Mumbai Court December 1982 Judgments
Chandrashekhar Sidramappa Chinchansure Vs. Bhaurao Sidramappa Chinchan ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Bom475; 1983(1)BomCR507
ORDER1. This revision application arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff against the petitioner as defendant No. 1 and two others as defendants Nos. 2 and 3 in the original suit. The plaintiff filed this suit on 27th Feb., 1978 against the above defendants for recovery of Khas possession regarding lands Survey Nos. 58A and 60 situated at Kasar Sirsi, Taluka Nilanga. It is alleged in the suit that plaintiff as the exclusive owner was in possession of the suit lands. Under the partition, which took place during the lifetime of his father, some 20 years back, the lands, which fell to the share of defendant No. 2 and some lands, with which we are not concerned, were given to defendant No. 1, and Land Survey No. 103/B of Kasar Sirsi was allotted to defendant No. a3 in the suit.2. The plaintiff further alleges that the suit lands have no concern with the defendants. The plaintiff became exclusive owner of these lands under the partition and on the basis of that partition, sharers had go...
Tag this Judgment!Sheela Manik Patkar (Smt.) and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1982
Reported in: 1983(2)BomCR242
M.L. Pendse, J.1. Eighteen officers working in the Revenue and Forest Department of the Government of Maharashtra headed by D.V. Mathure, Under Secretary, addressed a latter dated June 5, 1972 to the Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Government of Maharashtra, requesting for an allotment of a Government land Survey No. 111/D of Ambivali at Andheri for the proposed co-operative housing society. The letter inter alia stated that the Officers propose to form a housing society comprising exclusively of persons working in the Revenue and Forest Department. The housing society known as Saptashringi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. was duly registered on June 16, 1973 under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The bye-laws of the Society are produced on record by the petitioners with the consent of the respondents, and are marked as 'X'. Bye-law 6 deals with the issue of membership and provides that all persons permanently residing in Bombay city and Su...
Tag this Judgment!Gangadhar Vishwanath Ranade (No. 2) and Another Vs. Tax Recovery Offic ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1982
Reported in: [1989]177ITR176a(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. A question of some interest and importance is raised in this petition. It concerns the powers of a Tax Recovery Officer under rule 11 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961. Is he hereby invested with the poser under section 281 of the Act to declare void a transfer of property by an assessee during the pendency of proceedings against him under the Act on the ground that it was made with the intention to defraud Revenue ?2. The first petitioner is the assessee with whom we are here concerned. On December 2, 1967, he executed a mortgage in favour of the Bank of Maharastra in respect of an immovable property belonging to his being Improvement Trust Plot No. 1 situated in civil station extension Scheme, N.I.T. South Dharampeth precincts, Part I, Circle No. 20, Division No. 8. Ward No. 42, Nagpur (Now referred to as 'the property') The mortgage was effected in respect of a loan of Rs. 75,000 obtained for the purposes of a firm in which he was a partner. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Devayani Hari Shanbaug Vs. Estate Manager (Sales), Bombay Housing and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1982
Reported in: 1983(1)BomCR405
M.L. Pendse, J. 1. The facts of this case would unfurl the plight of the petitioner in securing the premises from the Bombay Housing and Area Development Board. 2. The petitioner is unmarried and is residing with her parents at Matunga in one-room tenement. The petitioner has got two brothers and one sister who are also living in the premises at Matunga. In the year 1978, the respondents published a housing scheme for the middle income group people in Bombay. The advertisement appeared in the local newspaper on July 4, 1978 providing that the people whose total family income was within the range of Rs. 600/- and Rs. 1500/- would be entitled to apply for accommodation in the houses to be constructed by the respondents at various places in Bombay. In accordance with the advertisement, the petitioner filed an application on August 2, 1978 claiming that the total family income was more than Rs. 600/- per month and less than Rs. 1500/- per month. The petitioner pointed out in the applicatio...
Tag this Judgment!Rajeshwar Sayanna Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-1982
Reported in: 1983(1)BomCR343; (1984)ILLJ298Bom
Khandekar, J.1. Rule heard. Mr. Godhamgaonkar for the petitioner and Mr. Choudhary, Government Pleader, for the respondents. Mr. Choudhary waives service on behalf of the respondents. By consent of the parties, petition taken up today.2. Admittedly, the petitioner was working as Police Patil at village Illegaon, Taluka Billoli, District Nanded, with effect from 10th September, 1980 and his appointment was initially for a period of five years. Respondent No. 2 is the competent authority of the petitioner. There is no dispute the Crime No. 41 of 1982 under Ss. 323, 448, 504 & 506, I.P.C. was registered against the petitioner at Dharmabad Police Station and during the stage of investigation, he was arrested on 27th July, 1982 and was released on bail. A charge-sheet against him has also been filed in the relevant Court. The intimation regarding the registration of offence was sent to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. i.e., respondent No. 2, by the P.S.I. and vide order dated 14th September, ...
Tag this Judgment!Jaslok Hospital and Research Centre Vs. Industrial Tribunal and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-1982
Reported in: [1982]135ITR756(Bom); (1984)ILLJ76Bom
1. The petitioners - Jaslok Hospital & Research Centre are registered as a Public Charitable Trust under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The petitioners are running a well equipped and reputed hospital in Bombay and are also running a Research Centre in the hospital premises.2. The petitioners had employed about 900 workers in the Hospital and the Research Centre in the year 1979. The workers were members of a Trade Union by name 'Maharashtra Shramik Sabha' in the year 1978 and the Union had entered into a settlement dated January 18, 1978 with the employer under S. 18(1) read with S. 2(P) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the said settlement was to remain effective up to January 18, 1981. The name of the Union was changed to Maharashtra Kamgar Sabha and the Union signed a fresh settlement on October 5, 1979 in Conciliation under S. 18(1) read with S. 2(P) of the Industrial Disputes Act with the employer. By this settlement the wage scales and other conditio...
Tag this Judgment!Dahiben Umedbhai Patel and Others Vs. Norman James Hamilton and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1982
Reported in: (1983)85BOMLR275; [1985]57CompCas700(Bom)
Chandurkar, J.1. This is an appeal by original defendants Nos. 2 to 5 against a decree for Rs. 73,041 with interest on the principal amount of Rs. 53,500 passed by the learned single judge in Summary Suit No. 487 of 1972 Norman J. Hamilton v. Umedbhai S. Patel [1979] 49 Comp Cas 1 (SC).2. The facts in this appeal are not in dispute. The plaintiffs-respondents entered into an agreement with original defendants Nos. 1 to 4 to sell to original defendant No. 1 and defendants Nos. 2 to 4 and these defendants agreed to purchase from the plaintiffs 875 ordinary shares and 1,780 redeemable cumulative preference shares of a company known as A. Mac Rae & Co. Pvt. Ltd. for a total price of Rs. 3,10,000. Out of these shares, 125 ordinary shares and 520 redeemable cumulative preference shares belonged to one Mrs. Khambatta, who was a non-resident. It was, therefore, agreed between the parties that if there was any difficulty in the sale of the shares belonging to Mrs. Khambatta, defendants Nos. 1 t...
Tag this Judgment!Extrussion Processes Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Chief Controller of Imp ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1982
Reported in: 1984(15)ELT25(Bom)
1. Though this petition was argued at considerable length, the controversy lies in a very narrow compass, and the short question which falls for determination is whether Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have acted fairly in implementing the policy set out in the Hand Book of Import-Export Procedures, 1980-81 in respect of import of Capital Goods.2. The facts which gave rise to this petition are required to be stated briefly. Petitioner No. 1 is a Company engaged in the manufacture of aluminium collapsible tubes, rigid cans and containers. Petitioner No. 1 is registered with the Directorate General of Technical Development, Government of India, Industrial Machinery-I Directorate. Petitioner No. 1 claims that it has manufactured nine plants used for the production of extruded aluminium collapsible tubes. All these nine plants are used by Petitioner No. 1 itself. Petitioner No. 1 has exported one complete plant to Zambia. There is some dispute between the parties as to whether the concern at Zambi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State Vs. Automobile Products o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1982
Reported in: [1983]52STC314(Bom)
Madon, C.J.1. This is a reference under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, made by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax. Only one question is submitted to us for our determination in this reference. That question is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on the correct and proper interpretation of the provisions of latter part of sub-section (2) of section 46 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that forfeiture of Rs. 1,231.76 collected by the respondent was not justified ?'2. The facts which have given rise to this reference are that the respondent-company which is a registered dealer also holds a recognition under section 22 of the said Act. During the period 1st April, 1965, to 31st March, 1966, the respondent purchased certain goods and in respect of such purchase give certificates in form 15 to their vendors. As a result of this, their vendors ...
Tag this Judgment!Lakxmibai Nagappa Matiwadar and ors. Vs. Limbabai Nagappa Matiwadar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Bom222; 1984(1)BomCR275; 2(1983)DMC203; 1983MhLJ103
1. For the purpose of the present appeal that arises out of a suit filed by the respondent for possession of three plots relying on her right to succeed to the interest of her husband Nagappa. few facts, as are found, are not in dispute. It was held by the first appeal Court that Nagappa got the suit property, that is, plot No. 228 by inheritance form his mother Nagawwa, but the appeal Court dismissed the suit with regard to the other plots, being plots Nos. 230 and 231. There is no cross-appeal with regard to those plots. The first appeal Court judgment decreed the suit of Limbabai with regard to the said plot No. 228, holding that the present appellant would not have any right or interest therein because appellant No. 1 Laxmibai's marriage with Nagappa was void. That marriage took place on May 24, 1955. The other appellants were born thereafter. It has been found that plaintiff Limbabai was marriage to Nagappa according to Hindu rites and was alive on that date. Applying the provisio...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »