Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1973)IILLJ558Bom; 1974MhLJ83
Kantawala, C.J.1. Damodar Shantaram, Nadkarni, the petitioner, has filed this appeal against the judgment and order of Vimadalal, J., dated July 3, 1969, whereby he dismissed the petition that was filed by the petitioner. At the material time the petitioner was employed as a tutor in Chemical Pathology in the Department of Pathology and Bacteriology of the Topiwala National Medical College and he worked in that capacity until he was dismissed from service in October, 1964. In the month of July, 1963 certain irregularities were suspected in the affairs of the Stores Department of the Pathology Department and investigation was started and, in the course of the investigation, certain statements were recorded including that of the petitioner. After completion of the preliminary enquiry on December 28, 1963, G. W. Shiveshwarkar, Officer on Special Duty, was appointed as Enquiry Officer to hold a departmental enquiry. On January 4, 1964, the petitioner was suspended. On or after February 4, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1990]69CompCas65(Bom)
S.N. Variava, J.1. This is a company petition under section 155 of the Companies Act, 1956. Before stating the facts of this petition, it is necessary to set out in brief the nature of the controversy involved in this petition.2. The first respondent-company is a private limited company and the first petitioner is one of the founder-members thereof. Under the articles of association, the first petitioner has a right of pre- emption, i.e., a right to purchase any shares of the first respondent company in the event of the same being sold by any other member. The petitioners challenge the transfer by respondents Nos.2,3 and 4 of 3,417 shares and 93 shares in favour of respondents Nos. 5,6,8,11,12,13and 14. The petitioners also challenge t he issue and allotment of 17,666 shares in favour of respondents Nos.11,12,13,15 and 16. It must be mentioned at this stage itself that both Mr.Cooper and Mr.Chagla have, in their usual fairness, admitted that respondents Nos.11 to 16 re companies owned ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1980(41)FLR171]; (1981)IILLJ410Bom
1. The petitioner is an ex-employee of the Bombay Port Trust (B.P.T.). The petitioner was originally employed as a tally clerk and in the year 1970 he was arrested on the charge of theft. On 21st April, 1970 an order was passed suspending him from service. After being convicted by the Magistrate, the petitioner was acquitted by the High Court on 5th/6th February, 1973. A copy of the judgment acquitting him was sent by the petitioner to the officer concerned, of the B.P.T., on 10th February, 1973. By letter dated 21st February, 1973, the petitioner was asked to resume duties, which he did on 22nd February, 1973.2. On 14th May, 1974 a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner intimating about the proposed departmental inquiry against him, based substantially on the same allegation on the basis of which he was prosecuted and ultimately acquitted. On 10th March, 1975, the Deputy Docks Manager addressed a letter to the petitioner intimating that the superannuation age had been raised f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1988)72CTR(Bom)44; [1989]176ITR253(Bom)
Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. The petitioners are a firm of solicitors and advocates enrolled more than fifty years ago. As such the petitioners are subject to the rules framed by the Bombay High Court in respect of maintenance of accounts relating to their professional work.2. Under rule 10 of the Rules of the Bombay High Court, Original Side, the petitioners are required to keep separate accounts in respect of monies received from or on account of their clients. This amount is required to be kept in a separate account in the bank in the name of the advocates which is known as 'Client's account'. Rule 12 describes what money can be paid into a client's account. Rule 13 prescribes what money can be withdrawn from a client's account. It, inter alia, provides that no money shall be drawn from a client's account other than money properly required for payment to or on behalf of a client or for or towards payment of a debt due to the advocate from a client or money drawn on client's authority. Fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1985Bom14
Dharmadhikari, J.1. Petitioner 1, which is a brand of an All India Corporation known as Akhil Bharatia Grahak Panchayat (hereinafter called panchayat) and its office bearers and members have challenged the validity and /or legality and propriety of fare hike, effect by the State of Maharashtra, in consultation with the State Transport Authority vide final notification dt. 5th Jan. 1981, fixing fares for the State carriages plying within the municipal areas or in mofussil area, in exercise of the powers conferred upon it under S.43 of the Motor Vehicles Act.2. By and large it is an admitted position that the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation is operating buses to the exclusion of other private operators, excepting in certain parts of the State and qua some routes, where private bus operators are still permitted to ply their buses. Thus, the State Transport Corporation has by now virtually eschewed competition and eliminated all private operators from the field except in certa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1998(1)ALLMR656; 1998(3)BomCR743; 1997(3)MhLj357
ORDERA.P. Shah, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution takes exception to the order dated 7th April, 1992 passed by the disciplinary authority dismissing the petitioner from service as well as the order of the appellate authority dated 20th October, 1992 confirming the said order of dismissal. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner was in the employment of the respondent No. 1 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and at the material time was working as Deputy Manager (Acting), Oil Movement & Storage Department. The petitioner's duly included carrying out random checking of the weight of the tankers that were loaded in the refinery. On 14th February, 1986 the petitioner was on duty in the shift described as 8 x 4 shift. As part of his duty, the petitioner had carried out random checking of 8 tankers on that day and had countersigned on the weighment slips in respect of the said 8 tankers. On the same day another tanker bearing registration No. MCU-1914 was also...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2002(6)BomCR466; [2003]130STC310(Bom)
V.C. Daga, J.1. These petitions seek to challenge the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Tax on Luxuries Act, 1987 as amended by Maharashtra Tax Laws (Levy and Amendment) Act, 2001, being Maharashtra Act No. 22 of 2001. The petitioners are carrying on business of manufacture and sale of pan masala containing tobacco (gutkha) and pan masala without tobacco. All the petitioners are registered under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 ('the BST Act', for short), Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ('the CST Act', for short), Central Excise Act, 1944 ('the Excise Act', for short) and have also applied for registration under Maharashtra Tax on Luxuries Act, 1987 ('the Luxury Tax Act', for short). 2. The petitioners being aggrieved by levy of luxury tax at the rate of 25 per cent are challenging the validity of the amended provision of the Luxury Tax Act on the ground that the purported levy of tax is in effect and substance a tax on sales and not on luxuries and, therefore, it is a colourable le...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1990(1)BomCR79
..... had been broken up or cleared before the commencement of the act, mining operations therein did not require prior approval of the central government. in other words, what is necessary for attracting the provisions of section 2(ii) of ..... government for purposes of carrying out mining operations in a forest area which is broken up or cleared before the commencement of the act................'the decisions, therefore, indicate that where a forest area ..... government with regard to grant of such approval.3. ..........................................................'banshi ram modi 'we are, therefore, of the view that while before granting permission to start mining operations on a virgin area section 2 of the act has to be complied with, it is not necessary to seek the prior approval of the central .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1988(2)BomCR351
..... not amount to unfair labour practice and was not intended to victimise the employee regard being had to the position settled by the decisions of this court in bengal bhatdee coal co. v. ram prabesh singh, : (1963)illj291sc , titaghur paper mills co. ltd. v. ram naresh kumar, (1961) i l.l.j. 511 : (1960)19 f.j.r. 15, hind construction .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1992(1)BomCR35; (1990)92BOMLR533
C. Mookerjee, C.J.1. These two writ petitions were filed challenging the validity of the various provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter called 'Rent Act'). At the time of the final hearing, the petitioners, however, have confined their challenge to validity of section 5(10)(b)(i), (ii) and (iii), section 11(1) (except clause (d-1) and sections 12(3) of the Rent Act. The petitioners have not also pressed their prayers for declaration that deletion of Article 19(1)(f) by the Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1977, was ultra vires and against the basic structure of the Constitution of India.2. Mr. Atul Setalvad, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that The Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947, was enacted with the threefold object of protection of tenants against their unreasonable eviction and demands for extortionate rent and to safeguard the legitimate interests of the landlords ...
Tag this Judgment!