Mumbai Court March 1985 Judgments
Khan Abdul Hamid Abdul Rasak Vs. Mohamad Haji Saboo Siddik Polytechnic ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-1985
Reported in: AIR1985Bom394; (1985)87BOMLR162
Kania, J.1. This is an appeal directed against the order of Pendse, J. dated 14th September 1983 summarily rejecting the Writ Petition No. 2070 of 1983 filed by the appellant. We propose to refer to the parties by their description in the original petition.2. The facts necessary for appreciating the controversy raised before us can be shortly stated. The petitioner is a student who passed (he Xth standard of the Secondary School Certificate (S.S.C.) Examination Board, Pune. in June 1983.HRe obtained 367 marks out of 700 and the percentage of marks obtained by him comes to about 52 percent of the total marks. The petitioner belongs to a Scheduled Tribe of Muslim known as 'Tadvi'. He applied to respondent No. 1 institution for admission basing his claim on a Government Resolution dated 9th June 1982, a copy of which is at Exhibit 'B' to the petition. His application for admission was rejected and he was not granted admission. The reason for which he was not granted admission was that the...
Tag this Judgment!Santu Joti Lamdade Vs. Damodar Narayan Jamnis
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-1985
Reported in: (1986)88BOMLR68; 1986MhLJ150
P.S. Shah, J.1. In these two petitions which arise out of the proceedings under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', questions about the validity of Section 6 of the Maharashtra Amendment Act X of 1977 which deleted Section 43D of the Act as also the interpretation of Section 6 of the said amending Act arise for consideration. Before we proceed to examine! the rival contentions it is necessary to mention the relevant facts in both the petitions which are not in dispute. Special Civil Application No. 3126 of 19752. In this case the predecessor in title of respondent Nos. 1 to 12 was the landlord and the petitioner is the tenant of two Inam lands bearing Revision Survey Nos. 387/1 admeasuring 19 gunthas and Revision Survey No. 387/2 admeasuring 36 gunthas situate within the Municipal limits of Miraj, Taluka Miraj, District Sangli. On the death of the original landlord, respondent Nos. 1 to 12 have become the owner-landlords of the sai...
Tag this Judgment!Purushottam Govind Bhat Vs. First Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-1985
Reported in: (1985)13ITD939(Mum.)
1. The assessee had purchased a flat in 1971 for Rs. 16,250. He sold the same on 7-8-1980 for a sum of Rs. 49,500, thus realising an excess of Rs. 33,250. The assessee had made arrangements to purchase a flat in a co-operative society. On 5-11-1977 a sum of Rs. 5,251 was paid.Subsequently, on 27-1-1978 sums of Rs. 5,920 and Rs. 1,500 were given.Ultimately, the assessee paid an overall amount of Rs. 57,471 including a sum of Rs. 2,871 for charges levied by the co-operative society: The assessee was given a membership and shares of the co-operative society on 25-6-1979. The flat being under construction thereafter possession was given on 1-1-1980. On the basis of the facts the assessee claimed exemption under Section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') in respect of the capital gains made by him. This was rejected by the ITO and also by the AAC. Thus, the matter is in appeal before the Tribunal.2. Stressing the details as above, the learned Counsel for the assessee has pointed ou...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhu Bhau Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)BomCR343
A.D. Tated, J.1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28th August, 1980 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, convicting the accused of the offence of murder punishable under section 302 I.P.C. and also of the offence of causing disappearance of the evidence of murder punishable under section 201 I.P.C., and sentencing him on the first count to suffer imprisonment for life and on the second count to suffer R.I. for one year, in Sessions Case No. 197 of 1979. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case was that the accused married Sindhubai about five years before the date of the incident and during the wedlock a daughter, Sunita, was born and she was aged about three years at the time of the incident. The accused and his wife Sindhubai and daughter Sunita resided in a hut at a solitary place surrounded by hillocks at a distance of about one furlong from Thapevasti in Shirur Tehsil of Pune District....
Tag this Judgment!Motiram Jaisingh Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1985
Reported in: 1985(1)BomCR669
S.W. Puranik, J.1. The appellant stands convicted for the offence under sections 161 of the Indian Penal Code and 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of Rs. 100/- on each count, the substantive sentence having been directed to run concurrently. The appellant Motiram was tried with another Waman before the trial Court for the above offences with the aid of section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The brief facts leading to the present appeal may be narrated as under.2. The appellant-original accused No. 1 and the acquitted accused Waman are both serving in the Divisional Office of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (for shot hereinafter referred to as 'M.S.E.B.') at Jintoor, District Parbhani. They were working in the Bill Section of the said Office. The complainant-Satwarao runs a flour mill at village Chamani, which comes within the jurisdiction of Jintoor sub-Divi...
Tag this Judgment!Third Income-tax Officer Vs. Mrs. Veera D. Thackersey
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1985
Reported in: (1985)14ITD141(Mum.)
1. Out of these eight appeals for the assessment years 1977-78 to 1980-81, four related to Mrs. Veera D. Thackersey, while the remaining four related to her daughter Mrs. Asha Ostowari.2. Mrs. Veera, who was a Christian lady, obtained divorce from her husband Mr. Richard Withenbury by a decree dated 38-12-1946 and thereafter married Shri Dhairyawan on 11-1-1949 under the provisions of the Special Marriage "Act, 1872. The other assessee, Mrs. Asha, is the daughter of Dhairyawan and Mrs. Veera. Shri Dhairyawan died on 6-10-1973. After his death, Dhairyawan's mother Mrs. Manekbai challenged the validity of the marriage of Dhairyawan with Mrs. Veera.Mrs. Veera applied for letters of administration. The First Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, upheld the validity of the said marriage and directed that letters of administration be granted to Mrs. Veera on her furnishing solvent in the sum of Rs. 25 lakhs on her producing estate duty certificate.3. Dhairyawan owned considerable property. Th...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. Homi Mehta and Sons (P.) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-1985
Reported in: (1985)14ITD64(Mum.)
1. This is a miscellaneous application by the department arising out of the order of the Tribunal disposing of a departmental appeal for the assessment year 1974-75. In the original order of the Tribunal, one of the issues decided was the quantum of relief under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act').2. In the miscellaneous application, the department has pointed out that the liability of Rs. 31.8 lakhs cannot be treated as part of the capital employed in view of the retrospective amendment of Section 80J.According to the department, it would show that there is a mistake which requires rectification.3. The Finance Act, 1980 has amended the provisions retrospectively and as per the amended provisions, it is not open for the assessee to include this amount of Rs. 31.8 lakhs as part of the capital employed.As per the amended provisions, therefore, the order of the Tribunal would be a mistake and it should be rectified under Section 254(2) of the Act.4. Shri Dastur appearing ...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd. Vs. Shree Arcee Steels P. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1985
Reported in: [1985]58CompCas174(Bom)
Desai, J.1. This appeal raises an important point of company law and practice. The appeal is preferred by the appellants who were the original petitioning creditors in Company Petition No. 355 of 1979. The learned company judge, by his order dated February 6, 1980, has dismissed the petition. We have only the bald order recorded in the minutes and we have been told, and we are giving this judgment on that footing, that the dismissal by the learned company judge was on the company's submission that the petitioners being secured creditors were not entitled to maintain a petition for winding up. Indeed, this plea has been taken in the affidavit of S.H. Daga, a director of the company sought to be wound up, in paragraph 3 (ii). He has claimed in the said paragraph that the machinery of the company sought to be wound up had been hypothecated in favour of petitioners. The charge created by the said hypothecation has also been duly registered with the Registrar of Companies. According to the ...
Tag this Judgment!H. Nanjundiah Vs. V. Govindan, Registrar of Companies, Maharashtra and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1985
Reported in: [1986]59CompCas356(Bom)
Parekh J.1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner for relief under section 633 of the Companies Act, 1956. The same is resisted by the respondents.2. The facts that give rise to this petition are that the petitioner is a director of Fuel Injection Ltd. It is the case of the petitioner that he is not a managing director of the company or, for that matter, he is not even a shareholder of the company, and he is not concerned with the day-to-day work of the company. That the company seems to have exceeded its limits of borrowings. That on this position being ascertained, a meeting of the board of directors was held on February 4, 1983. At this meeting, a resolution came to be passed that an application should be made to the Central Government under section 58A of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking exemption concerning the excess deposit. That pending this application, the respondent issued two notices, both dated June 14, 1984, inter alia, calling upon the company to show cause why acti...
Tag this Judgment!Teddington Chemical Kamgar Sangh Vs. Maharashtra General Kamgar Sangh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1985
Reported in: 1985(2)BomCR108; (1985)87BOMLR174; [1986(52)FLR11]; (1986)ILLJ384Bom; 1985MhLJ590
Dharmadhikari, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner-union against the order of the Full Bench of the Industrial Court, Maharashtra dated January 5, 1985 in Application (MRTU) No. 20 of 1983. It appears that the following question was referred to the Full Bench of the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, for consideration :'Whether the term 'strike' appearing in Ss. 12(6) and 13(1)(v) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, means a strike only in the very undertaking for which the Applicant Union has applied for recognition and/or has obtained recognition under the Act, orWhether it also means a strike in any undertaking other than the undertaking for which the Applicant Union has applied for recognition and/or has obtained recognition under the Act.'2. The Full Bench of the Industrial Court held that the term 'strike' appearing in Ss. 12(6) and 13(1)(v) of the Act means a strike only...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »