Mumbai Court December 1979 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Greaves Cotton and Company Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1979
Reported in: 1989(25)LC489(Bombay); 1989(43)ELT263(Bom)
Lentin J.1. The petitioner is a public limited Company which carries on business of manufacturing diamond tools for which purpose it imports industrial diamonds. Diamonds are of two categories, viz., gem category and non-gem category. A low gem category diamond can be mistaken for a high non-gem category diamond and a low gem category diamond can be mistaken for a high quality industrial diamond. The petitioner-Company applied for two licences for the import of industrial diamonds for the period 1971-72. On 22nd March 1972 the petitioner was granted two licences valid till 30th June 1972 with a grace period of 30 days. Under these licences the petitioner-Company imported industrial diamonds on the basis of invoices dated 11th April 1972. The import was covered by two Bills of Entry dated 23rd June 1972 and 28th June 1972. At the time of import, the Customs Appraiser made the following observation on the Bill of Entry : 'Looking to points, colour and size these are gem cutable. However,...
Shukar Hanan Mutawali and ors. Vs. Malkappa and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Bom213; 1980MhLJ725
1. This Second Appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs against the concurrent decrees of the two courts below dismissing their suit for redemption of the mortgages and for possession of the mortgaged lands.2. One Shaikh Farid alias Bada Saheb Bawa Miraj Mutawalli had mortgaged the land from Survey No. 442 as described in para (1) (a) of the plaint with Malkappa Anna Nakate for Rs. 500/- on 30th October, 1877. The period of mortgage was four years. One Ashama wife of Sultan Mutawalli had mortgaged some land from the said survey number with Malkappa on 1-12-1897. The period of the mortgage was 15 years, One Lalbi wife of Nabi Mutawalli had mortgaged some land from the said survey number with the same Malkappa on 28-8-1897. The first mortgage was for a consideration of Rs. 500/-, the second for a consideration of Rs. 500/- and the third mortgage was for a consideration of Rs. 80/-. All were usufructuary mortgages. Three different pieces of lands appeared to have been mortgaged under t...
indubai Vs. Govindrao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1979
Reported in: (1980)82BOMLR605
S.C. Pratap, J.1. Order dated 3rd May, 1975 passed by the trial Court rejecting petitioner's application for restoration of her case being Misc. Judicial Case No. 28 of 1973 is the subject matter of this revision application therefrom.2. The original proceedings were matrimonial proceedings between the petitioner and her husband, the opponent herein. The husband had filed Hindu Marriage Suit No. 37 of 1972 for divorce. The said suit was decreed ex parte on 7th January, 1973. The petitioner herein filed application Misc. Judicial Case No. 28 of 1973 for setting aside the ex parte decree and for hearing the divorce suit on its own merits and in accordance with law with opportunity to her to defend the same. This application for restoration was, however, dismissed on 17th December, 1973 as the petitioner's Advocate, Mr. V.D. Pendse, was not able to attend the Court on that day. It is hence that the petitioner filed the present application Misc. Case No. 4 of 1974 for setting aside the ord...
Sunil Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Vidarbha and Marathwada an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1979
Reported in: (1980)82BOMLR607; [1983]139ITR880(Bom)
Gadgil, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the notice (annex. A) issued under s. 226(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), addressed to respondent No. 3 firm, directing that any amount due and payable by that firm to the petitioner should be paid to the ITO in satisfaction of the alleged tax liability of the petitioner. The validity of the notice was taken up in revision before the Commissioner and the said revision had been dismissed on March 27, 1978, vide annex. E to the petition. 2. The main contention of the petitioner is that he is not under any liability to pay the income-tax dues as claimed by the Department and as such the recovery proceedings are bad. To understand his grievance, it will be necessary to refer to certain facts which are not in dispute. 3. Prior to 1958, respondent No. 5 firm, viz., M/s. Ramkrishana Ramnath, Kamptee (hereinafter referred to as respondent No. 5) was constituted. Radhakishanji, Ra...
C.C. Industries and ors. Vs. H.N. Ray and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1979
Reported in: 1980(6)ELT442(Bom)
1. By this petition, the petitioners seek an appropriate writ for setting aside the orders dated 4th September, 1965, 7th November, 1971 and 6th August, 1975 passed by the Officer on Special Duty, Central Excise, Bombay, the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority, respectively. 2. The case of the petitioners in the petition is that the 1st petitioner purchased certain lands at Udhna on which it constructed industrial sheds and let each of these sheds to petitioners 2 to 6 who carry on business of manufacturing cotton fabrics on power-looms at Udhna. The 1st petitioner is a partnership firm which came into existence from 1st February, 1960 at Udyog Nagar, Udhna, District Surat, and has 4 pirn winding machines at Udhna. The 2nd petitioner carries on business as the sole proprietor in the name and style of M/s. Prithvi Textiles from November 1960 and is the owner of 8 powerlooms at Udhna. The 3rd petitioner carries on business in the name and style of M/s. Dilip Textiles as the ...
Gurudatta Housing Society Vs. Maruti Bali Kokate
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-1979
Reported in: (1980)82BOMLR397; 1980MhLJ619
V.S. Deshpande, J.1. This First Appeal was dismissed summarily at the admission stage on August 10, 1979. The appeal is directed against the judgment of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad, in Land Acquisition Reference No. 19 of 1975 under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The reference was necessitated due to the inability of the Land Acquisition Officer to decide as to who, between the claimants, was the owner of the land acquired. The learned Judge rejected the appellant's claim and upheld Maruti Kokate's claim to be the owner of the land and as such entitled to receive the compensation. The appellant valued his claim in appeal at Rs. 300 and paid Court-fees thereon accordingly presumably under Clause (1) of Article 23 of Schedule II of the Bombay Court-fees Act, 1959, hereinafter referred to as 'the Court-fees Act'. The office claims ad valorem court-fees under Article 1 of Schedule I read with Section 1(1) of the Court-fees Act ...
Tribhovandas M. Rugani Vs. Vimal Vasantrao Dhurandhar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-1979
Reported in: (1980)82BOMLR404
Aggarwal, J.1. The principal question which falls for consideration in these four testamentary suits is whether the judgment pronounced in an earlier testamentary suit in respect of the same will and estate of the deceased is a judgment in rem and under Section 41 of the Evidence Act is conclusive of the question decided and that the defendants herein are concluded by that judgment and cannot reopen the same question. The proposition is simple but has come under fire in view of the judgment of this Court in Maneklal V. Shah v. Jagdish C. Shah (1969) 72 BomLR 719 and on other points.2. The background of the disposed suit and the present four suits coming up for hearing before me can be briefly summarised as follows: -3. The deceased, Anandrao Nilaji Mhatre, died on January 28, 1975 at his house at Kandivali, Bombay. The deceased left him surviving his widow, four sons, five daughters and the children of two pre-deceased daughters.4. The deceased had made a will dated January 8, 1973. On...
S.V. Panvalkar Vs. Bank of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1979
Reported in: [1980(41)FLR55]; (1980)IILLJ398Bom
B. Lentin, J.1. The main question that arises for determination in this petition is whether the termination of the petitioner's services amounts to dismissal by way of punishment or whether it is termination simpliciter. 2. On 9th February, 1961, the petitioner was appointed as a Sub-Officer in Grade III in the respondent-Bank. With effect from 1st April, 1968, the petitioner was promoted to Grade D Officer in the Foreign Exchange Department in the Head Office of the respondent-Bank. At that time, the petitioner was the Chief Promoter and Secretary of Manoj Co-operative Housing Society (referred to hereafter as 'the Society'), the purpose whereof was to construct residential quarters for the employees of the respondent-Bank and also for outsiders. 3. On 23rd, April, 1969, an enquiry was instituted under S. 83 of the Co-operative Societies Act in connection with the affairs of the Society. On 4th, October, 1969, the Registrar's nominee, one A. S. Rangnekar made a report finding the peti...
Dagadu Vs. Ramji and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1979
Reported in: AIR1981Bom323; 1980MhLJ472
ORDER1. The material question that arises for consideration in this petition is whether the Agricultural Lands Tribunal while exercising the powers conferred upon it by Section 98 of the (hereinafter referred to as the Vidarbha Tenancy Act) can make a reference under Section 125 to the Tahsildar for deciding the issue of Tenancy.2. The petitioner claims to be the tenant of the lands bearing S. Nos. 72/1, 74/1 and 74/4 situate at Toe, a village in Washim tahsil of Akoia District. These lands admittedly belong to respondent No. 1. Suo motu proceedings were commenced under Section 48 of the Vidarbha Tenancy Act for transferring ownership of above mentioned lands in favour of the petitioner. Respondent No. 1 disputed petitioner's claim that he is a tenant of the lands in question. According to respondent No. 1, the petitioner is his partner in cultivation of the lands. The Agricultural Lands Tribunal, presumably on the assumption that it had no jurisdiction to decide the question about ten...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›