Mumbai Court April 2002 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.
Raghunath Kisan Kale Vs. M.S.E.B. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR362; 2002(5)BomCR117; [2002(95)FLR553]
R.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 18th January, 1994 passed by the Industrial Court, Nashik in Complaint U.L.P. No. 874 of 1989 filed by him against the respondents under section 28 read with Items 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, 1971, challenging the order of punishment imposed on him by way of withholding of increments for two years on permanent basis. According to the petitioner the charges levelled against him were false and fabricated. He also alleged that the enquiry was not fair and proper and the aforesaid punishment, therefore, as illegal and improper and amounted to unfair labour practice.2. The respondents appeared before the Industrial Court and contested the complaint by filing their written statement. It was contended by them that the petitioner was committing acts of misconduct and he was not doing his work properly and that there were several complaints from the villagers and the officers had to fa...
Superintending Engineering Public Works Division and anr. Vs. Gajanan ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR746; 2002(5)BomCR612; [2002(95)FLR731]
R.J. Kochar, J.1. The Superintending Engineer and the Executive Engineer, Public Works Division, Kolhapur, both are aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Industrial Court in revision application on 17th June, 1994 under section 44 of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, 1971. The present petitioners were the revision applicants before the Industrial Court challenging the judgment and order of the Labour Court granting reinstatement without backwages and continuity of service to the concerned respondent employee who had filed a complaint of unfair labour practice under section 28 of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act read with Item 1 of Schedule IV in which the Labour Court had passed the order as aforesaid.2. It appears from the facts narrated in the record that the concerned employee, the respondent No. 1, was appointed on and from 10th December, 1981 as a typist-cum-clerk. It is an admitted position that he continued in employment with several breaks till 23rd April, 1984 when he wa...
Marathwada Sarwa Shramik Sanghatna, Through Its Secretary, Udhav S/O N ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)BomCR650; (2002)3BOMLR273; [2002(95)FLR727]; (2002)IIILLJ820Bom; 2002(3)MhLj760
1.The Assistant Director, Department of SocialForestry of the Government of Maharashtra is theRespondent in this petition. The petitioner is aregistered Trade Union and the employees employed in theoffice of the respondent are the members of thepetitioner - Trade Union. The petitioner Union and itsmembers are alleged to have staged demonstrations infront of the office of the respondent. It is alleged bythe respondent that the petitioner Union and its membersare shouting slogans, holding Dharnas outside theoffice premises and are squatting in the tents erectednear the entrance gate of the office. On theseallegations, the respondent filed a Complaint underSection 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of TradeUnions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act,1971 (for short 'M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. or simply theAct') alleging that the petitioners were indulging inunfair labour practice under entry no.5 of Schedule IIIof the Act.2. The respondent filed an application for interimrelief restraini...
Ramsingh Hiralal Sulane, Aged 22 Years, Occ. Student, R/O Dongaon, Tq. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)MhLj784
D.G. Karnik, J.1. The petitioner claims that he belongs to RajputBhamta caste/tribe, which is recognised as 'V.J.N.T.'.The petitioner obtained the caste/tribe certificate fromthe Tahsildar, Gangapur, District Aurangabad, in whichpetitioners caste/tribe was certified to be 'RajputBhamta'. On the basis of the said certificate, thepetitioner sought admission to the seat reserved for'V.J.N.T.' in the Government Engineering College, Pune.After admission, the caste/tribe certificate, producedby the petitioner, was sent for scrutiny to the Directorof Social Welfare, Maharashtra State, Pune, who was thenauthorised to scrutinise and validate or invalidate thecaste/tribe certificate. The Director, Social Welfare,after inquiry and after giving an opportunity of hearingto the petitioner, held that the petitioner failed toestablish that he belongs to 'Rajput Bhamta' and,therefore, invalidated his caste/tribe certificate.This order of the Director of Social Welfare passed on24.01.1985 was challenged...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Mumbai Vs. Apar Limited, Mumbai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)BomCR521; (2002)3BOMLR883; [2004]267ITR705(Bom); 2002(3)MhLj192
ORDERIntimation issued under section 16(1)(a)(i)--Return claiming certain wealth being not chargeable filed 'without prejudice' to assessee's right--Assessee filed appeal denying its liability to tax under the ActCatch Note:The assessing officer accepted the return filed by the assessee and end the intimation under section 16(1)(a)(i) without adjudicating the issues on merits. Accordingly 'under protest' the same was accepted by the assessee and tax was paid. However, subsequently, the assessee filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) which was dissmissed on the ground that the assessee was not a aggrieved person and intimation issued under section 16(1)(a)(i) is not order, therefore, same was not appealable. 'Without prejudice' implies future rectification in accordance with law hence the act of filing a return under protest and/or without prejudice itself is sufficient to convey to the assessing officer that the assessee is not liable to be assessed under the Act. Therefore, in the...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)BomCR511; (2002)175CTR(Bom)443; [2002]256ITR395(Bom)
H. L. Gokhale, J. 1. Heard Mr. Desai for the appellant Mr. Vyas appears for the respondents.2. This appeal, at the instance of the Revenue under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeks to challenge the judgment and order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated January 14, 1999.Facts in brief 3. The facts leading to this appeal and the grounds raised therein are as follows :The respondent is a public limited company engaged in the manufacture of chemicals, salt and detergents in its factories. One of such manufacturing unit is at Mithapur in Gujarat. Subsequently, it set up is a subsidiary company known as 'Tata Fertilizers', but this subsidiary company amalgamated with the respondent under the order of this court passed on a company application on September 7, 1989. The respondent thereafter set up a fertilizer plant at Babrala in the State of U. P. Certain deductions were claimed by the respondent for the assessment year 1992-93. The Assessing Officer disallowed some...
Murtuzakhan Mahabobkhan Since Deceased Through L.Rs. Rashida Begum and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR499; 2002(4)BomCR530; (2002)3BOMLR949; 2002(3)MhLj399
D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Shri Anjan De, learned Counsel for the applicant, and Shri Naik, learned Counsel for the non-applicant.2. In the present revision, order dated 25-10-1994 passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Chandrapur below Exh. 4 in Special Civil Suit No. 132/1994 is assailed.3. Shri Anjan De, learned Counsel for the applicant, states that the non-applicant/plaintiff has filed a suit against the applicant/defendant for recovery of Rs. 1,50,000/- and during pendency of the suit, the non-applicant/plaintiff moved an application under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure for attachment of property before judgment. The said application is allowed by the Court below by the impugned order and applicant is directed to furnish security to the tune of Rs. 1,60,000/- with solvent surety in like amount in the trial Court.4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the impugned order is bad in law since non-applicant/plaintiff has not b...
Annabai Devram Kini and ors. Vs. Mithilal Daisangar Singh and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Bom332; 2002(3)ALLMR364; 2002(4)BomCR533; 2002(3)MhLj507
A.P. Shah, J.1. The short question that arises in these two appeals is whether the suit for specific performance of the contract abates in its entirety when one of the plaintiffs being party to a joint, indivisible contract, dies and his heirs and legal representatives are not brought on record within the specified time and whether it is permissible for the heirs and legal representatives of such plaintiff to apply after several years to bring themselves on record and set aside the abatement of the suit only as against the deceased plaintiff. 2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows :-- The present suit for specific performance was filed by the plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 3 on the basis of an agreement of sale in respect of the immovable property described in Exhibit A to the plaint. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff No. 1 died on 5-4-1997. The plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 did not take any steps to bring the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff on record. On 28...
R.K. Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR434; 2002(4)BomCR567; (2002)4BOMLR246; [2002(94)FLR956]; 2002(3)MhLj561
ORDERA.P. Shah, J.1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent Rule is made returnable forthwith.2. The petitioner is a sailor in the Indian Navy holding the rank of Engine Room Apprentice III (E.R.A. III). The petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Navy as an Artificer Apprentice from 6-1-1990. He was engaged for a period of 20 years.The petitioner along with other three applicants filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court being Civil Writ Petition No. 6470 of 1999 inter alia challenging the provisions of Section 11(2) of the Navy Act, 1957 and Regulation No. 269(1A) of the Navy Service Regulations, 1965 as being unconstitutional on the ground that they violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The contention of the petitioner in the said writ petition was that the petitioner was discriminated against by being compelled to engage for a period of 20 years instead of 15 years like the other sailors. The said writ petition was dismissed by the Delhi High Court on 15-2-2000 ho...
Cwt Vs. Apar Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-2002
Reported in: [2002]122TAXMAN631(Bom)
V.C. Daga, J. This appeal under section 27A of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') is directed against the order of the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench 'B', in IT Appeal No. 44 (Mum) of 1997, dated 8-10-1999 holding that section 23(1A)(a) of the Act provides for a right of appeal against an intimation issued under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act so as to object to the amount of net wealth determined under the Act.FACTS2. The facts in a nutshell, as stated by the appellant, are as follows :The assessee filed the return of wealth for the assessment year 1992-93 under protest. According to the assessee, the immovable property being office premises at Maker Chambers III, Nariman Point and land being non-agricultural land at village Durmal, Nadiad, were not chargeable assets under the Act. The office premises had been temporarily let out. The assessee held shares of the co-operative society in which the said office premises were located. The shares held in a co-operative so...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »