Mumbai Court February 2001 Judgments
Smt. Sabina Shaikh Vs. Shri M. N. Singh, Commissioner of Police, Great ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-2001
Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)814
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner who styles herself as the wife of the detenu Mohd. Siraj Jainul Abedin Shaikh, has impugned the detention order dated 19th September, 2000 passed by the 1st Respondent Mr. M. N. Singh, Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, detaining the detenu under subsection 1 of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (No. LV of 1981) (Amendment 1996).The detention order along with the grounds of detention which are also dated 19th September, 2000 was served on the detenu on 20th September, 2000 and their true copies are annexed as Annexures A and B respectively to this petition.2. The prejudicial activities of the detenu prompting the 1st Respondent to issue the impugned order are contained in the grounds of detention (Annexure 'B'). Their perusal shows that the impugned order is foun...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Warden and Company (India) Limited Vs. Akhil Maharashtra Kamgar U ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)ALLMR82; 2001(3)BomCR375; (2001)2BOMLR959; [2001(90)FLR233]; (2001)IILLJ217Bom; 2001(2)MhLj484
S. A. Bobde. J. 1. These two Letters Patent Appeals arise out of the same complaint i.e. Complaint (U.L.P.) No. 166 of 1993 instituted on behalf of the workmen against their employer M/s. Warden and Co. (I) Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the 'employer'.2. The main question in these appeals is whether an unrecognised union is entitled to appear and act on behalf of the workmen of an industry governed by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the 'I. D. Act', in a complaint relating to unfair labour practices other than those specified by Items 2 and 6 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, hereinafter referred to as the 'M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act'.3. The complainants prayed for a declaration that the employer has engaged in unfair labour practice under Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act. The workmen also, prayed for wages from February 1992 till the date of fi...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Hotel Rosalia (P.) Ltd. Vs. M/S. Metro Hotels and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)BomCR400; (2001)3BOMLR1; 2001(2)MhLj881
V. C. Daga, J.1. This petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20.10.1986 passed in Civil Appeal No. 159 of 1984 by the District Judge. Pune, whereby the judgment and decree for eviction passed in Civil Suit No. 2260 of 1978 dated 27.10.1983 was set aside by the 3rd Additional Small Cause Judge, Pune.FACTS IN BRIEF 2. The facts in narrow compass are as under :The petitioner-plaintiff is a private limited Company having its registered office at 14, Cannought Road, Pune. The respondent No. 1 (Tenant) is a partnership firm represented by its partners; the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (original defendant Nos. 2 and 3 herein). The parties hereinafter referred to in their original capacities in which they were arrayed in the original suit, The Plaintiffs case :3. The Plaintiff filed a suit being Civil Suit No. 2260 of 1978 in the Court of 3rd Additional Small Cause Court Judge. Pune, for eviction of tenant and possession of the suit premises under the provisions of the Bombay Re...
Tag this Judgment!Manilal Premji Gala Vs. Boman P. Irani and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)ALLMR634; (2001)3BOMLR15
B. H. Srikrishna. J.1. This Appeal is directed against an order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the Notice of Motion taken out by the first and the second Respondents for stay of Suit No. 3699 of 1995 under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, pending hearing and final disposal of Suit No. 1750 of 1994 filed in the Small Causes Court, Mumbai. The learned Single Judge by his order dated 4th August 2000 dismissed Notice of Motion No. 1819 of 2000 with costs. Hence, this Appeal.2. The Appellant (Original Defendant No. 1) had filed a declaratory suit No. 1750 of 1994 in the Court of Small Causes, Mumbai. The case pleaded therein is that the first and third Respondents are landlords of the premises being Shop No. 7 situated on the ground floor of the building known as Zaveri Gallery, situated at 63. Bhulabhai Desai Road, Bombay 400026 and that the Appellant is a tenant of the premises. That suit seeks declaration of the status and rights of tenancy of the Appellant in respect of t...
Tag this Judgment!Association of Engineering Workers Vs. Crompton Greaves Limited and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)BomCR156; (2001)3BOMLR171; [2001(89)FLR1047]; (2001)IILLJ529Bom
ORDERR. J. Kochar, J. 1. The order impugned by the petitioner is only an interim order passed by the Industrial Court 1n a complaint of unfair labour practice filed by the petitioner union against the respondents under Section 28 of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 read with Items 5 of Schedule II and 2, 3, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Act. The petitioner union had filed an application for interim orders under section 30(2} of the Act praying for a direction to the respondents not to shift, sell or give plant and machineryand one division in any manner whatsoever and to relocate all the machines at their original places and that to start working of the departments viz., machine shop, dye casting, winding shop, tool room, maintenance and steel department and further not to sell, lease out or part with the land, premises and structure M-l Division in whatsoever manner. The Industrial Court heard both the parties and passed the impugned order. From the order of the Industrial Court it ...
Tag this Judgment!All India Federation of Tax Practitioners and ors. and Indian Institut ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-2001
Reported in: (2001)168CTR(Bom)24; [2002]256ITR401(Bom)
A.P. Shah, J. 1. In these two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners who are associations of tax practitioners, chartered accountants and architects challenge the constitutional validity of Section 116 of the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1998. The Act envisages service tax at the rate of 5 per cent. of the value of taxable service provided to any person by the person responsible for collecting service tax. The persons providing service are liable to recover tax and pay the same to the Central Government under Section 68 of the Act. The service tax was introduced by the Finance Act, 1994. The ambit of the Act was widened by the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1998 substituting Section 66 of the Act thereby including service provided by the architects and practicing chartered accountants, etc. 2. The challenge to the vires of the Act is on the grounds of lack of legislative competence and violation of rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadeo S/O Rajaramji Mahadule and ors. Etc. Vs. State of Maharashtra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Bom434; 2001(3)ALLMR72; 2001(3)MhLj379
J.N. Patel, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing the Circular dated 24-10-1986 issued by the Government of Maharashtra, Revenue and Forests Department, according to which it was clarified that narpatti, chatai, petara {bamboo carpet) are forest produce within the meaning of Section 2(4)(b)(i) read with Section 2(6) and 2(7) of the Indian Forests Act, 1927.3. Our attention is drawn to a decision given by the Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Lohiya v. State of Maharashtra (1996) 2 Mh LJ 672 : air 1996 SCW 4111, in which it is held that bamboo mat prepared from bamboo is not a forest produce under Section 2(4) of the Indian Forests Act, 1927. It is held that the expression 'forest produce' does not take within its fold an article or thing which is totally different from forest produce, having a distinct character. In the case of Suresh Loniya, the Apex Court was considering as to whether bamboo mat is a forest produ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwan Tapiram Sapkale and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)BomCR689
V.K. Barde, J.1. Heard Shri Brahme, learned Counsel for the applicants; and Shri Bajpai, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the respondent.2. The three applicants have filed Criminal Appeal No. 244 of 1995 which is pending in this Court against the order of conviction and sentence passed against them by the learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, in Sessions Case No. 60 of 1991 and each of them is convicted of offence punishable under section 302, read with section 34, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000, in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for six months.3. On filing this Criminal Appeal against the order of conviction and sentence, the applicants also filed application for bail under section 389, Code of Criminal Procedure. As per the order passed by this Court on 18-12-1995, all the three applicants are released on bail. It means that their sentence is suspended till the final disposal of the a...
Tag this Judgment!Malanbai Ratnaparkhi Vs. Govind R. Motade and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-2001
Reported in: 2002BomCR(Cri)481; 2002CriLJ1188
ORDER1. Heard learned Advocates for the parties.2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent.3. The petitioner challenges the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, at Latur in STCC No. 6935 of 1993 on 19th July, 1996 and confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Latur on 18th January, 2000 in Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 1996. The petitioner has been convicted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 28,000/- and in default, to undergo S.I. for two months.4. The facts in brief, relevant for the decision are that the respondent No. 1 filed complaint in the Court of C.J.M., Latur on 27-12-1993 complaining that the petitioner, on the day of Gudi Padwa of 1993, had borrowed a sum of Rs. 14,000/- with assurance to return the same in June, 1993 and accordingly, had issued two cheques, one dated 21-6-1993 for Rs. 5,000/- and another dated 15-7-1993 for Rs. 9,000/- in favour of th...
Tag this Judgment!The Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation through the General Manager, t ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-2001
Reported in: (2002)104BOMLR230
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. The Petitioners are a statutory authority constituted under the provisions of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 and is engaged in public utility services of supplying electricity and transport facility to the citizens of Mumbai through its Bombay Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking. It is aggrieved by the Judgment and Order of the Industrial Court, Maharashtra at Mumbai passed in Appeal (IC) No. 160 of 1997 on 17.9.1998 in exercise of its Appellate Jurisdiction of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946.2. The Petitioners had employed through its Undertaking the Respondent No. 2 Shri Chandrakant Kashid, as Bus Conductor attached to Colaba Bus Depot. Acting on a Report dated 29.11.1995 submitted by the Asstt. Ticket and Cash Department that the said Conductor had incurred shortage of Rs. 56.75 ps in his cash collection during the month of September, 1995. A charge-sheet was issued to the said Conductor for the misconduct under the Standing Orders ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »