Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rationale Court: mumbai Year: 1981 Page 1 of about 17 results (0.032 seconds)

Sep 30 1981 (HC)

A. Raman and Another Vs. K.N. Vani and Others

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-30-1981

Reported in : (1982)IILLJ1Bom

..... court. the next submission was that the management was guilty of discrimination in permitting some of the employees to resume service while declining that advantage to other employees without any rationale. shri cama urges that the tribunal has totally misread the evidence of gupta and the evidence clearly indicates that the employees were victimized for joining the union. shri presswala, the ..... the employees had not abandoned their services it is not open for the management to select any employees in whom they have fancy and keep out other employees without any rationale. such conduct on the part of the management would clearly amount to victimization and the tribunal should not have refused the relief to the petitioners. the observations of the tribunal .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 30 1981 (HC)

Balwantrai Maganlal Mehta Vs. M.C. Satyawadi and Two Others

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-30-1981

Reported in : 1982(10)ELT168(Bom)

..... not be disturbed merely because of certain subsequent events. the submission is without any merit. if subsequent decision of the government of india assist the petitioner, then there is no rationale to decline the relief on a technical ground that the order of the chief controller was valid on the date when it was passed. in my judgment, the petitioner is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 16 1981 (HC)

Air India Corporation Vs. Richard Rashid Khan

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Dec-16-1981

Reported in : (1983)ILLJ125Bom

..... arriving at his own finding as to misconduct within the meaning of its regulations. on a construction of regns. 44(i) and 44(ii), the learned judge observed that the rationale of sub-regn. (i) of regn. 44 was to eliminate the enquiry otherwise compulsory under sub-regn. (i) of regn. 44 and the adjudication proceedings and the order of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 16 1981 (HC)

Johnson and Johnson Ltd. Vs. All India Pharmaceutical Employees Union

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-16-1981

Reported in : [1981(43)FLR335]; (1982)IILLJ311Bom

..... of reasoning. if recognition is not to be denied for the misdeeds for the misdeeds of the unions seeking recognition during the pendency of the application, then there is no rationale why such a recognition should be cancelled on the next day of recognition. once the entire process for granting recognition has gone through, then the legislature could not have desired .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 30 1981 (HC)

Indian Organic Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Chemtex Fibres Inc.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jun-30-1981

Reported in : (1981)83BOMLR406; 1982MhLJ698

..... /3rd : l/3rd or 1/3rd : 2/3rd, we have seen the original correspondence between the high court and the district judges and apart from giving the bald figures the rationale or the basis of the ratio adopted hag not been gone into or explained by the district judges concerned. here it may be pointed out that the limitation as to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 23 1981 (HC)

Air India CabIn Crew Association and Others Vs. Air India

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jan-23-1981

Reported in : (1981)IILLJ306Bom

1. this petition questions the legality and validity of the action taken by the respondent-air india reducing with effect from flight a1-115 of 4th january, 1981 the cabin crew complement on its b-747 flights from its pre-existing total of nineteen members to eighteen members, vide circular dated 3rd january, 1981 (exhibit d to the petition).2. hearing in extenso the rival submissions of the respective counsel and going through the petition, reply and rejoinders as also the reported and unreported judgments cited before me, i am of the view that this is not a case warranting interference under art. 226 of the constitution. indeed, grant of any relief herein is be set with many difficulties.3. at the outset and as rightly urged on behalf of the respondent-air india, the question of deployment and or reduction of cabin crew complement as also the matter of standard force and or pattern of crew scheduling are matters essentially and basically partaking the character of management functions. it is not a matter of industrial adjudication. though effort was made to challenge this position, the same by now stands beyond the pale of controversy not only by virtue of awards and settlements under the industrial disputes act (hereinafter the act) but also by binding decisions of this court. mr. justice khosla's award dated 10th february, 1966 held that.'...... the final determination of the standard force must rest with the management'.mr. justice mahesh chandra's subsequent award dated .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 30 1981 (HC)

Shaukatali Isimdar Vs. Smt. Nargesh Dhanjishaw Jassoomani

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jul-30-1981

Reported in : (1982)84BOMLR238; 1982MhLJ305

s.k. desai, j.1. this revision application is preferred against the order of the learned judge of the city civil court passed on the plaintiffs' notice of motion in suit no. 4411 of 1964, as an interesting point arises for decision, a few facts necessary for properly appreciating the same may be indicated.2. one dhanjishaw as the sole plaintiff filed suit no. 4411 of 1964 in the bombay city civil court at bombay and sought orders in respect of land as per plan ex. a to the plaint. a decree was sought against the two defendants to the suit shaukatali isimdar and mohomad ishaque and the plaintiff wanted them to hand over possession of the said land after removing certain structures standing thereon. mesne profits and interlocutory orders were also sought. the first defendant thereafter filed his written statement in february 1965 inter alia putting the plaintiff to the strict proof of his ownership. it was further contended that the second defendant to the suit claimed ownership of the suit land by adverse possession and had given tenancies of portions thereof to several persons including the first defendant. the first defendant claims to be occupying an area of 42' x 90 and paying rent of rs. 30 per month to the second defendant. it would appear that some time thereafter the original plaintiff died and his three heirs were substituted as plaintiffs 1 to 3, in addition plaintiff no. 4 who is alleged to have purchased the property from those three heirs was also joined as a co- .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 18 1981 (HC)

ismail Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-18-1981

Reported in : (1982)84BOMLR20; 1982CriLJ582; 1982MhLJ359

dharmadhikari, j.1. the detenu mohomed umar alias umar pathan s/o. jalaluddin alias matiuzamkhan pathan is detained vide order dated 3rd july, 1981 issued by the commissioner of police under the maharashtra prevention of dangerous activities of slumlords bootleggers and drug-offenders ordinance (maharashtra ordinance no. iii of 1981) (hereinafter referred to as the ordinance). with the order of detention the grounds of detention were also supplied. the said order of detention is challenged, in this criminal application.2. it is contended by the petitioner that prior to the issuance of the present order under the ordinance, on 22nd february, 1981, the detenu was detained by the same authority i.e., the commissioner of police greater bombay under a detention order issued under s. 3(2) of the national security act, 1980 (act 65 of 1980) hereinafter referred to as an act practically on identical grounds. against the said order issued under the act, the petitioner had filed habeas corpus petition before this court, bearing criminal application no. 588 of 1981 in which rule nisi was issued on 6th april, 1981. however before the said petition could come up for hearing on 7th april, 1981, the government of maharashtra revoked the order of detention under s. 12(2) of the act in pursuance of the opinion expressed by the advisory board that there was no sufficient cause for the detention of the detenu. since the detenu was already released, he withdrew the habeas corpus petition filed .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 14 1981 (HC)

Kirloskar Cummins Limited Vs. Union of India and Three Others

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-14-1981

Reported in : 1982(10)ELT29(Bom)

1. the petitioners are a company incorporated under the companies act and are running a factory at pune where diesel engines are manufactured. the petitioners import diverse diesel engine components from united states for the purpose of their business and the components of such diesel engines attract customs duty as per the provisions of the indian customs act read with the provisions of the indian tariff act, 1934. under the provisions of the indian tariff act, the customs duty on an ad valorem basis was levied on the components.2. on november 25, 1967, in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (1) of section 25 of the customs act, 1962, the central government issued notification no. 114, inter alia, providing that where the goods are imported in india packed in any materials, the materials in which the goods are so packed would be exempt from the whole of the duty of customs including countervailing duty, provided that the goods were packed in materials normally used in trade for packing such goods and the packing was not suitable for repeated use. the petitioners were importing components from united states of america from their collaborators cummins engine company and the practice generally followed by the suppliers was to charge from their buyers the price of the particular components and a standardised packing charge at the rate of 4% of the value of such material. the components were packed in ordinary wooden boxes and creates which where not suitable for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 09 1981 (HC)

Indian Plastics Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jul-09-1981

Reported in : 1981(8)ELT509(Bom)

1. the only point that i am called upon to decide is whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of excise duty paid to the excise authorities for the period 1st october, 1973 to 11th may, 1974, aggregating to rs. 7,09,419.69.2. the petitioner is a public limited company carrying on business of manufacturing, inter alia, a certain moulding powder technically known as phenol formaldehyde synthetic resin. prior to 10th may, 1975, the petitioner submitted to the excise department its price lists for the excisable goods manufactured by it under the self-removal procedure. these price lists included post-manufacturing costs and/or profits attributable to post-manufacturing operations and the petitioner paid excise duty on the value of the products thus computed. in december 1972, the supreme court delivered its judgment in a. k. roy v. voltas ltd., which was reported in : 1973ecr60(sc) , holding that on a true construction of the central excises and salt act, 1944, the assessable value of manufactured products was to be ascertained on the basis of manufacturing costs, excluding from the sale price all post-manufacturing expenses and profits attributable to post-manufacturing operations. this view was confirmed by the supreme court in its later decision delivered in february 1975 in atic industries ltd. v. h. h. dave, asstt. collector, central excise = : 1978(2)elt444(sc) . in para 8 of the petition, it is averred that after the declaration of law by the supreme court the .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //