Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-06-1974
Reported in : 1979(4)ELT158(Bom)
Mukhi, J.1. This is an appeal by the Union of India in the Department of Central Excise against a decree passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon, in favour of the respondents Mansingka Industries Private Limited' a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and inter alia manufacturing vegetable products at Pachora in District Jalgaon.2. The respondents-plaintiff filed a suit in the court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Jalgaon, contending that the Union of India had illegally recovered from them certain moneys purported to be excise duties under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1944')3. As stated, the suit was decreed by the learned trial Judge, who inter alia ordered that an amount of Rs. 60,334.66, being the balance amount illegally collected as excise duty, be refunded to the respondents.4. Two short points arise in this appeal. But before we discuss them it is necessary to set out some facts.5...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-09-1974
Reported in : AIR1975Bom306; (1975)77BOMLR337; 1975MhLJ792
Vaidya, J. 1. The above first appeals raise an important question of the liability of a medical consultant of company in tort. They are directed against the Judgment and decree passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Poona on April 30, 1965 ordering defendant No.1 Philips India Ltd,, and defendant No.2, Dr. Shaikh Suleman, a medical practitioner of Poona, to pay to the plaintiff-respondent No.1 Kunju Punnu the mother of the deceased employee of defendant No.1 Rs. 18,000/- together with costs of the suit and future interest on that amount at the rate of 6 percent, per annum till satisfaction. 2. The allegations made in the plaint presented in forma pauperis by Kunju Punnu on July 11, 1962 and registered as Special Civil Suit No. 31 of 1963. can be briefly summarised as under:- 3. The plaintiff's son, V.K. Gopal was an employee of defendant No.1 company on a monthly salary of Rs.105/- as a machine operator. Defendant No.2 is the Medical Officer and Adviser of defendant No.1 com...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-19-1974
Reported in : 1975CriLJ1891
Vaidya, J.1. This is an application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed by one Balkishan A, Devidaval against whom Criminal Case No. 102/5/72 is pending in the Court of the Presidency Magistrate, 25th Court. Victoria Terminus, Bombay. The application involves important points under the Railway Protection Force Act 1957 (Act No. 23 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the 'R. P. F. Act'') and the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act. 1966 (Act No. 29 of 1966) (hereinafter referred to as the 'R. P. U. P. Act').2. The above case arose out of a complaint filed by the Inspector, Central Intelligence Bureau, Head Quarters before the Presidency Magistrate, at V. T., Bombay.3. The allegations in the said complaint may be briefly summarised as under:On November 21, 1970, the Assistant Security Officer, Central Railway, Bhusa-wal, intimated to the Chief Security Officer Bombay V. T. that two wagons Nos. ERKC-9447 Ex. HSPG BNDM to Akola and Wagon No. ERKC 75531 Ex. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-30-1974
Reported in : (1975)IILLJ1Bom
ORDER1. This is reference made by the Government of Maharashtra under S. 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947, referring for adjudication the industrial dispute that exist between the Bharat Barrel & Drum Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd., Bombay and the workmen employed under it. 2. The statement of claim in this matter has been filed by the President of the Bharat Barrel Employees' Union on behalf of the workers. The order of reference shows that the demand is whether the nature of the closure declared by the company is for a temporary period and to defect the pending claims of the workers and whether the reasons for the closure are bona fide. It is further mentioned in the order of reference as to whether the said closure is legal and bona fide and if not, what further relief to be given to the workmen in addition to the wages for the period of enforced unemployment. It is also a demand that in case the closure is found legal and bona-fide then whether the workmen are entitled to compensation under the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-20-1974
Reported in : (1977)79BOMLR581
Rege, J.1. This is a petition by certain shareholders of the National Rayon Corporation Limited (respondent No. 7) for a writ of mandamus for withdrawing or cancelling the order dated June 25, 1973 made by the Company Law Board (respondent No. 2) appointing respondents Nos. 5 and 6 as Government Directors for one year from June 30, 1973 on the Board of Directors of respondent No. 7 company and for declaring the same to be void and inoperative. They have also asked for a further writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the said impugned order and also for a declaration that certain directors mentioned in prayer (c) had been duly elected at the annual general meeting of respondent No. 7 company held on May 11, 1973 and that they were entitled to act as Directors of respondent No. 7 company.2. The short facts leading to this petition may be stated as follows:3. Respondent No. 7 company, namely, the National Rayon Corporation Ltd., was incorporated in 1946. The present subscribed shar...
Tag this Judgment!