Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1969)71BOMLR206; (1969)IILLJ105Bom
Abhyankar, J.1. This order will govern the disposal of these seventeen petitions filed by the Maharashtra State Electricity Board, each against a separate employee. 2. Each of the respondents in these petitions was an employee of the petitioner-Board on the date they filed applications before the District Industrial Court under S. 41 of the Central Provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act. The application are, more or less, identical in form and substance and also the reliefs which they claimed. The grievance of the contesting respondents in each of these cases appears to be based on a common contention that whereas under the conditions of service governing them either at the time of appointment or when they filed the petitions they were not required to appear at any departmental test or examination in lower accounts, each of them has been told to appear for such an examination and their promotion, confirmation or eligibility for drawing the increments in the post they we...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1969)71BOMLR587; 1969MhLJ621
Abhyankar, J.1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeks, by appropriate writ, direction or order, quashing of the resolution of respondent No. 1, the Medical Council of India, conveyed in letter dated November 15, 1966, and as a consequence it is prayed that respondent No. 1 Council may be directed to give effect to their resolutions dated November 8, 1959 and April 5/6, 1963, which are filed as annexures A and E, with the petition. The substance of the relief asked for is that petitioners Nos. 2 and 3, who are medical students, should be declared eligible to seek admission to the condensed M.B., B.S. course at the Medical College, Nagpur, or elsewhere on their passing the condensed L.M.P. course.2. Certain facts giving the background of this petition are necessary to understand the nature of the relief and the circumstances in which it is being asked for. In the former State of Madhya Pradesh of which Vidarbha was a part, a course of medical education was co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1969)71BOMLR713; (1969)IILLJ619Bom; 1969MhLJ171
Abhyankar, J.1. This judgment will dispose of both the petitions. 2. The petitioner in Special Civil Application NO. 1106 is the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, while the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 1169 of 1966 is Madhukar Narayanrao Lanjewar, who was an employee of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. For the sake of brevity, the petitioner-Corporation will hereafter be referred to as the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. 3. Prior to the first reorganization of States in 1956, there was in operation in Vidarbha a Government undertaking called the Provincial Transport Services under Government ownership. As a result of the reorganization of States, the Provincial Transport Services operating in the Vidarbha region which became a part, firstly of the new State of Bombay, and then of the State of Maharashtra, continued to be operation by the same organization. Corresponding to these services there were in operation transport service...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1969)71BOMLR433; (1969)IILLJ499Bom; 1969MhLJ103
1. For the purposes of decision of this appeal it is not necessary to set out the entire evidence led by the prosecution, but suffice it to say that the prosecution evidence was accepted by the learned Special Judge so far as the appellant was concerned, but the learned Judge came to the conclusion that there was no case against the labour officer. He, therefore, acquitted the labour officer. One of the important question which was raised before the learned Special Judge was that the sanction which was given by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Nagpur, purporting to be under S. 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 1947, was invalid, and according to the accused, therefore, the prosecution itself was bad. 2. The learned Judge accepted the evidence of P.W. 5 Ajab Chore, that Sri R. A. Sheikh, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, had accorded sanction for the prosecution of the accused. The learned Judge then referred to a compilation which appears to have been produced before him during...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1969]24STC121(Bom)
Abhyankar, J.1. These two references at the instance of the petitioners, Messrs Home Industries Corporation, have been made by the Sales Tax Tribunal, referring the following question to the High Court : 'Whether on a true and correct interpretation of Section 8(b) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, read with Form J, and having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, was the Tribunal justified in law in disallowing the claim of the applicants to the sum of Rs. 2,98,958 ?' The two references are with respect to the following periods : 1st April, 1958 to 31st March, 1959, in S.T. Ref. No. 26/1968, 1st April, 1959 to 31st December, 1959 in S.T. Ref. No. 25/1968. 2. The amount of turnover of sales involved in the earlier period is Rs. 2,98,958; and in the subsequent period it amounts to Rs. 4,06,121. 3. In the statement of the case drawn up by the Tribunal it is stated that the applicants import motor spare parts and carry on the business of selling them either locally or in th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1970Bom117; (1970)72BOMLR258; ILR1971Bom150
Padhye, J.1. Original petitioners in this petition were two (1) Shankar Jayaram Ambedkar in his individual capacity and (2) Nagpur District Pensioners' Association, Nagpur, through its Honorary Secretary Mr. R. N. Gadre. After the petition was admitted the petitioners were required to give thenames of the pensioners of the petitioner No. 2 Association who had retired prior to 1-11-1956, but in spite of several opportunities being given, no names were supplied and the orders passed by this Court from time to time were not complied with. We are, therefore, not required to consider in this petition the case of those pensioners said to have been represented by the petitioner No. 2 and the decision of this case will be confined only so far as the petitioner No. 1 Shankar Jayaram Ambedkar is concerned.2. The petitioner No. 1 in the original petition will hereinafter be described as the petitioner only. The petitioner was employed in the year 1912 as an Overseer in the Agricultural Department...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1970)72BOMLR428
J.C. Shah, J.1. The respondent is the owner of a house in the town of Ahmedabad. The appellants are the tenants of that house at a monthly rental of Rs. 2,171. Under the agreement of lease the appellants were to pay out of the agreed rent Rs. 810 per month, and the balance was to be appropriated towards a loan advanced by them to the respondent for constructing the house. The appellants had also agreed to pay municipal taxes and electricity charges.2. The appellants filed suit No. 1308 of 1963 in the Court of the Small Causes, Ahmedabad, for an order inter alia, determining the standard rent of the permises in exercise of the power under Section 11 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act LVII of 1947. The Court of Small Causes, Ahmedabad, on an application filed by the appellants fixed the contractual rent as 'interim standard rent' and directed the appellants to pay the rent and municipal taxes. Pursuant to this order, the appellants deposited Rs. 2,403 as rent ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1970)72BOMLR666; 1970MhLJ116
Abhyankar, J.1. The two petitioners, Ramchandra son of Mahadeorao Mahankal and Sharadchandra son of Ramchandra Mahankal, seek quashing of a certificate issued by respondent No. 4, the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nagpur, under Section 137(1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, in favour of respondent No. 5, the Nagpur District Land Development Bank, Ltd., Nagpur, and as a consequence the sale of Khasra No. 78/1 of village Narayanpur at an auction and purchase by respondent No. 6 Shaliram. The petitioners have also impleaded respondents Nos. 7 to 11 who are said to be subsequent transferees of interest in the property, and respondent No. 12 who is alleged to be a lessee of the field. The petitioners, as members of their joint Hindu family, were share-holders of respondent No. 5 Co-operative Bank originally incorporated under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912. By virtue of the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, respon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1971Bom203; 1970MhLJ975
ORDER1. This petition raises an important question regarding the validity of Clause 13(3)(vi) of the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949. This Order has been made by the State Government in exercise of the power conferred upon it by Section 2 of the Central Provinces and Berar Regulation of Letting of Accommodation Act, 1946 (No. XI of 1946). Section 2 of the said Act provides as under-'The State Government may by general or special order which shall extend to such areas as the State Government, may by notification direct, provide for regulating the letting and sub-letting of any accommodation or class of accommodation whether residential or non-residential, whether furnished or unfurnished and whether with or without board, and in particular- (a) for controlling the rents for such accommodation either generally or when let to specified persons or classes of persons or in specified circumstances; (b) for preventing the eviction of tenants or sub-t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1972Bom242; ILR1971Bom1006
Vaidya, J. 1. In this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the validity of Rr. 1 [N. B. 1 (C) 2] 2, 4 (c) and (d) of the Rules framed by the Government of Maharashtra for admission to Government Medical Colleges is challenged by the petitioner, who sought admission in B. J. Medical College in Poona and was refused admission following the said rules.2.The rules are framed by the Government for admission to all the Government Medical Colleges in the State for the academic year 1970 - 71. The rules are annexed to the petition as Exhibit A. Rule 1 in substance, lays down that a candidate for admission must submit an application in writing upon a prescribed form to the authorities mentioned therein. The students of the different Universities are directed to forward applications to the authority mentioned against the University concerned as follows :Authority to whom application should be forwarded. The Dean, Grant Medical College, Byculla, Bombay 8. The Dean, B. J. Medical ...
Tag this Judgment!