Mumbai Court August 2000 Judgments
Govinddas W. Shah Vs. Administrator, Saswad Mali Sahakari Sakhar Karkh ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)BomCR415; [2001(88)FLR377]; (2002)IVLLJ281Bom
Vijay Daga, J.1. This petition is directed against the order of the learned Member, Industrial Court, Pune dated July 31, 1984 passed in Appeal (I.C/P.N.) Nos. 19, 20 and 21 of 1983 under the provisions of Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short).Background Facts:The brief facts as set out in the petition are as under: The petitioner was employed in the year 1965 by respondent No. 2 Saswad Mali Sugar Factory Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'Company' for short) as Electric Foreman on the terms and conditions set out in the order of appointment dated January 2, 1965. 2. On March 31, 1971, respondent No. 2 entered into an agreement of lease with respondent No. 1 Saswad Mali Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited, a co-operative society (hereinafter referred to as the 'first agreement' for short) and the management of respondent No. 2 was transferred to respondent No. 1 for a period of two years commencing from August 1, 1971. The petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Ganpat Bhoite Vs. Rampyari Suchitram Gupta (Smt.) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)ALLMR713; 2001(2)BomCR158
J.N. Patel, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner landlord has impugned the decision of the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, under which, the judgment and decree passed by the Judge of the Small Causes Court in favour of the plaintiff landlord directing the defendant tenant to vacate and handover peaceful possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff, came to be dismissed. 2. The plaintiff landlord was required to file suit against the defendants seeking a decree for eviction against his tenants on the grounds that the tenants failed to pay monthly rent from 1-9-1960 till the giving of the demand notice dated 4-12-1970. The demand notice was issued under section 12(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as Bombay Rent Act, 1947). The landlord was required to join the original tenant Smt. Rampyari Suchitram Gupta as defendant No. 1 and her son Mevalal Gupta as party defendant No. 2. It appears th...
Tag this Judgment!Rama New Prints and Paper Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-2000
Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT473Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellant asked for, and was granted on 02.04.1992, a licence to import a complete used recondition newsprint manufacturing plant. The plant in disassembled condition was imported in January 1993 and clearance allowed by the Custom House, Kandla after accepting the licence produced. Investigation were subsequently carried out by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence which led it to believe that age of some of the components of the plant was in excess of seven years which was the maximum age permitted in paragraph 28 of the import policy in force for import of second hand goods. The plant was therefore seized by the customs department.2. The importer thereafter approached the licensing authority and was able to persuade it to amend the import licence. Amendments were carried out twice. The first amendment made on 05.02.1992, provided that the licence would cover the import of goods more than seven years old, but restricted such permission only to machines which were already im...
Tag this Judgment!Narendra Kumar Khare Vs. S. Gopalakrishnan and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)ALLMR725; 2001(1)BomCR406; [2000(87)FLR989]; (2001)ILLJ487Bom
B.P. Singh, C.J.1. The Petitioner is a very senior officer of the Respondent-Bank of India. He has filed the instant Writ Petition after a show cause notice was issued to him on November 22, 1999 under the proviso to Regulation 11 of the Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976, calling upon him to show cause why the major penalty of, dismissal from service be not imposed against him under Regulation 4(j) of the Discipline and Appeal Regulations, since there was a judicial finding recorded by a competent Court of law that he has committed acts of sexual molestation against two female Japanese employees of the Bank and of rape against one female Japanese employee of the Bank. As a result of the said finding recorded by a competent Court of law in Japan, the Petitioner and the Bank have been held jointly liable for payment of damages and' costs. Another notice was issued to the petitioner on the same day, informing him that the financial loss caused to the...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Customs Vs. Gujarat State Fertilizers and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT820Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Vide Order No. C-11/2851/99/WZB/C.II dated 1-11-99, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Collector of Customs, Ahmedabad. The issue involved was whether the principle of unjust enrichment would apply where the goods were not sold by the importer but were captively consumed. At the time when the Tribunal passed this order the judgment of the Mumbai High Court in the case of Solar Pesticides v. U.O.I.-1992 (57) E.L.T. 201 was taken to be the settled law on this issue, in spite of the fact that the revenue had filed an appeal against this judgment. In the cited order by the Tribunal following an earlier judgment reproduced in Commissioner v. Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. [1999 (34) R.L.T. 694], the Tribunal observed as under : "In the judgment it was held that where the goods were not sold but were captively consumed, the law of unjust enrichment will not apply".2. The present application for rectification of mistake states that the word "not" appearing at ...
