Mumbai Court September 1982 Judgments
Hindustan Zinc Limited Vs. Associated Metals and Minerals Corporation ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Bom131; (1983)85BOMLR77; 1983MhLJ579
Chandurkar, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of a learned single Judge staying the suit filed by the plaintiff -appellant as against defendant No. 1 and giving liberty to the plaintiff to continue its suit against defendants Nos. 2 and 3.2.. There is no dispute that under a contract dated 15th Jan. 1970 entered into between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1, defendant No. 1 was to sell to the plaintiff 5000 to 6000 metric tons of zinc sulphide floatation concentrates (hereinafter referred to as the 'zinc sulphide concentrate'), and that the first such consignment was shipped from Algeria on 3rd July, 1970 and had arrived at Kandla on 19th Aug., 1970. It is also not in dispute that the third defendant was employed as Surveyor for supervising, discharging, weighment, sampling and moisture determination of the first consignment and for issuing the required report and half of the charges payable to the third defendant were to be debited to the plaintiff by the first defendant in th...
Tag this Judgment!Madhukar Timbak Gore Vs. Vasant Ramkrishna Kolhatkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Bom277
ORDER1. This revision application raised an important yet interesting question with regard to the power and jurisdiction of the executing Court to pronounce on the validity of the decree sought to be executed by it. The facts giving rise to the present revision application briefly stated are as follows:A house bearing Municipal House No. 13/12 consisting of four rooms and situated at Amravati originally belonged to one Maheboobkan. The applicant has taken one of these four rooms on lease form Maheboobkhan for his dispensary in or about the year 1960. After the death of Maheboobkhan the ownership of the house changed hands and one Dhirajlal became owner on or about 15-6-1971. Dhirajlal obtained permission form the Rent Controller for terminating the tenancy of the applicant. The latter preferred an appeal against this order of the Rent Controller and that was said to be pending at the time when the present litigation started. During the pendency of that appeal Dhirajlal terminated the l...
Tag this Judgment!Kamlabai Lachmandas Dabrai Vs. Madhav Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1982
Reported in: 1982(1)BomCR857
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. This is a contempt notice issued suo motu by my brother Pratap, J.2. The alleged contemnors are Popatlal, Galaben, Nirmala and Bawabhai. Bawabhai and Galaben are husband and wife. Popatlal is their son. Nirmala is their daughter-in-law, being the wife of their son Gordhandas. Popatlal, Galaben and Nirmala are partners of Messrs Globe Engineering. Gordhandas is the manager of the said firm.3. In respect of flat No. 13 is a building called Peacock Palace, belonging to the Madhav Co-op. Housing Society Ltd., one Kamlabai Lachmandas Dabrai filed proceedings before the 1st Co-operative Court against the said society and the said firm. The judgment of this Court was taken in appeal to the Co-operative Appellate Court. In respect of the decision of the Appellate Court, a writ petition (being Miscellaneous Petition No. 106 of 1979) was filed by Kamlabai. Pratap, J., heard and allowed the petition. During the hearing, it was brought to his notice that in a suit (being OOCJ S...
Tag this Judgment!Balubhai G. Navlakhi and anr. Vs. Dharamdas Vithaldas Shah and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Bom538; 1982CriLJ2147
1. To 7. * * *8. In support of his contention that even at this stage the complaint can be dismissed and the process issued by the learned trial magistrate can be quashed, Mr.Rajani sought to rely upon a judgment of this court in Bomanji v.Mehernosh 1980 Bom CR 503. Before Mr.Rajani proceeded to read this judgment, I stopped him because it is my consistent practice not to allow this journal to be cited in my court. As the prefect of this volume shows, the publication of this journal, namely, Bombay cases Reporter, was originally published under the caption 'Unreported cases Reporter (Bombay)'. Under the practice of this court, copies of judgments of this court which are marked by the judges to be referred to the law reporters are given to the Bombay Law Reporter and the maharashtra Law Journal. The All India Reporter obtains certified copies of the judgments of this court and thereafter publishes the judgments in its journal. There is nothing in this journal called Bombay cases Reporte...
Tag this Judgment!Tukaram Bhau Mane Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-1982
Reported in: (1983)85BOMLR115; 1983MhLJ317
D.P. Madon, C.J.1. This is an appeal against an order passed by Mrs. Justice Sujata Manohar sitting singly on the Original Side rejecting the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the appellant. The appellant was an unarmed police constable in the Bombay City Police Force. By an order dated August 16, 1982 passed by the Governor of Maharashtra in exercise of the powers vested in him under Clause (c) of the second proviso to Clause (2) of Article 311 read with Article 310 of the Constitution of India the appellant was dismissed from service with immediate effect. The appellant was arrested on August 18, 1982 at about 1 a.m. and detained under Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. On the same day, the said order of dismissal was served upon him. An application was presented on August 18, 1982 to the Metropolitan Magistrate, 23rd Court, Esplanade, by the Inspector of Police, Detection of Crime Branch, C.I.D., Bombay, requesting that the appel...
Tag this Judgment!National Construction Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-1982
Reported in: (1983)3ITD677(Mum.)
1. These are two cross appeals from the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the assessee, a registered firm, engaged in construction of buildings is eligible for deduction under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act').2. The assessee is a firm constituted under a deed of partnership dated 24-4-1974. The partnership business is constructing buildings on a plot of land allotted to them by the Government of Maharashtra at Nariman Point. The building would consist of several shops, offices, basements and garages, which were sold to various persons on ownership basis.3. In the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1979-80, for which the accounting year was the year ended 30-6-1978, the assessee claimed that they were entitled to deduction under Section 80J. The ITO held that the assessee was not eligible for the deduction, while, on appeal the Commissioner (Appeals), following the decisions of the Bombay Tribunal Benches in some other cases held that the assess...
Tag this Judgment!Moosa Velliat Vs. the Asstt. Secretary, Government of Maharashtra and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-1982
Reported in: 1983CriLJ1246
Dharmadhikari, J.1. The detenu in this case is detained under the CO-FEPOSA Act vide order dated 23rd April 1982. It is an admitted position that together with the Wounds of detention copies of the translated version in Malayalam of the documents and statements enumerated at Items Nos. 1 to 5 of the list of documents were supplied to the detenu. Thus in substance the copies of these documents in original, which were in English language were not supplied to the detenu together with its Malayalam translation. It is also an admitted position that so far as the documents at. Items Nos. 6. 7 and 8 are concerned, the only English copies of the said documents were supplied and their Malayalam translation was not supplied to the detenu. In the petition it is stated by the petitioner that uptil now in all matters relating to detentions under COFEFOSA Act. the detaining authority used to supply copies of the statements and documents in original English language and translated version of those do...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Shridhar Joshi Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-1982
Reported in: 1983(1)BomCR440
V.V. Joshi, J.1. On 29th May, 1982, the respondent No. 2 with a view to preventing the petitioner-detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order made an order under section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to 'the Act') directing that the petitioner be detained under the said Act. This detention order was served on the petitioner, along with the grounds of detention and copies of documents relied upon and referred to in the grounds of detention, along with the Marathi translation thereof on the same day. It is not disputed, that on 29th of May, 1982 when the petitioner-detenu was served with the detention order, grounds of detention and the concerned documents, the petitioner was already in police custody, having been arrested on 6th April, 1982 in connection with an offence of murder registered as C.R. No. 141 of 1982 of Bhandup Police Station. However, the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail on 1st July, 1982. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Anandrao Bandu Jadhav and anr. Vs. Bibijan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Bom32; 1982MhLJ748
ORDER1. Order dated 10th Aug., 1981 passed by the trial Court below applications Exts. 18 and 21 in Regular Civil Suit No. 264 of 1978 is challenged in this petition therefrom by the original defendants.2. The plaintiff applied to the trial Court for an order to delete issue No. 4 under the provisions of O. 14, R. 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned trial Judge, after hearing the rival contentions in that behalf, directed deletion of the said issue. Hence, this petition.3. Going through the impugned order and the reasons given by the learned trial Judge for deleting issue No. 4, I find that the said order does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction. It was within the jurisdiction of the learned trial Judge to frame an issue or to delete one framed. Order 14, Rule 5 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure expressly permits the Court to strike out an issue wrongly framed. If, in this light, the learned trial Judge has granted the plaintiff's application in question and deleted is...
Tag this Judgment!Baban Chhagan Mali Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-1982
Reported in: 1982(1)BomCR894
R.A. Jahagirdar, J.1. The petitioners, hereinafter referred to as ' the accused' are challenging their conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge of Dhule in Sessions Case No. 129 of 1974 and confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge of Dhule in Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1976. Both the accused were prosecuted for offences punishable under sections 366 read with 109, 376, 376 read with 109, 325 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case was that the prosecutrix, one Ramila, examined as P.W. No. 2, who is an unmarried girl, was working in a Khandsari sugar factory, which is about one and half miles away from a place called Budhaval to which she belongs. Budhaval itself is about three miles away from Taloda, which is the Tahsil headquarters in the District of Dhule.2. Accused No. 1 hails from Taloda where he runs a hotel and from what has come on record he seems to be a somewhat prosperous farmer owning a garden land and a jeep bearing No. MSC 244. T...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »