of respondent . No. 4 Bank which is Urban Co-operative Bank and is notified society under section 73-IC of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The election programme for electing the managing committee members of the respondent No. 4 Society for the tenure of 1998-2003 was declared by the Registrar and the respondent No. 3 was appointed as Returning Officer. According to the election programme, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Bhiku Kundalika Gadhave and anr. Vs. G.B. Deshmukh and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)ALLMR78; 2001(1)BomCR237
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the landlord challenging the decision of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune dated July 31, 1986 in TEN/80A/70.2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner filed regular civil suit bearing No. 111 of 1977 for redemption of mortgage with regard to the agricultural property viz. the suit lands bearing Survey Nos. 348/11-A, 348/10-B, 9/3-B, 11/3-B, 352/4-B situated at village Nandgaon, Taluka Satara. The suit was filed before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Satara in relation to the transaction dated June 2, 1953. The original defendant No. 3 (respondent No. 3) raised a plea that the said transaction was not a mortgage but a sale. It was further contended that prior to the said transaction Bandu Amruta, that is, the alleged mortgagor, was the tenant and his rights should not be defeated in view of the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter ref...
Tag this Judgment!Special Engg. (Halol) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-2000
Reported in: (2001)(127)ELT766Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appeal taken up for disposal after waiving deposit with consent of both sides.2. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), dismissing the appeal before him against the order of the Deputy Commissioner confirming the duty on the brass scrap which arises in the appellant's factory in the course of manufacture of parts of carburettors from brass rods. The Deputy Commissioner has held duty to be payable by denying the benefit of Notification 172/84, which exempts scraps from payment of duty, on the ground that the condition contained in the proviso (1) to the notification that goods should have been manufactured out of articles of brass specified in notification on which duty had been paid, had not been complied with.3. The second clause of the proviso to the notification was also to the effect that exemption from duty on waste and scrap of copper which arises from goods falling under any sub-heading of the tariff other than those mentioned in Clause (1), manufactu...
Tag this Judgment!Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Sona Synthetics
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-2000
Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT756Tri(Mum.)bai
2. These applications arises out of the orders of the Tribunal holding that the appellants before it were not liable to penalty under Rule 209A for their having dealt with goods which were liable to duty under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957. The Tribunal had applied the ratio of the Delhi High Court's judgment in Pioneer Silk Mills v. Union of India -1995 (85) E.L.T. 507.3. The departmental representative points out that in the light of the Tribunal's order in applications E/RA-111 to 118/99, dated 9-2-2000 in CCE v. Subhash Textiles and Ors. The Tribunal in the earlier order had referred the question on an identical issue to Gujarat High Court. We note that the reference that was made to the Gujarat High Court was on the basis that earlier an identical question had been referred on an order passed by that High Court directing such reference. These considerations will not apply to the facts before us. The appellants before the Tribunal are resi...
Tag this Judgment!Abc Tube Company Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT647Tri(Mum.)bai
1. On an appeal filed against the order of the Collector confirming the demand for duty of Rs. 11,30,517/-, confiscating some goods and imposing penalty, the Tribunal set aside that order remanding the case to the Collector for consideration of a reconciliation statement and explanation submitted by the assessee to support its claim that goods had not been manufactured by it, but purchased from outside. This order of the Collector which was in pursuance of this directions is challenged in appeal before us.2. The appellant is absent and unrepresented despite notice. We therefore read the memorandum of appeal and other related papers and heard the departmental representative.3. In impugned order before us the Collector has reduced the duty demand to Rs. 4,42,259/-. He has also limited confiscation to H Rods valued Rs. 61,300/- and of brass shells of Rs. 17,800/- with an option to redeem them on payment of fine of Rs. 20,000/- and imposed penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/-.4. It is contended in t...
Tag this Judgment!Gurupad Lachamanna Chintalwar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)ALLMR84; (2001)3BOMLR553; 2001(1)MhLj41
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This group of petitions involves common questions to be decided by us and hence they are heard together on 29.4.2000 and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The petitioners are sugar cane growers within the area reserved for the respondent No. 2 - sugar factory as per the Maharashtra Sugar Factories (Reservation of Areas and Regulation of Crushing and Sugar Supply) Order, 1984 (for short 'Reservation Order') issued under the powers conferred on the State Government by the Sugar cane (Control) Order 1966. The first petitions i.e. Writ Petition No. 2191 of 1995 and Writ Petition No. 2195 of 1995 came to be presented before this Court on 26th May, 1995 seeking for directions against the Karkhana to harvest and crush the sugar cane grown by the petitioners. By an order dated 31.5.1995, the learned Vacation Judge, while issuing notices to the respondents, gave interim directions to the Karkhana to harvest, transportand crush the sugar cane of the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Govind Mahadev Bandekar Vs. Smt. P. Cusum @ Jankibai and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)ALLMR699; 2000(4)BomCR694
ORDERF.I. Rebello, J.1. Appellant is original respondent. Respondents 1 and 2 are original applicants. Respondents 1 and 2 filed an application for eviction of the appellant herein on the ground that the appellant was in arrears of rent. By judgment dated 31st October 1985, the Rent Controller held that the appellant was entitled to the benefit under sub-section (3) of section 22 of the Rent Control Act and, therefore, no order of eviction could be passed on the ground sought in the application dated 19th March 1985. Respondents 1 and 2 aggrieved by the order preferred a review before the Rent Controller. The said review was dismissed by order of 15th July 1987. The Rent Controller gave a finding that he could not invoke Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and assume to himself the power of review. In these circumstances, he held that the application for review fails. Apart from that he also appreciated the matter on merits and dismissed the review application.2. Aggrieved,...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »