Mumbai Court February 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.
Bharat Varnish Mfg. Co. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1983
Reported in: [1983]53STC365(Bom)
Sujata Manohar, J.1. The assessees, M/s. Bharat Varnish Mfg. Co. are a firm manufacturing paints, varnishes, etc. For the period from 1st January, 1971, to 31st December, 1971, the turnover of the assessees in respect of inter-State sales was determined by the Sales tax Officer at Rs. 25,94,912. This amount included freight charges in respect of goods sent to their purchasers by the assessees amounting to Rs. 85,253. The assessees deducted these freight charges from their turnover on the ground that they did not form a part of the sale price. The Sales Tax Officer, however, held that the amount of freight charges could not be so deducted and it formed a part of the sale price. The assessees were taxed accordingly. From the order of the Sales Tax Officer the assessees preferred a first appeal before the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax. The Assistant Commissioner, however, confirmed the order of the Sales Tax Officer. Thereafter the assessees preferred a second appeal being Second Ap...
K.B. Varade and ors. Vs. Superintending Engineer and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1983
Reported in: 1983(2)BomCR176
Jahagirdar, J.1. The petitioners in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution are employees of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board, hereinafter referred to as 'the Board', and at the time when the petition was filed they were working in the category of Lower Division Clerks. The first respondent is the Superintending Engineer of the Sangli Circle Office of the Board while the Board itself has been joined as the second respondent in this petition. The other respondents are holding the posts of Upper Division Clerks and the orders appointing them us Upper Division Clerks are the subject-matter of challenge in this petition. The petitioners are seeking appointment as Upper Division Clerks and if some of them have already been appointment as Upper Division Clerks, they are seeking higher seniority in the cadre of Upper Division Clerks above the seniority enjoined by the respondent.2. In order to appreciate the grievance made by the petitioners, it would be necessary to notice...
Ramnath Laxman Jadhav Vs. Kausalya Ramnath Jadhav and ors. (Smt.)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1983
Reported in: 1983(2)BomCR483; (1983)85BOMLR185
G.M. Khandekar, J.1. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 15th May, 1982 passed below Exh. 11 Recovery Application No. 180 of 1980 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nasik.2. It is common ground that the present respondent No. 1 is legally married wife of the petitioner while respondent Nos 2 and 3 are her minor sons born to her from him. The present respondents Nos. 1 to 3 had filed Misc. Application No. 30 of 1970 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nasik for maintenance against the petitioner under section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After enquiry the learned Magistrate awarded maintenance to respondent No. 1 at the rate of Rs. 60/- per month and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 at the rate of Rs. 35/- per month each respectively. This application was decided by the learned Magistrate on 4th July, 1972. Ther...
Sawliram Balaji Dighe Vs. Satyabhamabai Kisanrao (Smt.) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1983
Reported in: 1983(2)BomCR211
S.C. Pratap, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution arises out of original proceedings instituted by the plaintiff against the defendants for possession of the suit premises under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act.2. Suit for possession was filed on the ground of default in payment of rent, bona fide personal requirement and nuisance and annoyance. The defendants denied the suit claim. The trial Court held against the plaintiff on the question of nuisance and annoyance but held in favour of the plaintiff on the question of claim for possession on the ground of arrears of rent as also on the ground of bona fide personal requirement of the suit premises. Consistent therewith, the trial Court decreed the suit. In appeal against the said decree, the learned Assistant Judge hearing the same reversed the findings of the trial Court on the question of arrears of rent as also on the question of bona fide personal requirement of the suit premises. It was found that the def...
Ramsharan Dwarkadas Gupta Vs. the State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1983
Reported in: 1983CriLJ1251
D.N. Mehta, J.1.This judgment disposes of Criminal Revision Application No. 320 of 1981 as also Criminal Revision Application No. 321 of 1981 as both the applications arise out of common evidence and a common judgment and parties also are identical.2. The petitioner in both the Revision Applications Ramsharan Dwarkadas Gupta has impugned the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions 'judge, Greater Bombay, dated 14th April, 1981 dismissing his appeal and confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 28th Court, Esplanade, Bombay, on 30th August, 1977.3. Briefly stated the facts are that on 16th Sept., 1975 at about 4.00 P. M. Deoram Kisan Nehete (P. W. 1), the Food Inspector, employed in the Food and Drugs Department of the Government of Maharashtra along with Drugs Inspector Pandit and Panch witness G. G. Sohani visited the premises of Messrs. Mathuraprasad Kheduram, situated at Joshi Nivas, Aarey Road, Goregaon (East), Bombay. Nehet...