Tag this Judgment!H.K. Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus. (Prev.)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-2000
Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT828Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner confiscating the ship M.V. Vasility Vereshchecin under Section 115(2) of the Act and permitted its redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 3 lakhs and imposing penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on the appellant who was the agent of the master of the vessel.2. The Collector has found that the ship carried 13 motor cars for import of which valid licence were not produced. The cars were surrendered of the owner thereof to the Customs. The Collector found that the vessel was used carrying smuggled goods and ordered confiscation and imposed penalty.3. The advocate for the appellant explains that the car was brought by the crew members of the ship when it called at Rotterdam. At that time, its itinerary was to take it to Bulgus port in Rumania and thereafter to Vladivostok in Russia. After the ship left the Rumanian port the owners sold the ship for breaking and the captain was asked to take the ship to Alang for breaking up. It is in these circumstan...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Panduranga Mahadeo Bhosale Since Deceased Through His Heirs Smt. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-2000
Reported in: (2001)1BOMLR113; 2001(1)MhLj221
T. K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. Heard counsel for the Petitioner and Respondent. 2. The Petitioner approached this Court challenging the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal passed in TNC/192/85 dated 5.7.1987 whereby the Petitioner's revision application was dismissed by the Tribunal. 3. The short facts of the case is that the suit premises belong to one Shri Mahadev Krishna Bhosale. He died in 1940 leaving his minor sons Panduranga and Sridhar. On the death of Mr. Bhosale to safeguard the interest of the minors namely Panduranga and Sridhar, Mr. Bhairu, father of the Respondents herein, was appointed as Guardian vide order passed in Misc. Application No. 44/46 to look after the property and he was put into possession of the property. On the attainment of the majority, the said Panduranga and Sridhar applied for restoration of the land to them from Mr. Bhairu and by order dated 15.9.1958 the Court has directed the Collector to return the property to Panduranga and Sridhar....
Tag this Judgment!Shramik Utkarsha Sabha Vs. Afcons Infrastructure Limited and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-2000
Reported in: [2001(89)FLR124]; (2001)ILLJ654Bom
B.N. Srikrishna & Ranjana Desai, JJ. 1. We have perused the record and heard Mr. Cama, learned counsel for the appellant atgreat length. 2. The order passed by the learned single Judge, which affirms the order of the Industrial Court, is generally correct except that the ascertainment of the union representing majority of the employees of the 1st Respondent shall be carried out in respect of all the existing sites. As a consequence of such ascertainment, the 1st Respondent shall be free to negotiate with the union holding such majority membership amongst the employees in all the sites, and enter into a settlement with such union. Such settlement shall not be binding on the members of the other union who shall be free to raise an industrial dispute. The ascertainment of the majority of the membership shall be only for the purpose of disposal of the complaint before the Industrial Court and, shall not, in any way, prejudice either the appellant or the 2nd Respondent union in any applicat...
Tag this Judgment!Pauni Shikshan Sanstha and ors. Vs. Sunil Rajaram Uparikar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)ALLMR214; 2001(2)BomCR205; [2001(88)FLR715]; (2001)IIILLJ756Bom
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Rule, Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.By the impugned order dated April 10, 2000, the Industrial Court has allowed the application for amendment filed by the respondents, seeking further relief of reinstatement under Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act.2. The respondents filed complaint before the Industrial Court at Nagpur under Section 28 read with Section 30 of the Maharashtra Act No. 1 of 1972. The said complaint has been resisted by the petitioners by taking a specific stand that the petitioner is not an industry and in any case, relief sought in the complaint is exclusively triable by the School Tribunal. In the circumstances, preliminary objection was raised and the Tribunal was called upon to address itself to the said preliminary issue before proceeding in the matter. Instead of deciding the said preliminary issue, the Tribunal proceeded to allow the amendment application. The question of allowing the amendment would arise only if...
Tag this Judgment!Rambhau S/O Ramchandra Samarth Vs. Arti W/O Ramrao Ingole (Smt.) and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)BomCR206
1. Rule.Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.This writ petition takes exception to the order passed by the Member of the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Mumbai, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Appeal Nos. 105 of 1996 and 108 of 1996 dated 8th July, 1999. The learned member has passed that order on the application filed by the respondents 1 and 2 in the said appeal, praying for the following relief :'It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to fix the appeal before the Division Bench at Mumbai on any date and further till its disposal for the final hearing, in the interest of justice or in alternative place it for hearing before Single Bench at Nagpur.'The learned Member of the Appellate Court, after considering the rival submissions, was of the view that such an application ought to have been filed before the President of the Appellate Court; and since no such application was moved by either party, preferred to direct that the appeal shall be hear...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »