Mumbai Court January 1985 Judgments
Hiraji Budho Dhake Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Bom390
Aggarwal, J.1. This appeal is by the original claimant whose land bearing Gat No. 493 admeasuring 4 hectareas 26 areas (plus 1 are Pot-Kharab) situated at Varad-Seem, Taluka Bhusawal, District Jalgaon, has been acquired for construction of Waghur Project Colony and he is aggrieved of the judgment and order passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Jalgaon, in Land Reference being Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 388 of 1980. The brief facts are that section 4(1) Notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was published on25th August, 1977. The claimant made a claim at the rate of Rs. 16,000/- per hectare, but the Special Land Acquisition Officer by an Award dated 26th March, 1979 assessed the value at the rate of Rs.6,500/- per hectare and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 31,845.80. In the Reference, the learned Assistant Judge increased the value of the land from Rs. 6,500/- to Rs. 8,500/- per hectare and thus enhanced the compensation by Rs. 9,798/- in all.2. In the present...
Tag this Judgment!Sk. Sandu Sk. Nathu Vs. Pirjade IqbaluddIn Ziauddin
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1985
Reported in: 1988(4)BomCR241; (1985)87BOMLR86; 1985MhLJ143
Jamdar, J.1. A short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition relates to the interpretation of clause(ii) explanation 2 to Section 14 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act. The question arose in an election petition filed under Section 15 by the first respondent challenging the election of the petitioners to the village panchayat of Mehrun, a village in Jalgaon district, inter alia on the ground that his own nomination paper was wrongly rejected.2. The petitioners, respondent No. 1 and respondent Nos. 4 to 6 filed their nomination papers for the election held on March 28, 1984 for Ward No. 1 of village Mehrun. The nomination paper of the 1st respondent, who is a Muslim, was rejected on the ground that his father was in arrears of grampanchayat tax to the tune of Rs. 577/- and in spite of demand notice No. 282503 dated July 12, 1983 having been duly served on him, the tax remained in arrears till the last date of the filing of nomination papers, which was March 13, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Ronuk Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-1985
Reported in: (1986)(7)LC121Tri(Mum.)bai
1.The Revision Application filed before the Government of India against the Order-in-Appeal bearing No. S/49-316/76L dated 15-2-1977 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay statutorily stood transferred to the Tribunal for being heard as an appeal.The appellants imported 'Silica' valued at Rs. 51,040/- and sought clearance against their licence No. 2193360 dated 15-6-1973 for Rs. 1,00,000/-. The clearance was objected to on the ground that the said licence was valid to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- only against Sr. Nos.11 and 27. The Deputy Collector of Customs in the adjudication proceedings ordered confiscation of the goods valued at Rs. 41,040/- as the goods to that extent was not covered by any licence. He, however, allowed redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 20,000/-. On appeal, the Appellate Collector passed the following order : "Since the legality of the lower order is not really in question I shall not enter into any consideration of that aspect of the matter. As f...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadeo Tatu Naik Vs. Ramakant Atmaram and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-1985
Reported in: AIR1985Bom347
1. This Second Civil Appeal directed against the judgment dt. 31st Aug. 1983 passed by the learned District Judge, Panaji was admitted on the following substantial questions of law :-(a) Whether the provisions of Art. 2307 of the Portuguese Civil Code are attracted to the case : (b) Whether the lower Courts ought not to have held that on the facts and circumstances of the cases the purported licence granted to the appellant's ancestors was irrecovable; and (c) Whether the prayer of mandatory injunction was not bared by limitation.2. At the hearing, however, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant restricted his submissions to the first two questions and did not press the third. Therefore, while disposing of this appeal, I will address myself only to the said first two questions.3. A suit for possession has been filed by the respondent I against the appellant herein and the respondent 2 on the grounds that there exists a house bearing Gram Panchayat No. 74 situated at Vithalpur,...
Tag this Judgment!Ayub Yusuf Mansuri Vs. Sub-divisional Magistrate, Nandurbar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)BomCR144
A.D. Tated, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the externment order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nandurbar, Division Nandurbar, District Dhule, on 21st May, 1984 externing the petitioner from the limits of Dhule District.2. Before passing the order externing the petitioner, he was served with a notice under section 59 read with section 56(1)(a) & (b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, and in that notice the allegations made against the petitioner were that the criminal cases as per the schedule attached to the notice were pending against him and that he was again likely to commit such offences. After the notice was served, the petitioner filed his reply and after considering the reply, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed the impugned order.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the notice dated 28th April, 1984 under section 59 of the Bombay Police Act served on the petitioner, which was issued by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Nandurbar,...
Tag this Judgment!Sharad S/O Simon Sontakey Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-1985
Reported in: 1986(2)BomCR662
M.L. PENDSE, J.1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking to quash the order dated May 11, 1983 issued by respondent No. 3, Principal of the Hislop College, Nagpur informing the petitioner that the petitioner's pay is refixed in the pay scale of Rs. 500-900 with effect from the academic year 1981-82.2. The facts giving rise to the petition are not in dispute and are required to be briefly stated to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner. The petitioner secured M. Sc. Degree in the subject of Zoology from the Nagpur University in the year 1967 and was appointed as Demonstrator in the subject of Zoology in the Hislop College at Nagpur. The petitioner joined duties on July 1, 1972 in the scale of Rs. 250-15-400 and was confirmed in that post with effect from July 1, 1972. The pay scales of Demonstrator were subsequently revised to Rs. 500-20-700-25-900 in accordance with the recommendations of the University Grants Commission. T...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Hanif and ors. Vs. Marian Begam and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Bom15; 1986(1)BomCR33; 1985MhLJ625
1. This is an appeal by the legal representatives of the third defendent Mohd. Hanif from the appellate decree by which in addition to the decree for specific performance of contract of sale as against the defendants Nos 1 and 2, a decree for possession also came to be passed against all the defendants.2. The respondent No.1 Mariam Begam brought the suit for specific performance of contract of sale of a house to her for Rs. 6500/- on foot of an agreement dated July 2, 1973. An amount of Rs.500/- was paid at the time of the agreement and the balance Rs.6000/- was to be paid within 5 months and thereupon the sale deed was to be executed by the defendants Nos. 1 and 2, the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 herein. Despite the notice sent on April 22, 1973, the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 did not execute the sale deed and she, therefore sought specific performance against them, and from original defendant No.3 Mohd. Hanif she sought possession alleging that the respondents Nos.2 and 3 had placed him i...
Tag this Judgment!United and Clearing and Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-1985
Reported in: (1985)LC2472Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The revision application filed before the Government of India against the Order-in-Appeal bearing No. S/49-1287/81M dated 16.10.1981 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay, statutorily stood transferred to the Tribunal for being heard as an appeal.2. The appellants claim for refund of duty on shortlanded goods were rejected as unsubstantiated by the Assistant Collector of Customs, MCD, for non-production of the necessary documents. On appeal, the Appellate Collector rejected the appeal holding that subsequent to their appeal, the appellants by their letter dated 17.9.1981 submitted that they had cleared one more case, but the shortlanding certificate remained for 3 cases. The subsequent claim is therefore, contradictory to the shortlanding certificate. The Appellate Collector further observed that the appellants admit that they were not having packing list showing the contents and value of the individual items.3. In their revision application the appellants submitted ...
Tag this Judgment!Madhu Krimps Vs. Fourth Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-1985
Reported in: (1985)13ITD606(Mum.)
1. This is an. appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the AAC, Bombay.2. The assessee is a registered firm and the appeal relates to the assessment year 1977-78. The ITO did not entertain the assessee's claim of deduction under Sections 80HH and 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') on the ground that the auditors' report in the prescribed forms under Rules 18B and 18C of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, had not been furnished. The AAC agreed with the ITO on this issue and dismissed the assessee's appeal. The assessee has, therefore, come up in the present appeal before us.3. The assessee's learned Counsel, Shri Masand, submitted to us that this was the first year of assessment, the accounts were audited on 6-7-1977, when the return was filed on 8-8-1977 and, therefore, the non-submission of the auditors report in the prescribed form under Rules 18B and 18C was a mere technical default, which should not deprive the assessee of the substantive claim of deduction under Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Sunjoy Dairy Farm Vs. Second Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-1985
Reported in: (1985)13ITD219(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner, Bombay, under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act').2. The assessee is a registered firm and the appeal relates to the assessment year 1978-79. We were given to understand at the time of hearing of the appeal that the business of the assessee-firm was to purchase milk from various sources, which was brought to Bombay in refrigerated tankers and was subjected to chilling and pasteurization before being bottled and sold under the brand name 'Doodh Amrut'. It was claimed before the ITO in the course of the assessment proceedings that this activity amounted to production or manufacture of an article or thing and, consequently, the assessee was entitled to investment allowance on machinery and plant used in the business. The ITO, while making the assessment by order dated 25-3-1981, allowed this claim of investment allowance. Subsequently, however, the Commissioner was of the view that the order...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »