Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1978)80BOMLR495
Dighe, J.1. This Revision Application raises a question of International Law, regarding the scope and extent in India, of the application of the principle of sovereign immunity.2. The State of Maharashtra, represented by Labour Enforcement Officer (Central)-I, Government of India, Department of Labour and Employment, Bombay, filed a complaint against M/s. Czechoslovak Airlines, as accused No. 1 and its General Manager, Mr. M. Vopravil, as accused No. 2, under Rule 21 of the Payment of Wages. (Air Transport Services) Rules, 1968, for non-maintenance of Muster Roll at the Establishment and Wages Register at the Establishment, as required by the Rules. Even before service of the summons, the accused No. 2 appeared before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, taking cognizance of the complaint and gave an application asserting that Czechoslovak Airlines is a State owned enterprise of the sovereign State of Czechoslovakia, the Government of Czechoslovak enjoyed full and complete immuni...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
S.J. Vazifdar, J. Both the Writ Petitions involve the same questions and are accordingly disposed of by this common judgment. There is one petitioner in Writ Petition No. 568 of 2012 and there are two petitioners in Writ Petition No. 616 of 2012. We will refer to the facts as stated in Writ Petition No. 616 of 2012. 2. The petitioners seek a Writ of Certiorari to quash and set aside a decision of the Government of Goa, taken in its 'Cabinet Meeting' held on 23rd May, 2012 (in Agenda Item No.18), not to accept the recommendations of Respondent No.2 Goa Public Service Commission (GPSC) in regard to the selection to 9 (nine) vacancies to the post of 'Junior Scale Officer of Goa Civil Service'. The petitioners have also sought a Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to accept the said recommendations of GPSC pursuant to advertisement No. 2 of 2011 as modified by advertisement No. 4 of 2011. 3. By the said advertisement No. 2 of 2011 issued on 11th February, 2011, the GPSC invited ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Ms. Linhares, learned Additional Government Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Kholkar, learned Counsel for the respondents/Cross-objectors. 2. The above appeal and cross objection have been filed against the judgment and award dated 04/07/2010 passed by the Ad hoc District Judge-I, FTC-I, South Goa, Margao (Reference Court, for short) in Land Acquisition Case No. 39 of 2010. The respondents of the appeal, who are the cross-objectors, were the applicants in the said Land Acquisition Case, whereas the appellants were the respondents therein. Parties shall, hereinafter, be referred to as per their status in the said Land Acquisition Case. 3. Vide notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L. A. Act, for short) and published in the Official Gazette dated 16/12/2004 and in two news papers (Sunaparant and Herald) dated 18.12.2004, land was acquired for the work of improvement and widening of road from old survey office to T.V.S. Show R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment:- 1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties. 2. Since the issue involved in all these matters is identical, the petitioner is the same Municipal Corporation and since all the respondents are identically placed former employees of the petitioner / Corporation, I have taken up all these matters together by the consent of the parties. 3. The first and the third petition have been admitted. As such, the second and fourth to seventh petitions are admitted. 4. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and all the petitions are taken up for final disposal. 5. For the sake of clarity, the petitioner in all these matters will be referred to as the petitioner or the Corporation and all the respondents in these matters would be referred to as the employees . 6. Shri Bedre, learned Advocate on behalf of the Corporation has strenuously criticized the impugned judgments of the Industrial Courts delivered in Complaint (ULP) Nos. 254/1993, 472/1994, 197/1995, 193/1995, 38...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. Company appeal Nos.55 of 2014 and 56 of 2014 impugn an order passed by the Company Law Board, Mumbai Bench ( CLB ) on applications under Section 111 of the Companies Act, 1956 ( Act ), by which the first Respondent company was inter alia directed to transmit shares held by a shareholder of the company and rectify the register of members. Companion Company Appeal Nos.31 of 2015 and 54 of 2015 are cross appeals which impugn another order passed by the CLB on the same day on a petition filed by the same Petitioners under Sections 397 and 398 of the Act, complaining of the same facts as are the subject matter of the rectification petitions in addition to some other facts. 2. The short facts of the case may be stated as follows: 2(I) In or about 1947, the first Respondent company Mehboob Productions Pvt.Ltd. ( Company ) - was incorporated by the reputed filmmaker, late Mehboob Khan. The company owns a large immovable property admeasuring about 4.2 acres at Hill Road, Bandra (West), Mumba...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1983(12)ELT425(Bom)
1. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the question which requires determination is whether the article 'phenolic moulding powder' manufactured by the petitioners is entitled to claim exemption from payment of excise duty as provided by Notification dated June 1, 1971 issued by the Central Government.2. The 1st petitioners are a Private Limited Company, while petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are the Directors of the Company. The petitioner No. 1 own a factory at Quarry Road, Malad (East), Bombay and inter alia manufacture 'Phenol Formal Dehyde Synthetic Resin'. The said article is manufactured in various forms, viz. lump, solid, liquid and moulding powder. The basic ingredients of phenolic resin are Phenol and Formaldehyde. The Phenolic Resin is the result of Phenol and Formaldehyde being reacted with each other. The Phenolic Moulding Powder is manufactured by processing phenol formaldehyde synthetic resin along with other ingredients like fillers, colouring ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1976)78BOMLR682
Mukhi, J.1. The only point which has been raised before us and is, therefore, required to be determined in this petition is whether it is permissible for the authorised person, appointed under Section 88 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to take over the proceedings after the death of the previous incumbent, to proceed on the basis of evidence already recorded by his predecessor.2. This petition arises out of proceedings under Section 88 of the Act which were commenced some time in July 1970. The authorised person, one Shri D.G. Godbole, framed charges against the petitioner and other delinquents and the proceedings went on for nearly four years, during which period, we are told, nearly hundred witnesses were examined. However, before the proceedings could conclude, Shri Godbole died on July 16, 1974. The Commissioner for Co-operation and Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Poona, respondent No. 1, passed an order which is dated...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1979)81BOMLR87; 1978MhLJ260
Deshmukh, J.1. These twelve revision applications involve facts which are identical and points of law which are common. Hence they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. The facts are not in dispute. There is a big godown in Broach Galli, Bombay. The open space inside the godown has been notionally divided into Galas and Gallis by drawing lines. The respondents have various galas as their places of business. To give the facts of Revision Application No. 85 of 1975, which are representative in character, it would appear that Gala No. 5 of 'L' Galli was notified by the respondent-accused as, his place of business as detailed in condition 2(a) of the licence issued to him as an authorised dealer under Clause 3 of the Maharashtra Foodgrain Dealers' Licensing Order, 1963. This is issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Every dealer under these provisions has to notify the place of business and get it entered upon his licence. If he wants to change ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Rule. The respondents waive service. Since all the affidavits are filed, pleadings are complete, with the consent of the parties, the petition is heard finally. 2} This writ petition together with other petitions involve identical questions of fact and law, they were heard together and are, therefore, disposed off by this common judgment. 3} The State of Goa has initiated proceedings for Acquisition of the lands of the petitioners for the construction of the New International Airport at Mopa in Pernem Taluka. 4} The Notification and Declaration in that behalf was issued on 25th July 2008 and 28th July 2009, respectively, under sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the L.A Act”) and under section 6 of the L.A Act. Both are impugned on various grounds to which we will advert a little later. 5} The petitioners claim to be owners/tenants of the properties indicated against their names/ the names of their ancestors i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. By the above report, the Official Liquidator has sought directions from this Court as follows: (a) In view of paras 7 and 8 of this Report, whether this Honble Court would be pleased to declare the sale of the property situated at H-16, MIDC Waluj Industrial Area, Waluj, Aurangabad to Smt. Sunita V. Warke as null and void; (b) If prayer (a) is in the affirmative, whether this Honble Court would be pleased to permit the Official Liquidator to take possession of the said property situated at H-16, MIDC Waluj Industrial Area, Waluj, Aurangabad. The facts in the matter are briefly set out hereunder: 2. On 7th April 1997, Company Petition No. 327 of 1997 seeking winding up of the Company - Hindustan Transmission Products Limited (HTPL) was filed /presented. Smt. Sunita V. Warke (the occupant) claims to have paid an aggregate sum of Rs. 30 lakhs to the Company between 14th May, 2007 and 26th September 2007 towards the purchase of the Companys leasehold rights in respect of Plot No. H-16, ...
Tag this Judgment!