Dnyanoba Phirangoo Katore Vs. Housabai W/O Dnyanoba Katore and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1983
Reported in: 1983(1)BomCR461
D.N. Mehta, J.1. This is an application under section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for transfer of an application for alteration in the amount of maintenance filed in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate at Atpadi, Taluka Atpadi, District Sangli, from that Court to the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court, Kurla.2. The brief facts are, that the petitioner Dnyanoba Phirangoo Katore was married to Housabai Dnyanoba Katore. Sometime after marriage the parties separated. In 1967 the respondent wife filed an application for maintenance. This application, bearing No. 48/S/1967 was filed on 29-9-1967 in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court, Kurla. After hearing evidence and arguments of both the sides, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was pleased to grant maintenance to the respondent wife at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month.3. Thereafter, in the year 1975 the respondent wife filed an application for alteration in the amount of mai...
Meena Deshpande Vs. Prakash Shriniwas Deshpande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Bom409; (1983)85BOMLR102; 2(1983)DMC227; 1983MhLJ821
1. This second appeal by the wife arises out of the marriage proceedings which were initiated by the respondent praying for a decree if nullity or in the alternative for a divorce on the grounds that the appellant-wife was suffering from mental disorder and a fraud was practised on the respondent-husband by suppressing the facts about the mental state of the wife. To seek a decree for divorce, the grounds of cruelty and desertion were asserted. In the proceedings, the present appellant-wife admittedly filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') as per Ex. 11 praying for interim maintenance at Rs. 350/- per month and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- for the expenses of the proceedings. This application was filed on January 22, 1980 which was supported by an affidavit of the wife (Ex. 12). Thereafter, before the trial Court it does not appear that any written statement was filed. Five applications were made for seeking time and when the matter came ...
Ruby Safe Company Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC437DTri(Mum.)bai
1. This is a second appeal under Section 129-A to the Tribunal against the order No. S/49-498, 499, 500, 501, 503 and 504/Dbk. dated 22.5.1982 of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay. The appeal came up for personal hearing before us on 7.2.83. Nobody turned up to represent the appellants even though in their letter No. RSC/DBK/352/82 dated 6.1.83 they have stated that the date of hearing was convenient to them and they would be present. There was, thus, no oral representation on behalf of the appellants. However, we decided to proceed with the hearing and disposal of the appeal. The Departmental Representative pointed out the fact that the appellant's first appeals to the Appellate Collector of Customs were time-barred under Section 128 of the Customs Act as in existence at the relevant time. He therefore, pressed for the rejection of the present appeal also on the grounds of time-bar.2. We have considered the submissions. The appellants have not disputed that their appeals to t...
Vikram Madhoba Ghodkhande Vs. the Medical Officer
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1983
Reported in: (1983)85BOMLR168; 1983MhLJ190
Mohta, J.1. Does proviso to Clause 13(3) (vi)of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 ('the Rent Control Order' for short) deny the guarantee of 'equality before the law or the equal protection of laws' enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution is a cardinal point that arises in this matter.2. The petitioner Vikram Ghodkhande is the owner of a house in the town of Wardha. He is occupying a part of this house for residence and the remaining part is leased out to the State of Maharashtra (respondent No. 2) which is running there a Research cum Training Centre (respondent No. 1). His application for permission to determine the lease on the ground of bona fide need for additional accommodation under Clause 13(3)(vi) of the Rent Control Order has been turned down by the Rent Control Authorities and hence this petition. Proviso to this clause creates at the very threshold a bar against maintainability of application under this clause by a landlord who is in occu...
Balu Ibrahim Mulani Vs. Mahadev Pandurang Mahadik
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1983
Reported in: (1983)85BOMLR190; 1983MhLJ376
Masodkar, J.1. The present appeal along with the cross-objections can be disposed of by common judgment. The appeal arises out of a suit filed by the present appellants for the recovery of the amount of Rs. 12,000 and interest thereon on the basis that the defendants, who were the purchasers of the agricultural lands in suit, were unauthorisedly in occupation and the plaintiffs being the tenants were entitled to the mesne profits or damages from the defendants.2. The trial Court held that such a suit was not tenable nor has the civil Court jurisdiction to award such mesne profits. Holding so, the suit is dismissed.3. Mr. Gupte in this Court argued that Section 37(3) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter called as 'the Act'), used the word 'landlord' and, therefore, the remedy before the Mamlatdar as is provided by that section is against the landlord and not against the transferees from the landlord. In the submission of the learned Counsel, under the gene...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »