Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1964Bom267; (1964)66BOMLR341; 1964CriLJ644; [1964(9)FLR27]
Chandrachud, J. 1. An order of conviction under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948, read with Rule 3 A of the Bombay Factories Rules, 1950, is being challenged by this appeal The main question which arises in the appeal is as regards the true construction of Section 85 of the Factories Act The question is whether a person in the position of the accused, who has no control over or interest in the manufacturing process earned on in the factory and who is not concerned, directly or indirectly, with the engagement of the workers who work in the factory, is compellable to comply with the diverse requirements of the Factories Act. 2. An open plot of land belonging to the Port Trust was taken on lease by the accused Purshottamdas Ranchod-das He constructed sheds over the plot and in the year 1908 he started a factory therein called the Sunderdas Saw Mills The factory was closed down or the 1st of April 1957 and though the Stale has sought to suggest that the closure was a mere camouflage, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1999(4)BomCR608
ORDERN. Arumugham, J.1. These three writ petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the Mandamus against the respondents who are the State of Maharashtra, the Director General of Police, Maharashtra, Mumbai, the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, and other officials working under them and Coroner of Mumbai, (i) directing the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to furnish the particulars regarding the number of persons killed in last one year in police encounters, their names, addresses, the circumstances in which these persons are killed, the enquiries, if any, conducted with respect to the said killings and any other relevant information and the action taken, if any, by them: (ii) directing the respondent No. 1 to register offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and other relevant enactments against the Police Officers, if found prima facie responsible for the violation of the fundamental rights and the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and other rel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2000(4)ALLMR604; 2001(1)BomCR167; [2000]246ITR63(Bom)
Vijay Daga, J.1. This petition is preferred by Revenue against the order of the Settlement Commissioner in the case of M/s. Ajmera Housing Corporation, Bombay, relating to Assessment Years 1989-90 to 1993-94.In order to appreciate the grievance of the Revenue against the said order relevant Introductory facts needs to be noticed at the outset.BACKGROUND FACTS2. M/s. Ajmera Housing Corporation. Bombay (hereinafter referred to as the 'Assessee' for short) along with 19 individuals and 7 Hindu Undivided Families belonging to Ajmera family, had filed 31 settlement applications under section 245-C of the Income Tax Act, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') in the month of October, 1993 for the Assessment Years 1989-90 to 1993-94. The applications in the case of 4 firms including the present assessee were admitted by the orders of the Commissioner passed under section 245-D(l) of the Act dated 17.11.1997. M/s. Ajmera Housing Corporation along with its other group establishments are engaged...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
1. These appeals belong to same assessee and involve common issues, therefore, these were heard together and are being disposed of through this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. We have heard both the parties and have also perused the material on record.3. We shall first take-up the assessee's appeal in ITA No.5144/Bom./1994 which arises out of order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 17-2-1994 for assessment year 1986-87. 1. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) V, Bombay Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in holding that your appellants have failed to produce M/s. Drill Rock Engineers, Hyderabad along with their books, bank statements and statement of details of services rendered by them and that the commission paid to M/s. Drill Rock Engineers Pvt. Ltd. was only an adjustment in the accounts and that agents were not informed whenever the commission amount was credited to their account and thereby in upholding the disallowance of the commission of Rs. 12,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. As substantially common questions of law and fact arise in these batch of Petitions, they are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. All these Writ Petitions take exception to the Awards made by the 1st and 10th Labour Courts, Mumbai. The Labour Courts have denied the relief of reinstatement to the dismissed workmen. However, compensation / back wages in the range of Rs.2 Lacs to Rs.6 Lacs came to be awarded to most of the workmen involved in the dispute. 3. The Writ Petition No.1892 of 2008 has been preferred by the Union objecting to denial of reinstatement or in the alternate urging that the compensation / back wages awarded is not commensurate. The rest of the Writ Petitions have been preferred by the employer, contending that no relief whatsoever ought to have been granted in favour of the union / workmen. 4. For the sake of convenience, the particulars of the References, workmen involved therein, relief granted etc. are set out in the chart beneath :- 1st LABO...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Dharmadhikari, J. 1. This Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenges the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 03rd April, 2012 on the Notice of Motion No.1548/2011 in Suit No.1173/2011. In this Notice of Motion bearing No.1548/2011 for interim relief filed in the Respondent/ Plaintiff's Suit, the Appellants/ original Defendants invoked Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as applicable to the State of Maharashtra and raised the issue of jurisdiction of this Court to entertain and try the Suit. 2. The main prayer in the Notice of Motion No.1548/2011 reads as under:- ( a) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the Suit, the Defendants, their servants and agents be restrained by temporary order and injunction of this Hon'ble Court from entering upon or remaining on the Suit Flat viz. Flat No.5, Second Floor, Goolestan, 37, (East) Wing, Cuffe Parade, Bombay 400005 or any part thereof without the permission of the Plaintiff; 3. In term...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
A.S. Gadkari, J. 1. The appellant, Assistant Collector of Customs, the original complainant has preferred the present appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 28th September 1993 passed in N.D.P.S. Special Case No.1233 of 1988, thereby acquitting the respondent nos.1 and 2 from the offences punishable under Sections 29, 21 read with Section 8(c) and under Sections 30 read with 23 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short NDPS Act) and under Section 135(A) of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short Customs Act). 2. The facts which give rise and are necessary to decide the present appeal can briefly be stated thus: (i) That on 27.2.1988, the officers of the Customs Department were informed by their Additional Collector Shri L.D. Arora and the Superintendent Mr. T.S. Jayaram (PW No.4) to remain present in the office, as some secrete information was to be worked out. In pursuance of the said information, the raid was to be conducted at a godown situated at...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(3)BomCR827; 2009(111)BomLR1132
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. The Petitioner, who claims to be a Medical Practitioner, having served on a short service commission for a period of five years with the Armed Forced Medical Corps in the Indian Navy as a Surgeon Lt. Commander and now residing with his family at the Kakrapur Atomic Power Station where his wife is serving in a hospital, has filed the present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 9 to follow the procedure for major penalty and initiate a departmental enquiry against Respondent No. 3 among others, in conformity with the decision taken on 29th August, 2006 (Exhibit - F hereto) by Respondent Nos. 1 and Respondent No. 5 and on the basis of the report of Respondent No. 7 the Chief Vigilance Officer of Respondent No. 5 the Nuclear Power Corporation Pvt. Ltd...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Writ petition No.2102 of 2006 is filed by the employee challenging the order dated 20th July 2004 passed by the 7th Labour Court, Mumbai in complaint (ULP) No.236 of 1994 directing the respondent company to reinstate the petitioner original complainant with continuity of service but without back wages or they can pay lumpsum compensation of Rs. 2 lacs to the petitioner complainant excluding his legal dues. The same order is challenged by the respondent company by preferring cross writ petition No.2272 of 2006. The issues involved in both these petitions are same. Hence, this is a common order. 2. For the sake of convenience, the employee Atul Pansare hereinafter will be referred to as the petitioner and the Hindustan Lever Ltd. as the respondent. 3. The petitioner joined the respondent company on 10th October 1982 as an Instrumentation Mechanic. After some time, the respondent company declared lockout on 25th June 1988 which continued upto ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1 Rule. Respondent waives service. By consent Rule is made returnable forthwith.2 A short but interesting question of law arises for determination in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is directed against an order dated 15th October 2010 delivered by the 12th Labour Court, Bombay in Reference (IDA) No.364 of 2004. The question of law can be framed thus: "Whether two distinct category of employees i.e one suspended pending departmental enquiry and other facing a de-novo inquiry in Court in a reference challenging his dismissal, can be equated, so as to permit the latter to claim subsistence allowance till conclusion of the reference u/s 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?"3 In other words, can such employee be held to be suspended pending enquiry into charges of misconduct so as to enable him to claim subsistence allowance.4 A few facts need to be set out to decide the above framed question. The respondent was employed as higher grade clerk/typi...
Tag this Judgment!