Mumbai Court June 1981 Judgments
Indian Organic Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Chemtex Fibres Inc.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1981
Reported in: (1981)83BOMLR406; 1982MhLJ698
Desai, J.1. This is an unusual chamber summons taken out by the plaintiff in Suit No. 199 of 1976 filed on the Original Side of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The chamber summons has been referred for disposal to a division bench under Rule 59 of the Original Side Rules.2. In the chamber summons Messrs. Indian Organic Chemicals Ltd, (hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiff') has sought a declaration that the Bombay Court Fees (Second Amendment) Act, 1974 be declared as ultra vires the powers of the State Legislature and, therefore, null, void and of no effect whatsoever. In addition to the three defendants to the suit the Advocate General State of Maharashtra, and the State of Maharashtra have been joined as party respondents 1 and 2 to the chamber summons and the plaintiff has in the chamber summons also sought an injunction against the Second respondent viz. the State of Maharashtra, that it should be restrained from recovering Court fees in excess of Its. 15000 from the p...
Tag this Judgment!Prakash D. Khode Vs. Ashok B. Khode
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-1981
Reported in: (1981)83BOMLR476
Mody, J.1. (After stating the facts and pleadings His Lordship proceeds.)2. It is the contention of Mr. Dalvi that the present suit contains a prayer for declaration of ownership of the plaintiffs on the basis of the gift deed. This gift, deed was challenged as far back as June 30, 1962 and a suit for declaration ought to have been filed within 3 years or 6 years thereof depending upon which article applied. The present suit having been filed about 7 years thereafter is beyond time. According to Mr. Shah the article applicable is Article 144 of the old Limitation Act of 1908, and therefore, limitation will be of a period of 12 years from the date when the possession of the defendants became adverse to the plaintiffs. Mr. Dalvi contends, based on averments in the plaint and particularly paragraphs 5 to 7 of the plaint, that the real nature of the suit is a suit for declaration. He relies on Bhagirthibai Patloo Chavan v. Appa Dada Shinde (1933) 36 Bom. L.R. 185. In that case one Tukaram ...
Tag this Judgment!Wipro Products Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1981
Reported in: 1981(8)ELT531(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the order dated October 9, 1980 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Nasik, declining to grant refund of the excess excise duty paid by the petitioners and also seeking certain other reliefs to which we would refer at a later stage.2. Petitioner No. 1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, while petitioner No. 2 is its Managing Direct. The petitioner Company inter alia manufacture Vanaspati and soap. Vanaspati is an item which falls under Tariff Item 13 while soap falls under Tariff Item No. 15 of Schedule I of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Central Excise Act). The petitioners sell their product to wholesale dealers and also through their own depots set at various places. The petitioner Company clear the Vanaspati under the self Removal procedure without filing price lists as per order passed under Rule ...
Tag this Judgment!Liladhar Chandak Vs. C.M. Saraiya and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1981
Reported in: 1982(1)BomCR416
S.K. Desai, J.1. In this application the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 33rd Court, Ballard Pier, Bombay, below application dated 15th October, 1979 in Case No. 60/W/77 stands impugned. By the impugned order the learned Metropolitian Magistrate rejected the application. The petitioner has in this application given details as to what transpired on 14th September, 1979. He has also set out in paragraph 4 what was originally observed. At that time according to the petitioner the learned Metropolitian Magistrate, then presiding over the 33rd Court has seen the dairy of the advocate and made the observations.2. I find that a very surprising procedure is being followed by the lower judiciary including the Metropolitan Magistrate in Greater Bombay. For years and years the cases before them are kept pending and they do not even insist upon the prosecuting agency filing charge-sheets for the period as long as 11/2 year to two years. All that seems to happen during this period is ...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Vishnu Ghatnekar Vs. Madhukar Vishnu Ghatnekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Bom482; (1982)84BOMLR41; 1982MhLJ65
1. The plaintiff and the defendant are brothers. Their father Vishnu Narayan Ghatnekar died on 9-5-1969 leaving behind him the plaintiff, the defendant and other children as his heirs. At the time of his death Vishnu held shares in a co-operative society and was an allottee of a piece of land under a lease from the society on which he had put up a building. Vishnu also had filed a nomination with the society nominating the plaintiff as his nominee to whom the shares, the land and the buildings should be transferred after this death. By virtue of this nomination the plaintiff claims to be the owner of the entire property consisting of shares, land and building, He also claims possession from the defendant by virtue of the said ownership and on the ground that the defendant was in occupation of the property by virtue of a licence granted by the father and that the same had been terminated.2. It is admitted that the property is that of the father Vishnu. At the time of his death all the h...
Tag this Judgment!Pukhraj Nagraj Ranka and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1981
Reported in: 1982(2)BomCR235
C.S. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Writ Petition No. 700 of 1977 has been filed by the petitioners for themselves, individually as well as on behalf of other money lenders. While admitting the petitions this Court granted leave under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code and, therefore, it could be said that the said writ petition was filed in a representative capacity. In this writ petition as well as other writ petitions which were heard with Writ Petition No. 700 of 1977, the petitioners have challenged the provisions of the Maharashtra Debt Reliefs Act, 1975 as enacted in the year 1975 as well as amended by Maharashtra Act XL of 1977 and Maharashtra Act XVIII of 1979. The various provisions of this Act are challenged mainly on the ground that they are violative of the petitioners' fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution of India. According to the petitioners when the matter was heard by this Court on an earlier occasions in Kailashchand ...
Tag this Judgment!Nagesh Waman Patil and ors. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bomb ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Bom421; (1982)84BOMLR4; 1982MhLJ37
ORDER1. This is a reference under section 18, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') for the determination of compensation in respect of acquisition of certain lands situated at village Borla, in Kurla, Bombay.2. The proceedings arise out of the acquisition of a large area of land admeasuring 30 acres 34 gunthas and 4 annas, equivalent to 1,49,344.25 sq. Yards, situated at village Borla in Kurla. Three notifications under section 4 of the said Act declaring the intention to acquire the said lands, were published on 27-11-1958. On 14-10-1960 , an agreement was arrived at between the claimants and the Bombay municipal corporation, being the acquiring body, for whose purposes the aforesaid lands were being acquired under the said Act. The said agreement was arrived at between the claimants as representing their families including certain minors and the Bombay municipal corporation as well as a confirming party. The recitals to the said agreement show that t...
Tag this Judgment!Travel Agents Association of Vs. Eighth Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1981
Reported in: (1982)1ITD988(Mum.)
1. The only issue raised in this appeal preferred by the assessee, Travel Agents Association of India, Bombay, for the assessment year 1978-79, for which the relevant previous year ended 31-12-1977, pertains to disallowance of Rs. 45,000, out of sum of Rs. 50,000 paid by the assessee to Pacific Area Travels Association (India), being the assessee's share of contribution towards "Food Festival" held at the time of conference. The Commissioner (Appeals) considered the disallowance of Rs. 45,000 under Section 37(2) as entertainment.2. The learned authorised representative for the assessee in detail submitted that the Travel Agents Association of India had incurred the said expenditure in fulfilment of its objects as detailed in the memorandum of association. He submitted at length that at the time of the conference of Pacific Area Travels Association (India) Chapter, more popularly known at PATA, a sum of Rs. 1,30,000 was spent on Food Festival in which about 2,000 people were hosted out...
Tag this Judgment!J.M. Phadtare and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1981
Reported in: 1982(1)BomCR760
S.K. Desai, J. 1. This revision application is preferred against the decision give by the learned Special Judge, Pune, below application Ex. 128 in Special Case No. 10 of 1978. A few facts may be stated :2. The allegation of the prosecution pertains to October 1973 and broadly speaking it is averred that a number of accused persons entered into a conspiracy and misappropriated certain bran bags. Charges accordingly are under section 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 468 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code and also under section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The charge-sheet was filed before the Special Judge, Pune, on 10th July, 1978 and on 12th September, 1980 as many as 36 charges were framed by the said Special Judge. It may be mentioned that out of these charges accused No. 13 who was ultimately granted conditional pardon and which order is impugned before me, figures in charges 2, 3, 4, 6, 14, 15, 23, 28, & 29 and 35. It would appear that he is a common facto...
Tag this Judgment!Padmanna Malkari Mali Vs. Bhourawwa Padmanna Mali (Sou.) and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1981
Reported in: 1982(1)BomCR438
S.K. Desai, J.1.This revision is preferred against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli directing the revision petitioner-husband to pay maintenance of Rs. 75/- per month to the 1st respondent-wife from the date of her application under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code i.e. with effect from 29th July, 1975. The petitioner was also required to pay Rs. 200/- as cost of the litigation.2. Originally, Criminal Case No. 19 of 1975 was filed in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jath by the wife. The said Judicial Magistrate by his order dated 25th September, 1979 dismissed the application for maintenance. The Magistrate is his order refers to an act by the husband of branding the wife but dismissed it from consideration on the ground that the act was subsequent to the date of the application. With such a husband present before the Court, the Magistrate should have been quick in accepting the other allegations of ill-treatment but on the contrary and ra...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »