Mumbai Court February 1985 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.
Lotu Bandu Sonavane Vs. Pundalik Nimba Koli
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1985
Reported in: AIR1985Bom412; 1985(2)BomCR298; (1985)87BOMLR129; 1985MhLJ359
1.This revision application arises out of the order dated 18-2-1984 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jalgaon in Regular Darkhast No. 229 of 1981 filed by the petitioner decree-holder against the respondent-judgment-debtor for possession of half portion of House No. 37. C. T. S. 1615 of Jalgaon in respect of which a sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner in pursuance to a decree passed in his favour.2. In the plaint filed by the petitioner no specific prayer for possession was made. The only prayer was for specific performance of the agreement of sale and execution of the sale deed through Court in case the respondent failed to do so. No application for amendment of the plaint was filed by the petitioner even in the Darkhast proceedings and hence in view of sub-sec. (2) of S. 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 the executing Court rejected the prayer of the petitioner for possession of the property. It is this order which is sought to be revised.In this peti...
The Administrator of the City of Nagpur Vs. Laxman and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1985
Reported in: 1986(2)BomCR409; 1985MhLJ376
1. This is an appeal by the Nagpur Corporation through its Food Inspector against the acquittal of the Respondent 1 who was accused of an offence punishable under S. 16(1)(a)(i) read with S. 7(i) of the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, 'the Act').2. Briefly the prosecution case against the accused was that he was a milk vendor who on 9-7-1980 at about 9.30 a.m. came with one can of milk and two measures in Govind Dairy. The Food Inspector of the Nagpur Corporation Shri Bare was standing near the said dairy situated on Maharajbag Road, Nagpur. On being asked the accused told the Inspector that he was carrying the milk on 'Chandi' to dairy. The can with the accused contained 12 liters of cows milk. The Food Inspector called one pancha Manohar Pande and took the sample of the cow's milk in his presence as required by the provisions of the Act. The accused had told that he was the owner of the milk in the can. After complying with the necessary formalities prescrib...
The Administrator of the City of Nagpur Vs. Laxman and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1985
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1689
Dhabe, J.1. This is an appeal by the Nagpur Corporation through its Food Inspector against the acquittal of the Respondent 1 who was accused of an offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7(i) of the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, 'the Act').2. Briefly the prosecution case against the accused was that he was a milk vendor who on 9-7-1980 at about 9.30 a. m. came with one can of milk and two measures in Govind Dairy. The Food Inspector of the Nagpur Corporation Shri Bare was standing 'near the said dairy situated on Maharajbag Road, Nagpur. On being asked the accused told the Inspector that he was carrying the milk on 'Chandi' to the dairy. The can with the accused contained 12 liters of cows milk. The Food Inspector called one pancha Manohar Pande and took t he sample of the cow's milk in his presence as required by the provisions of the Act. The accused had told that he was the owner of the milk in the can. After complying with the nece...
Trustees of Shri Ramnagar Trust Vs. Third Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1985
Reported in: (1985)13ITD426(Mum.)
1. The appellant-assessee is a trust. The appeal is from the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), dated 19-2-1983, whereby the appeal was dismissed. The question is whether the authorities below were justified in not treating the amounts received by the assessee and expended by it as deemed application of the funds of the trust within the meaning of Section 11(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act').2. We may at the outset observe that it is a settled fact that the assessee is a charitable trust entitled to the benefit of Section 11 in view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of the assessee itself for the assessment years 1971-72 to 1974-75 [IT Appeal Nos. 1666 to 1668 (Bom.) of 1979]. The trust had been created by a deed dated 2-7-1965. It had in its corpus a landed property at Borivli. The appellant had entered into an agreement with Elel Hotels & Investments (P.) Ltd. ('purchaser' for brevity sake) on 17-8-1971 agreeing to sell the property for a consideration of...
Shah Enterprises Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1985
Reported in: 1990LC52(Bombay); 1990(50)ELT229(Bom)
1. The conflicting interpretation of Entry No. 6 in the Notification No. 342/76-Cus., dated the 2nd August 1976 as amended upto 13th February 1982 is the subject matter of the present petition and a group of similar other petitions which are being heard together. For the sake of convenience the main judgment is being delivered in this petition. The result in the other petitions will follow the present judgment. The Petitioners in all these cases have imported into India from the countries mentioned in the said Notification the goods which answer the illustrative nomenclature 'Polymerisation and Co-Polymerisation products' which are some of the articles falling under the Heading Number 39.01/06 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act 1975. Admittedly, however, the imported goods do not answer the description of the articles mentioned specifically at items (i), (ii) and (iii) of the said Entry No. 6. The Customs authorities therefore denied them the exemption from the customs dut...
Jayant Jairam Rohee Vs. Maharashtra Public Service Commission and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1985
Reported in: (1986)IILLJ487Bom; 1986MhLJ426
Pendse, J.1. These three petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be conveniently disposed of by common judgment, as the question raised in all these petitions is identical. The petitioners in each of the petition are practising lawyers and are practising for a duration of more than three years and less than five years at the relevant time. The Secretary, Maharashtra Public Service Commission published Notification No. 19/2408/D-X on April 2, 1983 inviting applications for 80 posts of Civil Judges (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrates (First Class) in the judicial service of the State of Maharashtra, Class I. Forty posts, were reserved for candidates belonging to the Backward Classes. The advertisement sets out that to be eligible for appointment, a candidate must (a) ordinarily be not less than 21 years and not more than 35 years of age (40 years in the case of candidates belonging to Communities recognised as Backward by the Government of Maharashtra fo...
Moti Meghraj Gehi Vs. the Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1985
Reported in: (1986)LC632Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Revision Application filed before the Government of India against Order No. 222 of 1980, dated 1-3-1980 passed by Central Board of Excise and Customs statutorily stood transferred to the Tribunal for being heard as an appeal.2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal may be stated as under : On 27-7-1977 the Officers of Air Customs, International Airport, Bombay detained one red coloured and another black coloured suitcases and examined them. On examination, they were found to contain among other things 19 reels of feature film titled 'Paapi'. They seized the said 19 reels in the reasonable belief that they were being smuggled out of India and hence liable to confiscation under Section 113 of the Customs Act, 1962 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act).3. During the investigation several persons were interrogated. The investigation disclosed that the film under seizure had been surreptitiously removed from the Western Railway Grant Road Parcel Depot, Bomba...
Maniklal Pokhraj JaIn Vs. Collector of Customs (Preventive), Bombay an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1985
Reported in: 1986(26)ELT689(Bom)
Kurdukar, J.1. By this Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the Petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and correctness of the orders passed by the authorities below.2. The present proceedings arise under Section 111(a), 112 and 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 in connection with the import of gold bullion into India in contravention of the provisions of the Customs Act.3. On December 3, 1970, the First Respondent Collector of Customs issued the show cause notice which came to be duly served upon the Petitioner in connection with the adjudication proceedings for initiating the action under Section 111(d), 112 and 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, hereinafter referred to as 'the Customs Act'. Few facts leading to these adjudication proceedings may be stated as under :On receipt of secret information on 18.6.1970 that a Car under Registration No. MRA 3267 was being used in transportation of contraband gold, the said car was intercepted by the officers of Customs Depa...
Sunil Ishwarlal Damania Vs. Shivprasad Rungta and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1985
Reported in: AIR1985Bom369; 1985(2)BomCR123
ORDER1. The petitioner and his brother Ravindra Ishwarlal Damania who is added as the second respondent in this petition, are the tenants of a flat on the first floor of a building called Sharat Sadan situated at 33 Tagore Road, Santacruz, Bombay. The first respondent is the owner of that building and was at all material times the landlord vis a vis the petitioner and his brother, hereinafter referred to as the defendants. The first respondent, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff filed a suit, being R. A. E & R. Suit No.491/2578 of 1972, for possession of the aforesaid flat, hereinafter referred to as the suit premises, which was dismissed by the Small Cause Court at Bombay by its judgment and order dated 7th of June 1977. An appeal being appeal No.404 of 1977 preferred by the plaintiff was allowed by the appellate bench of the Small Cause Court by its judgment and order dated 25th of April 1978.2. At this stage it is necessary to mention that in the plaint which was presented to ...
Kohinoor Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Second Labo ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Bom340; 1986(3)BomCR106; (1985)87BOMLR387
V.A. Mohta, J.1. What is the ambit and scope of Section 22 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965?Whether the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 is a complete Code for bonus payable under the said Act? If the answer is in affirmative, whether an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is maintainable for claiming minimum bonus payable under Section 10 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965?These two questions need determination by the Full Bench. The reference is made by a Division Bench of this Court in a Letters Patent Appeal No. 76 of 1982 arising out of Writ Petition No. 667 of 1980 (See ILR (1984) Bom 1863). Following is the relevant backdrop.2. Sometime in 1977, the employees (respondents Nos. 13 to 17 to the appeal) applied under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act) for computation of claims for minimum bonus payable under Section 10 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 ('Bonus Act'). Though initially the claim covered period commencing from 1...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »