Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-20-1992
Reported in : 1994(1)BomCR75; [1994(68)FLR562]; (1994)ILLJ66Bom; 1993(1)MhLj947
B.P. Saraf, J. 1. By this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated November 5, 1986, passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner ('the R. P. F. C.'), Maharashtra and Goa, levying damages under Section 14B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as ('the Act'), for the alleged failure of the petitioners to pay the contributions under the Act for the months commencing from July 1968 to October 1977. 2. Admitted position in this case is that these proceedings were initiated for the first time by issue of notice to show cause on April 19, 1985. The challenge to the order is on the ground, inter alia, that the initiation of proceedings in the year 1985, for the alleged delay in payment of the contribution for the period from July, 1968 to October, 1977, is most unreasonable. A notice issued after long 17 years from the first alleged default and 8 years from the last alleged default is no show-cause notice...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-26-1992
Reported in : 1993(1)BomCR76; (1993)IIILLJ519Bom
K.Sukumaran, J. 1. Mines and mine workers have drawn the attention of the Courts from very early times. Many used to go down, down into mystifying depths, and pick up the black gold for keeping copy those on surface. They, in return, had only blood, sweat and tears. Conditions have improved much, after the early days. Some have even formed a feeling that the pendulum has swung to the other side. (So felt Lord Denning.) The workers, it is complained, have started demanding unwieldy wages. These aspects need not tarry us long, as the short question in the case is regarding the claim of minimum wages of the 134 workers employed in the Bhandarbodi Mines. 2. The minimum wages the workers demanded was not that high. It works out to a ridiculously low figure, viewed from current times. It was not much even earlier, Rs. 5.80 as fixed by the notification of May 25, 1978. (Somewhere near a quarter of a dollar). Actually they were paid only Rs. 3.50, about a seventh of a dollar. Not even sufficie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-07-1992
Reported in : 1992(62)ELT498(Bom)
A.V. Savant, J.1. By this Petition, the petitioners - Ceat Tyres of India Ltd. and a shareholder of the Company seek to challenge the legality and validity of the communication dated 23rd August, 1982, Exh. 'U' to the Petition. By the said communication, the petitioners' claim for exemption from payment of excise duty under the Notification, Exh. 'F', dated February 28, 1982 has been deferred in the sense that the communication deserves that the petitioners had filed a Writ Petition in the Delhi High Court on the question of the processed Tyre Cord Fabrics falling under Tariff Item 19 or 22 of the Central Excise Tariff. Since the said Writ Petition in the Delhi High Court was pending, the question of granting exemption under the Notification, Exh. 'F', could not be considered till the case was decided by the Delhi High Court. A few facts necessary for the purpose of the controversy may be stated as under :- 2. The first petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-28-1992
Reported in : 1992(3)BomCR422; (1992)94BOMLR238; (1995)IIILLJ443Bom
K. Sukumaran, J. 1. Air India has come up in appeal against the verdict of Variava J., adverse to it. It has arisen in respect of the implementation of a Notification under the Contract Labour Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The Act, a piece of social legislation, provided, in great detail, for the regulation of Contract Labour under Section 10, it proceeded further; and empowered the Government to have even the prohibition of contract labour in the contingencies and subject to the conditions set out in that behalf, in the Act. The Central Government issued such a Notification on 9.9.1976, prohibiting 'employment of contract labour on and from 10th March 1977, for sweeping, cleaning, dusting and washing of buildings owned or occupied by establishments in respect of which the appropriate Government under the said Act is the Central Government'. Air India had initially accepted the Central Government as its appropriate Government. Air India sent in the application and got i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-11-1992
Reported in : 1993(2)BomCR111; (1993)IILLJ1179Bom
B.N. Srikrishna, J.By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seek the following reliefs. 1. Issuance of a writ of certiorari or any writ of the same or similar nature to quash and set aside the order of the Central Government dated March 17, 1992 taking a decision not to abolish contract labour in the canteen of the 1st respondent Corporation and a writ directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to abolish the system of contract labour in the canteen of the 1st respondent's refinery at Chembur; 2. A declaration that the contract labourers employed in the canteen of the 1st respondent's refinery are regular employees of the 1st respondent; 3. Issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to give to the workmen working in the canteen of the 1st respondent's refinery the same wages and service conditions as granted to the workmen working in the two departmentally run canteens of the 1st respondents. 2. The petitioner is a registered Trad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-24-1992
