Mumbai Court March 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.
Nandkishore Purohit Vs. Home Secretary and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)BomCR25
C.S. Dharmadhikari, J.1. In this writ petition the declaration of the detenu i.e. Shri Shyam Ranjit Singh Rathod under the provision of the COFEPOSA ACT, is challenged on various grounds. It is an admitted position that in pursuance of an order issued on 22nd of July, 1985 the detenu came to be detained on the 1st of August, 1985. Along with the order of detention the grounds as well as copies of the documents referred to and relied upon were supplied by the detaining authority to the detenu. Therefore on 16th of August, 1985 a declaration came to be made under section 9(1) of the COFEPOSA Act by the Additional Secretary to the Government of India. This declaration was served on the detenu on 7th of September, 1985. The matter was referred to the Advisory Board on 19th of September, 1985 and ultimately the order of detention came to be confirmed on 6th day of January 1986. Thus it is an admitted position that a reference came to be made to the Advisory Board after the normal period tho...
Vishwas Gopal Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1986
Reported in: 1986(3)BomCR22
A.D. Tated, J.1. The accused preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 5th February, 1985 passed by the Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri, in Sessions Case No. 64 of 1984 convicting him of the offences punishable under sections 363 and 366A I.P.C. and sentencing him on each of these two counts to suffer imprisonment for four years.2. For the decision of this appeal it is not necessary to state all the facts leading to the prosecution of the appellant-accused for the offences punishable under sections 363, 366A, 392, 506 and 376 I.P.C. The facts, shortly stated, are that the accused on 17th May, 1984 took away minor girl Pratibha Pandurang Gamare (P.W. 2) from the lawful custody of her parents. He took her from the house of her parents on the representation that he was taking her to the house of her aunt at Dhamandevi. The accused is the real brother of the aunt of the prosecutrix, and believing that he would take her to the house of her aunt she went with him, but the accused ...
Murgendra Pirappa Dhere Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)BomCR100; [1986(52)FLR462]
H.H. Kantharia, J.1. This second appeal by the original plaintiff, Murgendra Pirappa Dhere, arises under the following facts and circumstances.2. The Plaintiff was in the employment as a Live-Stock Supervisor of Respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'Defendant No. 2') i.e. Director of Animal Husbandry, State of Maharashtra, Poona-1 and Respondent No. 1 i.e. the State of Maharashtra (hereinafter referred to as 'Defendant No. 1'). He was posted by defendant No. 2 at the Artificial Insemination Sub-Centre, Dhavali. The plaintiff had put in about nine years of service when his services came to be abruptly terminated by an order dated 12th October, 1971 passed by defendant No. 2. The order reads as under :---'Shri M.P. Dhere L.S i/c MISC Dhavali is informed that his service is no longer required by this Department with effect from 19-11-1971.Sd. Shamrao JinturkarDirector of Animal HusbandryM.S. Poona.'3. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 602 of 1...
Remex Constructions/Remex Electricals Vs. First Income-tax Officer and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1986
Reported in: (1986)55CTR(Bom)423; [1987]166ITR18(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. The petitioner is a registered firm carrying on business of construction of factory sheds in the name of M/s. Remex Constructions and of electrical installations in the name of M/s. Remex Electricals. The petitioner firm is assessed for the purpose of income-tax and filed returns for the assessments years 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75 along with copies of the profit and loss accounts and balance-sheets. The 1st Income-tax Officer (respondent No. 1 herein), on perusal of the returns and while passing the assessment orders, took the view that the petitioner did not maintain a day to day stock-book in respect of materials consumed in both the businesses and that in the absence of the same, it was not possible to verify and book results and that it was necessary to ascertain the book results on the basis of estimates. The gross profit shown by the petitioner in respect of construction business was 13.77%, 14.63% and 16.35% for the three years, respectively, while the Income-tax...
Suresh B. JaIn Vs. A.N. Shaikh, Sixteenth Income Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-1986
Reported in: [1987]165ITR151(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. The petitioner has filed his return for the asst. yr. 1982-83 and the IAC passed assessment order assessing the income at Rs. 60,60,234 and the petitioner paid an amount of Rs. 4,29,000 by way of tax. The petitioner then preferred an appeal against the assessment order before the CIT (Appeals), and the appeal was allowed. The ITO gave effect to the appellate order and revised the total assessable income of the petitioner for the asst. yr. 1982-83 as per the directions given by the CIT (Appeals). The revised assessment order was passed and the total income of the assessee was computed at Rs. 21,948, on which the tax liability was only Rs. 2,294. Accordingly, the petitioner was entitled to the refund of the amount of Rs. 4,26,706.2. While forwarding the revised assessment order for the asst. yr. 1982-83, the ITO also simultaneously issued the notice for the finalisation of the proceedings of the assessment for the asst. yr. 1983-84. The petitioner thereupon addressed letter ...
Prmanathsekhar and anr. Vs. Pandho Paddhaya and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Bom98; 1986(2)BomCR60
ORDER1. This petition has been filed by socially conscious Advocates practising in the Co-operative Courts, making grievance about the action of the Railways, and which seriously affect the commuting passengers on the Suburban service. It is well known that large number of passengers are required to travel on the suburban service of the Central Railway and the service extends from Victoria Terminus up to Diwa Station. The passengers who travel by this train leave their house early in the morning to reach their offices situated at the extreme south of the city and return back late in the evening. The passengers include large number of women and also children attending the schools and colleges. The complaint of the petitioners is that initially the passengers had the facility of using toilets and urinals situated at the Railway Stations, but the Railways have started demolishing large number of these toilets and urinals causing grave hardship to the passengers. The petitioners also claim...
Suresh B. JaIn Vs. A. N. Shaikh, Sixteenth Income Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-1986
Reported in: (1986)56CTR(Bom)47
Pendse, J. - The petitioner has filed his return for the asst. yr. 1982-83 and the IAC passed assessment order assessing the income at Rs. 60,60,234 and the petitioner paid an amount of Rs. 4,29,000 by way of tax. The petitioner then preferred an appeal against the assessment order before the CIT (Appeals), and the appeal was allowed. The ITO gave effect to the appellate order and revised the total assessable income of the petitioner for the asst. yr. 1982-83 as per the directions given by the CIT (Appeals). The revised assessment order was passed and the total income of the assessee was computed at Rs. 21,948, on which the tax liability was only Rs. 2,294. Accordingly, the petitioner was entitled to the refund of the amount of Rs. 4,26,706.2. While forwarding the revised assessment order for the asst. yr. 1982-83, the ITO also simultaneously issued the notice for the finalisation of the proceedings of the assessment for the asst. yr. 1983-84. The petitioner thereupon addressed letter ...
Union Bank of India Vs. Sunpac Corporation and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1986
Reported in: AIR1986Bom353; (1986)88BOMLR148; 1986MhLJ237
ORDER1. In accordance with the practice followed so far, the office refuses to admit the plaint since the plaintiff before presenting the plaint had not obtained leave of the Court under Cl. 12 of the Letters Patent and insists upon returning the plaint to the plaintiff for fresh presentation after obtaining the said leave.2. There is no dispute that for filing the suit in question in this Court, leave under the said provision is necessary. The only question to be considered is whether it is necessary for the plaintiff to obtain it before presenting the plaint and whether it will not be a sufficient compliance of the provision if the same is obtained before the plaint is admitted to the register.3. As per the present practice the plaint is presented to the Prothonotary & Senior Master of this Court who is the officer appointed for the acceptance of the plaint as per O. IX, R. 1, of the Civil, P.C. (hereinafter referred to as the Code). Then follows the next stage mentioned in R. 2 of t...
Shivdas Govind Lanjewar Vs. Municipal Council and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1986
Reported in: AIR1986Bom268; 1986MhLJ216
Parekh, J.1. By this writ petition the petitioner seeks a writ quashing an order dated 20th December, 1985 passed by Shri R.T. Kharche, Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhandara, holding invalid a resolution dated 20th December 1985 removing the President, Nagar Parishad, Bhandara, from the Presidentship of the Municipal Council.2. The undisputed facts are that in the Municipal Council, Bhandara, there are 38 seats for Councilors, excluding the Councilors who are to be co-opted. That respondent No. 3 Nandurkar was elected President of the Council. On 13th December 1985, 25 Councilors submitted a requisition to the Collector for convening a Special Meeting to move a Motion of No-confidence against the President, i.e. respondent No. 3. The Collector issued a notice dated 15-12-1985 for holding a Special Meeting on 20th December 1985 at 1 p.m. At this meeting 36 Councilors assembled, one of them being a co-opted Councilor. Out of these 36 Councilors, 10 refused to mark their presence and left the ...
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and ors. Vs. N.A. Qureshi and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)BomCR315
C.S. Dharmadhikari, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and others against the order passed by the Principal Judge of the Bombay City Civil Court, Bombay allowing the appeal filed by the respondent and setting aside the eviction order passed against him by the competent authority. It is an admitted position that the respondent Qureshi was an employee of the Bombay Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking. He had signed an agreement of leave and license and had agreed to abide by the occupancy rules. He retired from service of the Undertaking on attaining the age of superannuating. The competent authority, therefore, called upon him to vacate the premises allotted to him since the leave and licence agreement stood revoked on the retirement. Since no reply was received from him a show cause notice was served on him to show cause within 14 days as to why the eviction order should not be made against him. The respondent was also given a re...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »