Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2002)4BOMLR221; 2002(3)MhLj368
J.G. Chitre, J.1. Heard. The petitioner is hereby assailing the correctness, propriety and legality of the order which has been passed by the Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims, Pune, while making the scrutiny of the caste certificate produced by the petitioner Shri Balu Sonaba Bhosale. At the time of recruitment the petitioner has produced Caste Certificate showing that he belongs to tribe 'Kokani'- S. T. (Scheduled Tribe). The said Committee scrutinised the caste certificate given to the petitioner. The petitioner produced the following documents in support of his claim that he belongs to said Scheduled Tribe. Those documents can be enumerated as mentioned below.1. Xerox copy of the Primary School Leaving certificate bearing Register No. 126101 dated 3-5-1974 issued by Head Master, Poona Corporation School No. 31, Poona.2. Xerox Copy of the Primary School Leaving Certificate bearing No. 10894 dated 7-9-1979 issued by the Pune Corporation School No. 24. 3. Xerox c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2000(4)BomCR796; [2000(86)FLR825]
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the award dated 23-7-87 given by the Labour Court, Ahmednagar, rejecting the Reference (I.D.A.) No. 28/85 referred by the State Government for adjudication of the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner against the respondent College praying for reinstatement with full backwages and continuity of service. The Labour Court has rejected the reference for want of jurisdiction to entertain the industrial dispute in view of the other independent remedy available to the petitioner under the Poona University Act of 1974.2. The facts are in a very narrow compass. By an order dated 7-1-1982 the petitioner was appointed as a peon in the prescribed scale with effect from 1-7-1981 on purely temporary basis and the appointment was subjected to approval of the Director of Education. It was also stipulated that his services were liable to be terminated without any notice and without assigning any reasons. It is an admitted position that he cont...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR2000Bom211; 2000(2)ALLMR48; 2000(2)BomCR556
ORDERR.M. LODHA, J.1. The plaintiffs have filed this suit against the 1st defendant vessel to be condemned in the sum of Rs. 45 lacs along with interest at the rate of 18%f per annum and for direction that the 1st defendant vessel to be sold and the proceeds thereof to be applied towards the satisfaction of plaintiffs claim. The plaintiffs have claimed damages and prayed that 2nd defendant be ordered and decreed to pay to the plaintiffs the sum of Rs. 45 lacs along with 18% interest thereon.2. The plaintiffs are the parents of Mr. Arvind Dube who died on 16-8-1996 on board the 1st defendant vessel when she was lying at Kandla Port. The 1st defendant is the vessel M.V. 'Umang' registered in St. Vincent and Grenadines. The 2nd defendant is a Liberian Shipping company and owner of the 1st defendant vessel. The 3rd defendant is the local agent of the 1st defendant vessel. The suit has been filed in the Admiralty jurisdiction of this Court on 11-3-1997 and at that time the vessel was lying ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1998(1)ALLMR761; 1998(4)BomCR100
ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. This writ petition has been filed praying, inter alia, for a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order calling for the records relating to the Judgement and Order of the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, North Zone, bearing No. 1/48/65-RES/(C)-193/Goa/ARNZ/Vol. V dated 8th January, 1993, and quashing the same as also for a declaration that Mapusa Urban Co-operative Bank Limited became a deemed Multi-State Co-operative Society registered under the corresponding provisions of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (hereinafter called 'the Central Act'). The first petitioner is the Mapusa Urban Co-operative Bank Limited and the second petitioner is the Chairman of the Mapusa Urban Co-operative Bank Limited. Facts leading to the writ petition are as follows.2. The first respondent, Shri G.S. Patil, the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, North Zone, Mapusa, Goa, had issued a notic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1996(3)BomCR658
N.P. Chapalgaonker, J.1. Rule. Taken up for hearing forthwith by consent of the parties.2. These two writ petitions have brought in challenge the provisions of the Maharashtra Ordinance No. 17 of 1995, namely, the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Market (Regulation) (Temporary Amendment) Ordinance, 1995. By an amendment, the petitioners have also brought in challenge the provisions of the Maharashtra Act No. 9 of 1996, namely, the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Market (Regulation) (Temporary Amendment) Act, 1996, which makes similar provisions to that of Ordinance No. 17 of 1995.3. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5484 of 1995 is the Chairman of Jintur Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Jintur and was the Chairman of the Bombay Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Bombay, for several years. He is also the Member of Maharashtra Legislative Assembly elected on Congress ticket and alleges that since the new Government came into power after the 1995 elections, several attempts a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1993)112CTR(Bom)356; [1994]206ITR727(Bom)
Dr. B.P. Saraf J.1. By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this court for opinion at the instance of the Revenue : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the claim of development rebate on the cost of meters installed by the assessee company at the residential or office premises of its consumers, was not at variance with the provisions of section 33(6) of the Act ?' 2. The assessee is an electric supply undertaking and its business is to supply electrical energy to its consumers. For the assessment year 1974-75, the Income-tax Officer determined the development rebate admissible to the assessee at Rs. 8,01,917 and allowed Rs. 5,59,744 against the total income available for the purpose. The development rebate determined by the Income-tax Officer included a sum of Rs. 61,155 relatable to the cost of me...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1991(4)BomCR695
H.W. Dhabe, J.1. These two writ petitions which challenge the Notification of the State Government dated 26th June, 1991 issued under sub-section (3) of section 18 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Town and Country Planning Act, 1974 and its further consequential notification dated the same issued under sub-sections (1) and (3) of section 20 of the said Act can conveniently be disposed of by this common judgment. However, reference to the parties in this judgment would be as in the Writ Petition No. 240 of 1991 except where W.P. No. 243 of 1991 is particularly considered and referred to.2. The facts in Writ Petition No. 240 of 1991 are that the petitioner is the Chair-person of the South Planning and Development Authority and in Writ Petition No. 243 of 1991, the petitioner is the Goa Citizens League, which holds out itself as a Special activist organisation formed with a view to promote social, economic and educational cultural and political interests for achieving the progress and welfare of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1990(2)BomCR232; 1990CriLJ615; 1989MhLJ791
V.A. Mohta, J.1. Ishwarlal Gunderia, a resident of Khamgaon, District Buldana, has by this Habeas Corpus Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenged the order of detention passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 ('the COFEPOSA Act') against his son-in-law Haren Choksey - a dealer in imported cars.2. The detenu is a permanent resident of Bombay. The order of detention dated 30th January, 1989 is served on the detenu on 3rd February, 1989. This petition filed on 1st March, 1989, came up for preliminary hearing on 3rd March, 1989 on which date rule returnable on 17th April, 1989 was issued. In the return filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 3, preliminary objection has been raised - to which our attention was drawn before the hearing on merits commenced - that Nagpur Bench should not entertain this petition since neither a seat of the detaining authority - the Joint Secretary to the Government, o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1989Bom111; (1988)90BOMLR219
Shah, J.1. IN Writ Pent. No. 1876 of 1984 Dr. Harihar Bhakre v. Chancellor of Nagpur University which was decided on Dec. 7 (reported in 1985 LIC 1481), by a Division Bench of this Court at Nagpur (Paunikar & Deshpande, JJ). Wherein the legality of the employment notice issued by the Nagpur University under s. 57(4) (a) of the Nagpur University Act , 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ') vis--vis reservation for the backward classes was under challenge, amongst various other points involved in the said petition. The Division Bench took the classes in respect of the posts of Professors, Readers and Lecturers adverted was not necessary, but that it is enough, if the posts reserved are mentioned numerically out of the total posts to be filled in. the Division Bench further held that having regard to the provisions of S. 57 (4) (d) and (e) such reservation could be made by the Executive Council under S. 57 (4)(e) even after the selection by the Selection committee on merit under S. 5...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1973]91ITR566(Bom)
Kantawala, J. 1. This is a reference under section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the question that is referred for our determination is : 'Whether the hiring by M/s. Pure Products and Madhu Canning Ltd. to the assessee-company of a godown belonging to and used by the former for its business purposes amounted to 'transfer' to the latter within the meaning of the phrase 'the transfer to a new business of building previously used in any other business' occurring in section 15C (2) (i) /' 2. The question that is referred to us relates to the period 1958-59 and 1959-60, corresponding to the accounting years ending 30th September of 1957 and 1958, respectively. The assessee-company was incorporated in October, 1952, with the object of carrying on the business of sale and manufacture of gelatin capsules, etc. It took on monthly lease a huge compound pertaining to and used for its business by Messers. Pure Products & Madhu Canning Ltd. on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,500. The facto...
Tag this Judgment!