Reported in : 1993(2)BomCR419
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. On joint request of parties, both these references under section 18 of Land Acquisition Act I of 1894 are heard together. With consent parties are allowed to lead common evidence in both these references. The two references are interrelated only to a limited extent as would be obvious from the narration of facts in later part of this judgment.2. The basic facts pertaining to Land Acquisition Reference No. 104 of 1975 are as under :(a) The reference concerns vacant plot of land bearing C.S. No. 320 of Fort Division, Ward No. A 2173 situated at 244, Per in Nariman Street (Bazar Gate) Bombay. Prior to August 1961, a three storeyed building used to exist on the said plot of land. On 19th April 1961, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay declared that the said building was unfit for human habitation. In or about August 1961, the said building was demolished. The said building was totally dilapidated building. Since about August 1961, this plot of land was a vacant p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-09-1992
Reported in : AIR1993Bom10
ORDERK. Sukumaran, J. 1. What the case is about:Malabar Hill of Bombay is well-known all over the world and for very long time. Bombay's general transformation into a nineteenth century urban metropolis did not spoil it much. A guide-book of 1865 remarks : 'The drive from Malabur Hill to Chowpatty along the foot of the cliffs is very pretty. The steep banks are covered with foliage....' Even by 1982, that area, by and large, preserved us earlier form. That was how someone who had taken pains to study the history and geography of Bombay felt. He stated :'Today that, atleast, has not changed. There is still a shanty-town there, clinging tenaciously to some of the most valuable land in the world....'.(See, Gillian Tindall -- 'City of gold', 1982, page 243)2. This litigation concerns that most valuable land. 'Rocky Hill' is an enclave in Malabar Hill. Some area is occupied by the flats constructed therein. They are inhabited by Judges and Ministers, mostly by Judges. The land has been in p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-20-1992
Reported in : 1992(3)BomCR272
N.P. Chapalgaonkar, J.1. Both these writ petitions challenge orders separately made in respect of Rajesh R. Khushalani and Tushar M. Shah under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 ordering their detention and housing them at Central Prison, Bombay. Since the points of facts and law to be considered and raised in these petitions are common, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. It is alleged that M/s. Tushar Enterprises, M/s Aum Enterprises and M/s. Shah Enterprises had remitted abroad foreign exchange worth Rs. 5 crores with the help of some fake import documents presented to Union Bank of India. It is alleged that the business which was used as a cover was import of chemicals and besides some genuine transactions with the help of one Ram living in Hongkong a conspiracy was hatched and Ram was helping to prepare the said documents and send them to India. Four persons namely, Tushar Shah, who is said to be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-27-1992
Reported in : 1993(1)BomCR7
M.L. Pendse, J.1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Sale of Trees by Occupants belonging to Scheduled Tribes (Regulation) (Amendment) Act, 1991. The petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 are Adivasis and are holders of lands situated at Village Khand, Khoste and Vikramgadh of Jawhar Taluka in Thane District. The petitioner No. 1 is the contractor who has entered into agreement for purchase of trees from petitioners Nos. 2 to 4. Petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 are tribals and were in occupation of agricultural lands under cultivation and which lands were granted to them, under various land tenures, as occupants or holders and the lands are not of the ownership or proprietorship of the tribals. The tribals had no right to the trees standing on the lands and the trees vested in the State Government under provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1897. On August 15, 1967 the right to all the tree gr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-04-1992
Reported in : 1992CriLJ2460
Sujata Manohar, J.1. The petitioner is the brother of one Pankaj T. Valia, who has been detained under the provision of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 by an order of detention dated 5th September, 1991. This order was served on the detenu on 31st October, 1991. 2. In the grounds of detention, which were supplied to the detenu, it has been stated that information was received in the office of the Enforcement Directorate, Bombay, that M/s. Tushar Enterprises, M/s. Aum Enterprises and M/s. Shah Enterprises, which are all proprietary concerns of Tushar M. Shah, had remitted foreign exchange worth about Rs. 5 crores on the strength of fake or bogus import documents through the Union Bank of India, Bombay. On the basis of this information further enquiries were made in the Union Bank of India and at the residential and business premises of Tushar M. Shah. Thereafter statement of Tushar M. Shah was recorded under S. 40 of the Foreign Exch...
Tag this Judgment!