Mumbai Court January 1983 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.
Rajneesh Foundation Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1983
Reported in: (1983)4ITD409(Mum.)
1. The first appeal is by the assessee and the second appeal by the department.2. On 11-12-1931 was born in the village of Kuchwara, Madhya Pradesh, Rajneesh Chandra Mohan, who afterwards became Acharya Rajneesh. After obtaining his M.A. Degree, Chandra Mohan taught at the Raipur Sanskrit College from 1957 to 1959 and was a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Jabalpur between 1960-1966. He resigned his professorship in 1966 allegedly to devote himself to spiritual work. He is stated to have travelled extensively delivering lectures between the years 1958 and 1969, until he settled in Bombay in 1969. He is stated to have held a meditation camp for the first time in 1964 in Rajasthan. After 1969, many public lectures and appearances were ascribed to him. He also had written profusely on spiritual and allied subjects.3. By an indenture of trust dated 11-6-1969, Shri Himatlal Haribhai Joshi and Shri Ishwarlal Naranji Shah as settlors drew up a trust deed creating the trust known ...
Shree Vindhya Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Bom270; (1983)1CompLJ361(Bom)
1. This petition can arise questions about the licensing under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, of an industry that convert's base paper into adhesive stamp paper.2. The petitioners are a limited company and have a plant in Nasik. The plant was set up in 1969 fort he processing of base paper into art and chromo paper and board and laminated paper.3. On 19th Feb., 1970 a notification was published by the Union of India, the 1st respondent, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 29B(1) of the Act. Thereby the 1st respondent exempted from the operation of Secs. 10, 11 and 11-A of the Act the industrial undertakings therein mentioned. Clause 2 (vi) of the notification provided that no industrial undertaking would be liable (eligible?) for exemption if it related to any of the industries listed in Schedule II annexed thereto. Item 30 of the Sch. II mentioned paper conversion products. The petitioners then applied for an industrial licence under the Act. On 29th Jul...
Mumbai Grahak Panchayat Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1983
Reported in: (1983)85BOMLR218
Chandurkar, J.1. All these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raise a question about the validity of the Maharashtra Luxury-cum-Entertainment and Amusement Tax on Holders of Television Sets Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. Writ petition No. 1454 of 1982 is filed by the Mumbai Grahak Panchayat, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960, Apart from the Chairman and the Honorary Secretary of the said Panchayat, there are three other petitioners in the said petition. The fourth petitioner is the Consumers Guidance Society of India of which the fifth petitioner is the vice-president. Petitioner No. 6 is a dealer in television sets carrying on business under the name and style of Sonal Agencies, which is a partnership firm. Writ petition No. 1463 of 1962 is filed by two individuals who are owners of television sets. The petitioner in writ petition No. 1508 of 1982 is a member of the Legislative Council of the State of Maharashtra...
Rukhminibai Ramvilas Lahoti Vs. Muralidhar Govindram and Company
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1983
Reported in: 1985(1)BomCR418; (1983)85BOMLR454
Tulpule, J.1. The petitioner is the landlord of certain premises situate in the town of Karad, Satara District. The properties are known as City Survey Nos. 220/18 and 220/15. These two properties are apparently situate in a compound and are separate from each other. The property bearing City Survey No. 220/15 is the rear or 'to the east of property CTS No. 220/18. The two are separated by an open space in between which is apparently used by the different tenants of the two properties in question. There appear to be tenants in both the houses Nos. 220/18 and 220/15. It would appear from the map which is produced in the case exh. 56 that the occupants and tenants occupying the rear building to CTS No. 220/18 have a passage of way or exit and entry to the Western road by strip of land lying between the shop let to the defendant and plaintiffs' other portion of the property.2. The defendant runs a business of mineral oils and is a supplier and stockist thereof. He has a shop in property C...
Prabhakar Vs. Vinayakrao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Bom301; (1983)85BOMLR295
ORDER1. The non-applicant obtained a decree against the applicant for an amount of Rs. 1,840/- against which the applicant preferred an appeal in the Court of the District Judge, Akola, on 8-9-1980. On 10-9-1980 the Appellate Court called upon the applicant-appellant to state whether he had complied with Court. 41, R. 1 (3) of the Civil P. C. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') by crediting decretal amount in Court. On 22-9-1980 the counsel for the applicant made an endorsement on the appeal memo to the effect that the amount ahd not been deposited. Thereafter on 24-9-1980 the Appellate Court passed the following order :'It is money decree and unless the decretal amount is paid the appeal is not tenable under O. 41, R. 1 (3), C. P. C. Hence, appellant to credit the decretal amount with costs within 7 days. C. F. 1-10-1979 (sic).'Since the applicant did not deposit the amount till 1-10-1980 as directed by the Appellate Court, his counsel sought for further time to do so and the Appe...
Anirudh Jageorao Vs. Babarao Irbaji and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Bom391; 1983(85)ARBLR304(Bom); 1983MhLJ379
Madon, C.J.1. This second appeal is filed against the Judgment and decree in first appeal of the District Judge, Nanded, from the decree in a suit decided by the Joint Civil Judge. Junior Division, Nanded. When this second appeal reached hearing before Masodkar, J., in view of the fact that an earlier second appeal being Second Appeal No. 619 of 1`971 in which an identical question of law was raised has been referred to a Division Bench By S. K Desai, J., Masodkar, J., also passed an order directing that this second appeal should be heard along with Second Appeal No. 619 of 1971. The said Second Appeal No. 619 of 1971 reached hearing before a Division Bench consisting of Chandurkar and Bhonsale, JJ., who, in view of the conflict between the judgments of two different Division Benches of this High Court, framed a question of law and referred it for decision by a larger Bench. Parties to the said Second Appeal No. 619 of 1971, however, compromised the said appeal. Meanwhile, the present ...
Meharunnishabai (Smt.) W/O. Abdul Razak and anr. Vs. Abdul Razak Moham ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-1983
Reported in: 1983(1)BomCR473
S.C. Pratap, J.1. This petition is directed against the order dated January 13, 1982 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik, in Criminal Revision Application No. 181 of 1981.2. Petitioner No. 1 had filed in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Malegaon, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 30 of 1979 for maintenance for herself and petitioner No. 2 her minor child, under the provisions of section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned trial Magistrate by his order dated May 28, 1981 allowed the said application and directed respondent No. 1 herein to pay to petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 Rs. 50 /- per month respectively as maintenance with effect from the date of filing of the said application. This order was challenged by respondent No. 1 in revision application before the Sessions Court, Nasik. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, hearing the said revision, allowed the same, set aside the learned trial Magistrate's order and reject...
Mrs. Asha Arun Naik Vs. Damodhar S/O. Wasudeo Naik
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-1983
Reported in: (1983)85BOMLR300
Puranik, J.1. This Order shall dispose of both the above civil revision applications, inasmuch as they arise out of the same suit and decree.2. The non-applicant No. 1, Damodhar, had filed a suit bearing No. 281 of 1980 on the file of Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur, against the applicant and other non-applicants 2 to 4 for declaration and perpetual injunction as regard to the suit plot. This suit was titled as a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction, but in the prayer clause no relief of perpetual injunction was asked for. The non-applicant No. 1 plaintiff prayed in the suit as follows:(1) Hold that petitioner is the absolute owner of the portion demarcated as DCA and KFGH etc. to the exclusion of all respondents.(2) That this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to declare that the sale deed executed by respondent No. 2 in favour of respondent No. 3 is void,(3) That any other relief to which this petitioner is entitled to under the said facts and circumstances.In t...
Vasantkumar Radhakisan Vora and ors. Vs. Board of Trustees of the Port ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Bom96; 1984(2)BomCR478; ILR1984Bom1784a
Shah, J.1. These matters are before is on a single by his order dt. Oct. 26 1982. Masodkar. J. formulated the following two question for the consideration of a division Bench :Whether, by interpreting the provisions of s. 46(2) of the Act No, XIX of 1976 all the proceedings pending when chap. VII was enacted by that ACt and it came into force would be governed by the amended provisions of Chap. VII or otherwise weather the provisions of Section 46(2) maintaining two different procedures would be villative of Art. 14 of the constitution of India A few relevant facts in so far as they are material for deciding the reference need to be stated. In Writ Petition NO. 3144 of 1981 the respondents are the Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay. They owned a property bearing old B. B. NO. 941 situated at Jackeria Bunder Boad, Bombay . On the said plot of land a building consisting of five rooms belonging . After giving a notice to quit dt. Jan. 22, 1975, on Mar. 19 1976 the respondent-Port Tru...
Corporation of the City of Nagpur Through Shop Inspector Vs. M/S Inlan ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-1983
Reported in: (1987)ILLJ270Bom
1. An important question involved for consideration in this appeal is, whether after the passing of the Motor Transport Workers' Act, 1961 (hereafter called the Central Act), the Bombay Shops and Establishment Act, 1948 (hereafter called the State Act) is by necessary implication repealed, so far as the motor transport workers are concerned.2. The Inland Carriers, Gandhi Baugh, represented by its Managing Director - Lalbhai (Respondent NO. 1) was registered as a commercial establishment under the State Act since 1971 till 1978. Thereafter it did not renew the registration certificate as required by section 7(2-A) of the State Act. It, therefore, came to be prosecuted for contravention of the provisions of the said section, an offence punishable under section 52(a) of the State Act.3. Respondent No. 1 contended that as an employer of a Motor Transport Undertaking, to which the provisions of the Central Act precisely apply, the same is duly registered under Section 3(1) of the Central Ac...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »