Mumbai Court August 1980 Judgments
The Trustees of the Port of Bombay Vs. the Premier Automobiles Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1980
Reported in: (1981)83BOMLR28
P.M. Shinghal, J.1. This appeal by certificate is directed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated July 17, 1970, by which it upheld the judgment of the trial court dated March 3, 1965, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondents for Rs. 35,000 and interest with a part of their costs, it so happened that although there was initially much controversy about the facts, the parties realised the futility of disputing some glaring facts and agreed to take a decision, even in the trial court, on what they once described as 'interim consent terms', but to which they have stuck all through. We shall refer to them in a while, after stating some of the facts on which both the trial and the appellate courts have placed reliance. That will bring out the significance of the 'consent terms' and make them more intelligible.2. The Premier Automobiles Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs, imported 13 cases of machinery from Italy. Case No. 249, which is the subject-matter of t...
Tag this Judgment!Ramkrishna S/O Jagannath Barbhade Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1980
Reported in: 1982(1)BomCR771
S.C. Pratap, J.1. This petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenges the order dated 14th July, 1977, passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad in Case No. 142/A/77, which was an appeal preferred to the said Tribunal under the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holding) Act, 1961, hereinafter the Ceiling Act.2. The petitioner Ramkrishna was the original holder. In pursuance of return filed by him, an inquiry was held in that behalf by the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal. By its decision dated 17th May, 1977, the said Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioner was surplus holder to the extent on 11 acres and 3 gunthas. The said surplus land was delimited from Gat No. 43 to the tune of 9 acres and 27 gunthas situated at village Dahegaon and 2 acres and 16 gunthas out of Gat No. 6 situated at village Lakhmapur. The petitioner himself was aggrieved by the said order and hence he did not challenge the same by an appe...
Tag this Judgment!Vimal Vs. Sukumar Anna Patil and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1980
Reported in: (1981)83BOMLR37; 1981MhLJ82
ORDER1. The petitioner wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jaisingpur, claiming maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month from the respondent No. 1-Sukumar A. Patil, her husband. It is an admitted position that the petitioner is the legally married wife of the respondent-Sukumar and their marriage took place as per Hindu rites on 24th May, 1967. According to the petitioner-wife after the marriage they resided together for a period of two years. Thereafter there were frequent quarrels between the husband and wife and ultimately the respondent-husband drove her out of the house and has forsaken her. In her application she had also made allegations about the ill-treatment meted out to her by her husband. It is also her case that the respondent-husband has remarried with one Rajmati daughter of Jingonda Patil and the said Rajmati is residing with him at Jaisingpur. It was further alle...
Tag this Judgment!B.N. Chikaramane, Deputy Chief Officer, Dept. of Non-banking Companies ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1980
Reported in: 1989(1)BomCR540
ORDERA.D. Tated, J.1. These two Appeals Nos. 631 of 1981 and 632 of f1981 have been preferred by the complainant, Shri B.N. Chikaramane, Deputy Chief Officer, Department of Non-Banking Companies, Reserve Bank of India, Bombay Regional Office, against the judgment and order dated August 18, 1980, in Criminal Cases Nos. 298/S of 1979 and 299/S of 1979 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court, Esplanade, Bombay, and the third Appeal No.989 of 1981 has been filed by the State of Maharashtra against the Judgment and order in Criminal Case No.298/S of 1979. 2. In Criminal Case No.298/S of 1979, the accused were charged for the offence punishable under sections 58B(5)(a) and 58C of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, for collecting Rs.43,000 by way of deposits by the accused Nos. 1 to 12 between November 1, 1977, and January 28, 1d978, in contravention of the prohibitory order dated November1, 1977, issued by the Reserve Bank of India. In Criminal Case No.29...
Tag this Judgment!Khushalchand Daga Vs. N.M. Joshi, 3rd Income-tax Officer, A-i Ward, Bo ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-1980
Reported in: [1981]130ITR180(Bom); [1981]5TAXMAN180(Bom)
Aggarwal, J.1. The Central board of Direct Taxes, the 3rd respondent herein, in response to the petitions dated January 22, 1973, and July 7, 1973, filed by the petitioner for payment of interest on the amount of the tax paid in excess, decided that no interest was payable to the petitioner for the year 1943-44, in terms of the proviso to s. 66 (7) of the Indian I. T. Act, 1922, the provisions of which, so far as they are relevant for our purpose, are as follows :'66. (7) Notwithstanding that a reference has been made under this section to the High Court, income-tax shall be payable in accordance with the assessment made in the case : Provided that, if the amount of an assessment is reduced as a result of such reference, the amount overpaid shall be refunded with such interest as the Commissioner may allow......'2. The contention raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition is that the Commissioner is bound, as a matter of law, not only to order refund of the amount of tax pai...
Tag this Judgment!J.G. Sinkar and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Bom184; 1981MhLJ18
Deshmukh, C.J.1. This is a petition for review of judgment made by this Bench on 7th Feb., 1980 in Special Civil Application No. 1884 of 1975. When this petition was admitted and rule was issued to the respondents, both the learned counsel now appearing before us were present. Advocate Shri Keswani represented respondents Nos. 1 and 2, who were also original respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in the writ petition. Shri Angel, Advocate, was present on behalf of respondents Nos. 3 to 10, who were the original respondents Nos. 3 to 10 in the writ petition. The learned counsel accepted the notice on behalf of the respective respondents and the hearing was fixed on 11th August, 1980. It was made clear that it will be open to the respondents to point out that the petition for review does not lie as this Court has no right of review at all. If the review petition lay, it would still be open to the respondents to argue that this is not a fit case for exercising the powers of review. Accordingly we have ...
Tag this Judgment!Prasanna Dinkar Sohale and Etc. Vs. the Director-in-charge, Laxminaray ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1980
Reported in: AIR1982Bom176
ORDER1. These nine writ petitions be conveniently decided by a common judgment as in each of them a challenge is made to the validity and correctness is made to the validity and correctness of the admission and the Rules for the admission for the 4 year B. Tech (Chemical Engineering) Examination Course (hereinafter referred to as the Degree Course) of the Laximinarayan Institute of Technology, Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as the L. I.T.) This L.I.T. is being run by the University of Nagpur.2. There is no dispute that the minimum qualification for the admission of the degree course is 12th standard higher secondary school certificate of first year B. Sc or its equivatent. The applicant has to pass in phsice, chemistry and mathematics with 50% marks. In addition, he has also to pass in Language examination. The L.I.T. admits students to the degree course every year. For the year 1979-80 the L.I.T. issued prospectus for all the courses that are run by the Institute including the degree...
Tag this Judgment!Amar Dye-chem. Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1980
Reported in: 1982(10)ELT948(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. The only question which has been argued in this petition is whether Beta Naphthol is excisable under Item 14D of the Central Excise Tariff or under Item 68. The petitioners who are manufacturers of various chemicals and dyes including dye-intermediates and dye-stuffs were up to November 1969 importing Beta Naphthol. They started the manufacture of Beta Naphthol in November 1969 and when a question arose as to under what tariff item the said product fell, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Kalyan Division, informed the Petitioners by a Communication dated 24th September, 1971 that Beta Naphthol was excisable under Item 14D of the Central Excise. Item 14D of the Central Excise Tariff reads as follows :-'Synthetic organic dyestuffs (including pigment dyestuffs) and synthetic organic derivatives used in any dyeing process.'This view of the Assistant Collector was challenged by the petitioners by an appeal which came to be decided by the Appellate Collector, Central...
Tag this Judgment!Laxman Siddu Pote Vs. Shri Govindrao Koregaonkar Dharmadaya Sanstha Ma ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Bom33; 1981MhLJ338
1. This Second Appeal has got to be allowed on a very short point to which the attention of the lower Courts does not seem to have been invited.2. A short statement of facts would be sufficient to formulate the point. The suit property consists of R. S. No. 211 admeasuring 12-A and 31-G situate at Harali Budruk. Taluka Gadhingluj, Dist. Kolhapur. Admittedly the property originally belonged to Prabhakarpant Korgaonkar and the defendant, who is the present appellant before me in this Second Appeal, was the tenant of the land. There is no dispute that the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, (hereinafter, 'the Tenancy Act') was made applicable to this area on 1-5-1949. It appears that Korgaonkars started an educational institution in this area and the institution was registered under the Societies Registration Act in 1946. This institution was also registered under the Public Trust Act on 30th Oct., 1952.On 16-7-1951 the Korgaonkars gifted the suit land to the Trust by a regis...
Tag this Judgment!Madras Rubber Factory Limited, Madras Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1980
Reported in: 1981(8)ELT906(Bom)
1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 10-11-1972 of the Superintendent of Central Excise refusing to allow rebate as claimed and also against refusal to refund Rs. 3,19,338.93 claimed through applications dated 30-4-73 and 17-3-73.2. M/s. Madras Rubber Factory Limited, having their registered office at Madras, being desirous of setting up a new Industrial Undertaking in Goa for the manufacture of automobile tyres and tubes, on or about 27-4-71 applied to the Government of India, Ministry of Industrial Development for a licence, under Rule 7 of the Registration and Licencing Industrial Undertakings Rules, 1952, Government of India issued a licence (vide Annexure 'B') dated 23-11-72. Earlier the petitioner had obtained approval of the Ministry of Industrial Development, Government of India, for collaboration with M/s. Mansfield Tyres and Rubber Co., U.S.A. On or about the 28th of July, 1972, the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »