Mumbai Court June 1985 Judgments
Mohd. Umar S/O. Haji Mohd. Haji YasIn Vs. Jaheda Begum W/O Mohd. Umar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1985
Reported in: 1986(2)BomCR171
Sharad Manohar, J.1. The grievance made by Mr. Patel, the learned Advocate for the petitioner/husband in this petition, which arises out of the proceedings under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has taken the view of law diametrically opposed to the view taken by this Court to his knowledge.After examination of the case, I find that the grievance of Mr. Patel is quite justified. That apart, the point on which the trial Court dismissed the wife's petition for maintenance is justified by three judgments of this Court, one of which was brought to the notice of both the courts below, as mentioned above. Since this is the legal position, the petition has got to be allowed.2. The facts are very simple.The respondent/wife filed an application against her husband, the present petitioner, on various grounds. It is un-necessary for me to set out all the grounds. The only fact which needs be stated here is that she did not make any averment ...
Tag this Judgment!Asasing S/O Nidhansingh Vs. International Conveyors Ltd. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-1985
Reported in: 1986(2)BomCR343
Sharad Manohar, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition has got to be non-suited at the very threshold for the very simple reason that he is invoking this Court's jurisdiction for perpetuation of injustice.2. The admitted facts are that the petitioner was in the employment of the respondent/Company till 30-6-1981 as the Chief Executive Officer. While he was in the employment, he has been allotted residential accommodation by the Company without payment of any rent. The fact that his employment is brought to an end lawfully from 30-6-1981 and that he ceased to be in the employment of the Company from that date is not at all in dispute. However, the petitioner refused to vacate the premises allotted to him for residence. The company gave him time till 31st January, 1982 for vacating the premises. He did not vacate the premises, nor did he institute proceeding against the Company for claim against the Company. But when the Company itself filed the suit against him for recovery of compen...
Tag this Judgment!First Wealth-tax Officer Vs. S.B. Garware, Huf
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1985
Reported in: (1986)15ITD711(Mum.)
1. These appeals are by the revenue and they pertain to wealth-tax assessments for the years 1975-76 to 1977-78. The dispute is common to all the assessments and, hence, was taken up for consolidated hearing.2. To furnish a statement of essential facts: Balchandra D. Garware and Smt. Vimlabai Balchandra Garware, husband and wife, had each 33,000 equity shares in the company Garware Nylons (P.) Ltd. The husband and wife executed separate indentures on 30-3-1970 regarding their respective shares mentioned above. These indentures created a trust and the first trustees were the authors themselves, namely, Balchandra D.Garware and Smt. Vimlabai B. Garware. The trust, founded by Balchandra D. Garware, is named 'Garware Sons' 'Family Trust' and the trust created by his wife, Smt. Vimlabai B. Garware, is called 'Aba-Inne Garware Trust'. The authors of the trust have four sons, Shashikant B.Garware, Chandrakant B. Garware, Ashok B. Garware and Romesh B.Garware. The beneficiaries, under both th...
Tag this Judgment!Jalyan Udyog and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1985
Reported in: 1986(7)ECC90
M.H. Kania, Ag. C.J.1. Both these appeals arise from the interim order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court on 29th November, 1984 in Writ Petition No. 2326 of 1984. As both appeals arise from the same order and as the facts are common, we propose to dispose of both the appeals by this common judgment.2. As the appeals arise from the interim relief granted by the learned trial Judge, it is necessary to set out only the facts necessary to appreciate the interim relief granted by the learned trial Judge.3. As far as Appeal No. 1195 of 1984 is concerned, the appellants are the two petitioners respectively in the Writ Petition No. 2326 of 1984, and respondents Nos. 1 to 5 are respondents Nos. 1 to 5 in the writ petition. The appellant No. 1 is partnership firm inter alia carrying on the business of ship-breaking. The petitioner No. 2 is a private limited company duly incorporated under the Companies Act and carries on the business of plying ships. Respondent No. 1 is the Union of...
Tag this Judgment!The Vegetable VitamIn Foods Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1985
Reported in: 1989(22)LC593(Bombay)
M.H. Kania, Ag. C.J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge in Misc. Petition No. 914 of 1975 wherein the Rule was discharged with costs. The judgment proceeds on the footing of a statement made by Mrs. Rana, who appeared for the petitioner (the appellant herein) before the learned trial Judge. The said statement of Mrs. Rana was that the dispute involved in the Misc. Petition No. 914 of 1975 was identical to the dispute raised in Misc. Petition No. 922 of 1974. Proceeding upon that statement, the learned Judge has proceeded to dismiss the petition and discharge the rule with costs, following his judgment in Misc. Petition No. 922 of 1974, without going into any facts or contentions.2. It is pointed out before us by Mr. Taraporewala, learned Counsel for the appellant that the statement of Mrs. Rana seems to have been made under a misapprehension. As far as Misc. Petition No. 922 of 1974 is concerned, the petitioner there had taken a stand throughou...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Vegetable Products Limited Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1985
Reported in: 1986(7)ECC183; 1985(22)ELT406(Bom)
Sujata V. Manohar1. The petitioners who are the appellants are a company carrying on business, inter alia, of manufacturing and processing vegetable oils. The petitioners have a factory at Reay Road, Bombay. In this factory the petitioners manufactures and process vegetable non-essential oils. The vegetable oils are refined, and then subjected to the process of hydrogenation in order to make the vegetable oils more solid. The petitioners thus produce hydrogenated vegetable non-essential oils. These are also known in the market as vegetable tallow or Hardened Technical oils. Vegetable tallow so produced by the petitioners is sold by them to third parties who use this product in the manufacture of soap. For the relevant period covered by the show cause notices in the present case, the entire product of the petitioners was used in the manufacture of soap.2. The petitioners classified vegetable tallow under tariff item 13 of the first Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act. They reli...
Tag this Judgment!Greaves International Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi), B.V. Kum ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1985
Reported in: 1992(39)LC326(Bombay)
S.C. Pratap, J.1. Some time in November 1977 the first petitioner-company-Greaves International-(hereinafter the Company) imported a consignment of five barrels of silicon oil from West Germany. At about the same time i.e. November 1977 the Company also imported silicon fluid. After complying with the requisite procedure and formalities, the Company paid in respect of the aforesaid two consignments countervailing duty in the sum of Rs. 23,5987- and 27.980.48R respectively. However, under Tariff Advice No. 13 of 1978 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs on 16th February 1978, the Company was not at all liable to pay the said duty. The Company thereupon made two separate applications for refund. The Assistant Collector rejected these applications on the sole ground that the same were not filed within six months and were, therefore, barred by time under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. Possibly to obviate the frequently advanced contention that this Court should not en...
Tag this Judgment!Sixth Wealth-tax Officer Vs. B.R. Shelly
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-1985
Reported in: (1986)16ITD76(Mum.)
1 . The appeals are by the department and the cross-objections by the assessee. There is a delay in the filing of the cross-objections. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the delay. The similar points covered by these appeals had come up before the appellate authorities in the earlier years also on departmental appeals. Since the assessee had not filed cross-objections at that time, it is averred that the Bench of the Tribunal indicated its inability for the assessee to be given any relief even if he was entitled to it without any cross-objections being filed. The cross-objections for the years under appeal were filed immediately after the decision of the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the department has strongly objected to the condonation of the delay. After hearing the parties, we admit the cross-objections.2. The only point in dispute in these appeals and the cross-objections relates to the valuation of a property known as 'Lentin Court'. For the assessment years un...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhakar and anr. Etc. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Bom64
V.A. Mohta, J.1. By these three writ petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution by tenants of houses used for residential purpose and constructed on sites lying vacant on 1st January 1951 within Corporation/ Municipal limits, Contitutional validity of notification No. 659-66-II dated 6th February 1952 issued by the then Provincial Government of C.P. and Berar in pursuance of an authority conferred on it by clause 30 of the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 ('The HRC Order') issued under section 2 of the Central Provinces and Berar Regulation of Letting of Accommodation Act, 1946 ('The Act') is challenged. The notification reads thus :'In pursuance of clause 30 of the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, the State Government are pleased to exempt from the operation of all the provisions of the said Order any house used for residential purposes if the house is constructed on a site lying vacant on 1st Janua...
Tag this Judgment!Nishit M. Prabhu Verlekar Vs. Chandranath Vinayak Dhume and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Bom46
Kamat, J.1. By order dated 14th June, 1984 the suit of the appellant who was the original plaintiff was dismissed as being not maintainable for not having complied with the requirement of notice under S. 281A of the Income-tax Act 1961.2. The appellant had filed a suit for a declaration that he and respondent No.1 and the dissolved partnership firm constituted by himself and respondent No.1 are the absolute owners of a plot of land described in Exhibit B to the plaint on which a building was constructed and respondent No.2 holds the said building on the plot as a nominee or Benamidar of the appellant and respondent No.1 or the said partnership and, therefore, the respondent No.2 has no right or interest of whatsoever nature in respect of the said plot and the building thereon.3. Once this suit was instituted summonses were issued to all the defendants for settlement of issues. However, none of the defendants filed their defence by way of written statements. However, respondents 1 and 2...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »