Mumbai Court October 1986 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.
Shantabai Vs. Karimulla and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-1986
Reported in: I(1987)ACC399
M.S. Deshpande, J.1. This appeal by original plaintiff is directed against the reduction of the claim from Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 7,000/- only as compensation for the death of her elder son Ashok in an accident which occurred on 22nd October, 1970.2. It is not necessary to refer to the facts in detail. The appellant's son Ashok, who was about 24 years old on the date of the accident which occurred on 22nd October, 1970, was knocked down by a motor-truck which was being driven by the respondent No. 2 who was in the employment of the respondent No. 1 who was the owner of the truck. The truck was insured with the respondent No. 3. The appellant's contention was that the truck was being driven by the respondent No. 2 in a rash and negligent manner and the death of Ashok was the direct result of that act. Contending that Ashok was earning Rs. 210/- per month and that he would have provided her at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month, she made a claim for Rs. 30,000/- as compensation. These allegati...
Earl. W. Tallent Vs. Second Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1986
Reported in: (1987)20ITD512(Mum.)
1. In this appeal by the assessee the question is whether the salary receivable by a non-resident in United States is taxable in India because for that period the assessee was in India.2. The assessee is a resident of United States. On 24-11-1981 he entered into the services of an American company by name Fish International Engineers Inc. His employment was to start from 1-12-1981. He was recruited specially for a project in India in which Fish International Engineers Inc. was interested. The project in India is called 'Deepak Fertilisers'. The assessee was to proceed to India as an employee of the American company for work in the Indian project. He came to India on 1-12-1981. We are concerned with the financial year 1981-82 corresponding to the assessment year 1982-83. He was in India up to the end of the financial year. During this period, he was receiving the salary as per agreement with the American company in America only. In India, he was given accommodation in a hotel in Bombay...
K.U. Pachghare Vs. Vivesvaraya Regional College of Engineering
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)BomCR664; 1987MhLJ60
V.A. Mohta, J.1. 'Equal pay for equal work' is no more mere Constitutional goal enshrined in Article 39-D of the Constitution. The above principle is deducible from the equality provisions contained in Articles 14 and 16. If two persons are doing identical work under the same employer in identical service conditions, it would be impermissible to give them unequal return on the basis of arbitrary classification. The burden of establishing the rational behind the classification and its co-relation to the object lies on the State.2. In the light of the above settled legal position we have to examine whether the letter and spirit of the said principle is violated in the case at hand. This question cannot be decided only on the basis of doctrine de hors the basic facts and hence noticing them will be essential. Petitioner K.U. Pachghare is working as Issue Assistant in the library of the Visvesvaraya Regional College of Engineering, Nagpur (VRCE), first respondent, since 19th March, 1966 on...
Milan Kalidas Raikar (Smt.) Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1986
Reported in: 1987(2)BomCR489
D.N. Mehta, J.1. The petitioner herein Mrs. Milan Kalidas Raikar has filed this Writ Petition praying for a writ of habeas corpus in respect of her husband Kalidas Kashinath Raikar and impugning the order of detention dated 9-6-1986 under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (No. 52 of 1974), hereinafter referred to as 'the COFEPOSA Act', as also the Declaration dated 11-7-1986 issued under section 9(1) of the said Act.2. The Administrator of Goa, Daman and Diu issued an order of detention dated 9-5-1986 against the said Kalidas Kashinath Raikar, hereinafter referred to as 'the Detenu' detaining him in the Central Jail, Aguada, with a view to preventing him from abetting the smuggling of goods and also with a view to preventing him from engaging in transporting smuggled goods. This order was served on the detenu on 26-6-1986. Inasmuch as detenu was well-conversant with the English language, no translations were furnished ...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Padmashi Velji Chheda and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1986
Reported in: 1986(3)BomCR534
V.S. Kotwal, J.1. The order of discharge which is being challenged by the State deserves to be confirmed because the said challenge has no merits at all.2. The first 3 respondents are the partners of the 4th respondent firm, while respondent No. 5 is the manufacturer of the commodity of food known as 'Ghee'. On 22nd August, 1978 the complainant, the Food Inspector alongwith accused No. 5 and other Food Inspector and a witness went to the business premises of the said firm where accused No. 5 had sold Ghee. The firm was dealing in that commodity on retail basis and thus the commodity was stored in the premises for sale to the public. The complainant purchased 450 grams of Ghee from one of two sealed tins on payment of the price. All the procedural formalities were observed when it was divided into three samples and all were properly sealed with the signature of the panchas as also containing the seal of the Department as per the sample. A detailed panchnama was drawn and other documents...
Meenakshi Ashokbhai Doshi Vs. Ashok Dhirajlal Doshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1986
Reported in: 1989(1)BomCR156
Sharad Manohar, J.1. This is as appeal filed by the respondent with against the decree of divorce passed against her by the City Civil Court, Bombay.For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to with reference to their position in the trial Court as petitioner and respondent, the husband being referred to as the 'petitioner' and the wife being referred to as the 'respondent'.2. To state it very briefly, the petitioner husband filed the petition against the respondent wife for divorce on the ground that with effect from 25th October, 1976 she left the matrimonial home with the intention not to return back to the matrimonial home at any time. In other words, according to the petitioner she deserted him for good on and with effect from 25th October, 1976 and that she had not come to the matrimonial home right till the date of the petition which was filed on 4th March, 1980.The respondent's defence on other hand was that she did not leave the matrimonial home out of volition...
Suvarna Mala Venkatesh Desai Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)BomCR738
G.F. Couto, J.1. Petitioner is the wife of one Venkatesh Atmaram Desai who is detained under the provisions of section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, hereinafter referred to as the 'COFEPOSA Act'. She seeks in this petition for a writ of Habeas Corpus the quashing of the order of detention made against her husband as well as of declaration under section 9(1) and his consequent release. The order of detention was purportedly made with a view to preventing the detenu from abetting the smuggling of goods by the third respondent and served along with the grounds of detention and the list of documents relied upon on 17th June, 1986 and the declaration under section 9(1) of the COFEPOSA Act, ostensibly issued by the second respondent because the detenu is likely to abet the smuggling of goods, was served on him on 19th July, 1986.2. The relevant facts that lead to the making of the aforesaid order and declaration as revealed in ...
Vithal Topanna Kamble Vs. Dattu Bhujinga More
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1986
Reported in: (1986)88BOMLR694; 1987MhLJ499
S.M. Daud, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is aimed against an order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in a proceeding under Section 32P of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' or 'Tenancy Act'.2. Agricultural land now bearing Block No. 35 at Village Jangamwadi, Taluka Hatkanangale, District Kolhapur previously belonged to landlord Ghorpade. Proceedings under Section 32G of the Act were begun in respect of that land. The purchase was held to be ineffective and the land vested in the State Government on January 29, 1977 to be utilised as part of the pool for distribution amongst various categories of people. Pending the distribution, the Government leased out the land to 22 persons who included the petitioners and 17 others, but not the respondents. The leases were to be for the duration of a year and the lessees passed kabulayats year after year, until the cultivating season 1981-82. On May 13, 1982, a not...
Smt. Shashikala Krishnarao Rane Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)BomCR617
Metha, J.1. This criminal writ petition has been field by one Smt. Shashikala Krishnarao Rane in respect of the detenu Krishnarao Appaji Rane who was detained under as Order of detention dt. 9th June, 1986 issued by the Administrator of Goa, Daman and Diu, Dr. Gopal Sing as also under a declaration dt. 11th June, 1986 issued by the Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, respondent 2 herein. The petitioner prays for issue of an appropriate writ for quashing the impugned Order of detention dated 9th June, 1986 as also the declaration dt. 11th July, 1986 and further that the detenu be released from detention forthwith and be set at liberty.2. Respondents 3, the Administrator of Goa, Daman and Diu issued an order of detention against the detenu Krishnarao Appaji Rane dated 9th June, 1986 under S. 3(1)(ii) and (iii), Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the COFEPOSA Act'). The said Order...
AshwIn Vanaspati Industries Pvt Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1986
Reported in: (1987)(27)ELT300Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Revision Application filed before the Government of India against the Order-in-Review No. 4/Collr/81 dated 17th October, 1981 passed by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Ahmedabad statutorily stood transferred to the Tribunal for being heard as an appeal.2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as under :- The appellants, M/s. Ashwin Vanaspati Industries (P) Ltd., imported a consignment of 1022 M/Tons of crude stearin in bulk and sought clearance against a licence No. P/W/2915115/C/XX/77/8/79 dated 24-9-79. They also filed a Bond on 16-10-1980 with the Assistant Collector of Customs, Kandla for a sum of Rs. 36,28,000/- and requested provisional assessment of the imported goods pending chemical test and submission of documents. The Proper Officer of Kandla Customs assessed the said goods provisionally. He also allowed clearance of the goods under OGL in terms of para 179(5) of the Import Policy A.M. 1981.3. The Collector of Customs and Central E...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »