Mumbai Court July 1983 Judgments
Suryakant Natvarlal Surati and Others Vs. Kamani Bros. P. Ltd. and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1983
Reported in: [1985]58CompCas121(Bom)
Sujatha V. Manohar, J.1. The plaintiffs, who are the trustees of Kamani Engineering Corporation Limited Employees' Gratuity Fund, had filed Suit No. 308 of 1977 in this court against the defendant company for realisation of amounts due under a mortgage created in their favour by deposit of title deeds made on January 18, 1966. In this mortgage suit, a decree on admission was passed on December 3, 1977. Under this decree, it has been declared that by virtue of the deposit made on or about February 18, 1966, by the defendants with the plaintiffs of the title deeds of the property described in the plaint, the plaintiffs are entitled to the mortgage or charge on the said property. It has been further declared that there is due and owing to the plaintiffs on the security of the said mortgage, the sum of Rs. 20,55,541 for principal and Rs. 1,93,135.92 for interest and other amounts as stated therein; under the said decree, the date of redemption is fixed as December 3, 1980. It is further pr...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Oswal Traders Vs. Shri Mahila Griha Udyod Lijjat Papad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Bom484
ORDER1. In the present case the decree passed by the Madras High Court in Civil Suit No. 5 of 1979 has been transferred to this Court for execution. It seems that after the attachment was levied through this High Court an order has been obtained by the judgment-debtor from the Madras High Court on 23rd June, 1983 raising the attachment. This order was directly filed by the advocate of the judgment-debtor in the Office of the Sheriff of Bombay and the attachment was raised.2. This is not the correct practice. Once the decree is transferred for execution to another Court, that Court is required to act in connection with the execution of the decree as if that decree were a decree of the transferee Court. Under Section 39 of the Civil P. C. a Court which passes a decree can send it for execution to another Court as prescribed in that section. Under S. 40 of the Civil P. C., a decree so transferred can be executed in such manner as may be prescribed by the rules in force in the State of the...
Tag this Judgment!J.K. Devi and Sons Vs. Gold Control Administrator
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC2081DTri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s. J.K. Devi & Sons, 13, Sadashiv Peth, at Post Satara, Maharashtra has filed an appeal against the consolidated order No.S/49-43/82 GC and S/49-44/82 GC (Satara) dated 11th day of November, 1982 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay confirming the order F. No. XVII (GO84/82/ 3675 dated the 17th June 1982, passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Satara.2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on the basis of an information received, Supdt. Central Excise, Preventive, Satara Division visited the shop of Shri Hindurao Ganpatrao Pawar, Certified goldsmith No. 13/77 of Satara in the afternoon of 7.1.1982 and had found in the shop apart from Shri Hindurao Ganpatrao Pawar his brother Shri Shamrao G. Pawar and one person Shri Sadashiv Y. Ghodke was also present. It was found that something was melted in the furnace of the shop and when Hindurao G. Pawar was asked as to what was being melted, he told that it was gold which belonged to Shri ...
Tag this Judgment!Capt. Y.R. Kapoor Vs. Collector of Central Excise and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC2089DTri(Mum.)bai
1. Capt. Y.R. Kapoor, 129-Shere Punjab Co-operative Society, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (East), Bombay has filed an appeal against Order No. F. VIII (CUS) 50-25-Adj/81 889 Pune dated 9.11.1982 passed by the Collector of Central Excise &. Customs, Pune.2. Briefly, the facts of the case arc that on 26.2.1981, a sepoy of Central Excise & Customs posted at Burundi Chowky of Harnal Port received a telephonic message stating that a launch carrying contraband goods is likely to land the goods on Burundi shore. The Supdt. Customs, RCP Dapeli immediately proceeded to Burundi with his staff where he met Harnal staff who had also received a similar information and arranged a joint sitting up party. The Inspector, Customs, Dabhol Port was alerted and instructed to arrange sea patrolling between Dabhol and Burundi. On the next day, i.e. 27.2.81, Inspector of Customs Dabhol Port had sent a wireless message to Supdt. RCP Dapoli that one mechanised vessel had stuck up in the rocky roofs at ...
Tag this Judgment!Vishwanath Balmukand Gujarathi (Deceased) by His Heirs Vs. Shivdayal D ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-1983
Reported in: 1984(1)BomCR339
C.S. Dharmadhikari, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner-plaintiff against the order passed by the Joint Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Kopargaon dated 16th of September, 1975 and confirmed by the District Judge, Ahmednagar vide his order dated 29th November, 1977.2. It is common ground that the plaintiff and his brother are partners of the joint Hindu Family firm styled as 'Kashinath Balmukun' carrying on business at House CST No. 1791. Admittedly this house belongs to the joint Hindu Family firm. This firm was adjudged as an insolvent in an Insolvency Petition No. 7 of 1948. It is also an admitted position that some time in year 1961 the original plaintiff Vishwanath who was the partner of the said firm leased out one room in the said house to respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 14/- per month. This rent was subsequently increased to Rs. 20/- per month. On 11th June, 1971 the plaintiff issued a notice under section 12(2) of the Bombay Rent Act calling upon the defendan...
Tag this Judgment!Rashtriya Maharashtra Elektrosmelt Kamgar Sangh Vs. K.B. Satpute, Assi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1983
Reported in: (1984)IILLJ781Bom; 1984MhLJ592
Jamdar, J.1. Rashtriya Maharashtra Elektrosmelt Kamgar Sangh, which is registered as a representative union under the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, sought to challenge the order dated 30th August, 1982 passed by respondent No. 1 Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nagpur, granting permission to respondent No. 2 Maharashtra Elektrosmelt Ltd., Chandrapur (hereinafter referred to as the company) to lay off 200 employees. By an amendment, the Union has also sought an order quashing the notice dated 21st May, 1983 issued by respondent No. 2 company consequent to the permission granted by respondent No. 1 giving lay off to the employees mentioned in the list Annexure 'A' appended to the said notice.2. On 29th June, 1982, the company wrote to the Deputy Commissioner of Labour that in view of discontinuance of production of steel it was necessary to lay off about 500 employees for a period of 3 to 6 months. This was followed by an application in Form XXIII-C under rule...
Tag this Judgment!Raghuvir Harischandra Salgaonkar Vs. Saraswati Pundalik Salgaonkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Bom284
ORDER1. The respondent has instituted a suit against the applicant and two others for permanent injunction restraining the applicant from carrying out any construction on the suit land which, according to her, is jointly owned by her and the applicant. Her case was that the applicant was not entitled to carry on any construction on the said land without her consent. This suit was instituted on 10-4-1980. On the same day the respondent-plaintiff also filed an application for ex parte temporary injunction, supported by affidavits sworn by herself and two witnesses. On the same day learned trial Judge visited the spot and made a note of what he had seen. He recorded that in the house which the applicant was constructing, tiles in the front portion had protruded 6 inches from the front wall and on the back side roof portion admeasuring 2x2 meters approximately was not covered with tiles. But his order passed again on the same day i. e. 10-4-1980, the learned trial Judge granted ex parte te...
Tag this Judgment!Verma Foundation Vs. Eighth Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-1983
Reported in: (1983)6ITD126(Mum.)
1. The assessee has filed this appeal against the order of the AAC confirming the disallowance of relief claimed under Section 80K of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') by the assessee. The assessee is a charitable trust. It held 49,750 shares in Caprihans India Ltd. During the accounting period for the present assessment year, it earned a dividend of Rs. 59,700 from the aforesaid company. The trust claimed relief under Section 80K to the extent of Rs. 56,914. The ITO allowed the claim. The assessee appealed before the AAC on various grounds against the order of the ITO. During the course of the hearing of the appeal, the AAC noticed that the ITO had allowed deduction under Section 80K in respect of the dividend income. The AAC served a notice on the assessee proposing to direct the ITO to withdraw the relief allowed under Section 80K by the ITO. After hearing the assessee's objections to the proposed enhancement, the AAC referred to the Madras High Court decisions in the case of CI...
Tag this Judgment!Raghunath Bhaskar Chitale Vs. Jagannath Balwant Kumathekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-1983
Reported in: 1983(2)BomCR469
C.S. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The petitioner-landlord filed a suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 3221 of 1970 which was purely a money suit and was filed to recover the arrears of rent, education cess, electricity charges for water pump, notice charges etc. The money claim made was for Rs. 8,000/-. A second suit was files bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 2787 of 1975 for the possession of the tenanted premises. In that suit a money claim for Rs. 7,000/- was also made which was towards the arrears of rent and damages in lieu of rent, education cess and notice charges. The trial Court dismissed the claim for possession and decreed the money claim partially. Aggrieved by the said decrees in both the suits the parties preferred appeals before the District Court which were heard and decided by the Fourth Extra Assistant Judge, Pune vide his judgement and order dated 16th August, 1980. The appeal Court came to the conclusion that the defendant was not a defaulter. The defendant had not caused any ...
Tag this Judgment!Maharashtra Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Limited Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1983
Reported in: (1983)85BOMLR474
Aggarwal R.L., J.1. This is an application for review of the order dated July 7, 1983, ordering the witnesses of both the sides out of Court. The order bids adieu to the following practice as crystalised in the affidavit in support of the application for review after consultation with several senior counsel:-It is the consistent practice of the Court that only the parties whose witness is in the box have to go out of Court during such examination.2. The present suit is filed by the plaintiffs against the 1st defendant - a partnership firm and the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants in their capacity as partners of the 1st defendant-firm, for the recovery of the sum of Rs. 5,67,914-93 and costs. The defendants have made a counter-claim to render account of the amounts payable to them and for the purposes of the court-fees and jurisdiction, the counter-claim is valued at Rs. 6,00,000/-.3. The plaintiffs have put their first witness in the witness-box. Recording of his evidence commenced on July ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »