Mumbai Court June 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.
State Industrial and Investment Corporation of Maharashtra Limited Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1986
Reported in: [1988]64CompCas102(Bom)
Bharucha J.1. Both these appeals are directed against the orders of the learned company judge passed upon a judge's summons.2. In 1972, the State Industrial Investment corporation of Maharashtra (SICOM) advanced a loan of Rs. 45,20,000 to a company called Steel India Pvt. Ltd. upon the security of plant and machinery belonging to it. Mortgage deeds were executed by the company in favour of SICOM ON April 21, 1973, and May 23, 1974.3. On July 30, 1975, the Maharashtra State Financial Corporation (MSFC) sanctioned a loan of Rs. 8.30 lakhs to the company and advanced a sum of Rs. 4,52,800. On April 23, 1976, a mortgage deed (now called 'the mortgage deed') was executed by the company in favour of MSSFC in respect of the same property ass was mortgaged to SICOM (now called 'the secured property'). On May 18, 1976, the company filed with the Registrar of Companies, Bombay, particulars of the charge created by the mortgage deed in the deed in the requisite From 8 under the provisions of sect...
Indian National Shipowners Association and Others Vs. A.B. Joshi, Vi W ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1986
Reported in: (1986)56CTR(Bom)49; [1987]165ITR582(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. The controversy in this petition stands concluded by two decisions of this court in the case of Orient Club v. CWT : [1982]136ITR697(Bom) and in the case of Willingdon Sports Club v. C. B. Patil, 3rd Addl. WTO : [1982]137ITR83(Bom) . The two Division Benches of this court have taken the view that an association of persons is not an individual and hence it is not an entity for the purpose of the wealth-tax Act and is not chargeable to wealth-tax under the Act.2. Petitioner No. 1 is an association of shipowners formed for the purpose of protecting and promoting the interests of Indian shipping. The respondent No. 1 issued a notice in the month of April, 1980, to petitioner No. 1 under section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act, inter alia, reciting that petitioner No. 1 association has net wealth chargeable to tax for the assessment year 1976-77 and the same had escaped assessment. Notices were also issued in respect of the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79. The validity of these n...
Shri Surendra Choudhary and ors. Vs. NitIn Castings Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1986
Reported in: (1994)IIILLJ275Bom
V.S. Kotwal, J. 1. This bunch of four petitions can be conveniently disposed of by common order as it involves an identical question and practically identical submission are canvassed. For obvious reasons the impugned order is unsustainable and since the remand is inevitable a detailed discussion is un-necessary. 2. A complaint came to be filed by the petitioners in all the petitions making certain grievances that there has been a breach of agreement by the respondent-employer which amounts to an Unfair Labour Practice within the meaning of certain items of schedule (4) and especially item No. 9 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act the details of which need not be stated. This came to be filed in the Industrial Court. All these complaints came to be resistedon behalf of the first respondent-employer on all the counts. 3. The sum and substance of the grievance is that in view of a certain settlement arrived at between the parties s...
Subhash Ganpatrao Kabade Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-1986
Reported in: 1987(3)BomCR615
M.S. Jamdar, J.1. The petitioner who claims to belong to the Scheduled Tribes 'Mahadev Koli' sought admission to the Medical College at Aurangabad in the quota reserved for the Scheduled Tribes on the basis of the marks obtained by him in the Biology group at the H.S.C. Examination held in March 1983. He secured 65% marks in the Biology group and stood third in the merit list of the Scheduled Tribe candidates who had applied for admission to the Medical College against the seats reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidates. He was refused admission on the ground that he does not belong to Schedule Tribe, Mahadev Koli. The finding to that effect was recorded by the Director of Social Welfare, Pune in his capacity as the chairman of the Caste Verification Committee constituted by the Government to scrutinise the caste claims of persons applying for admission to various educational institutions and for employment in Government service. The finding was confirmed by the Director of Tribal Develo...
State of Maharashtra and ors. Vs. Nanasaheb Mahanaji Deshmukh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-1986
Reported in: 1986(3)BomCR357
S.M. Daud, J.1. This appeal raises an interesting question in relation to departmental enquires.2. The points that arise for determination have to be considered in this following background. The respondent plaintiff was working as a Police Head Constable attached to the Washi Police Station, District Osmanabad between the 9th June, 1965 to 13th June, 1966. Brothers Laxman and Pralhad, the sons of Dattatraya Bargaje had fallen out to such an extent, that Laxman gave an application against his brother to the police entreating them to take action under section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The application given by Laxman was made over to plaintiff for an enquiry. The enquiry was completed by the plaintiff in about November 1965 and the finding reached by him was that the dispute between the brothers was of a civil nature, for which reason Laxman had to resort to a Civil Court. Papers pertaining to the enquiry were made over to the custody of a writer constable. After the transfer of...
Sheshrao Balwantrao Chavan Vs. B.R. Bhonsle (Dr.), Ex-vice-chancellor, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)BomCR384
M.S. Ratnaparkhi, J.1. The petitioner who was at the relevant time officiating as Registrar of the Marathwada University is seeking a writ of Certiorari for quashing the appointment of the Enquiry Committee under the Conduct Rules and the resultant order culminating into the termination of his services issued on 2nd of January, 1980.2. A statement of few facts will be necessary for appreciating the real controversy in this litigation :The petitioner Sheshrao Balwantrao Chavan was appointed as Assistant Registrar of the Marathwada University some time in 1966. During the course of time, he was promoted as Deputy Registrar on or about 3rd October, 1967. Mr. Yelikar was working as controller of Examinations in the said University from 1974 onwards. In or about April, 1975. Mr. Yelikar proceeded on leave and the present petitioner was directed to discharge the duties of the Controller of Examinations. Accordingly he joined his new post some time on 6th April, 1975 and continued to hold tha...
Anwar Altaf Husan Kazi Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1986
Reported in: 1986(3)BomCR587
S.W. Puranik, J.1. Conviction has been recorded against the appellant for the offences under sections 279 and 304-A of the India Penal Code and he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months on each count and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- for each offence. Conviction is also recorded against him under section 89 (a) and (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act and for each offence he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- on each count. All the substantive sentences are to run concurrently. This order passed by the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 40th Court, Girgaum, Bombay was passed on 29-11-1982. Criminal Appeal No. 321 of 1982 against the said conviction filed in the Sessions Court was dismissed by the judgment dated 18-9-1984 and hence this revision. 2. Shri A.R. Jadhav, Advocate appears for the appellant accused while the State is represented by Shri Kothari, learned Public Prosecutor. After hearing the learned Counsel f...
Madhukar Kishanrao Choudhari Vs. Shri Suryakant Jog
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1986
Reported in: (1986)88BOMLR709
P.B. Sawant, J.1. This matter has come before us since the earlier Division Bench on May 3 and 5, 1986 directed that the matter should not be treated as part-heard before that Bench. In a matter which is concluded, there is no occasion to give such a direction. Apart from that, it appears from the order dated May 3, 1986 which is the core of the controversy before us, that the Bench had reversed its earlier orders of April 9 and 15, 1986 and given two directions. By one direction the parties were given the liberty to apply,. which meant, that the parties had a right to apply to the Court for modification, verification or annulment of the order or orders passed by the Bench. The second direction was that the matter should stand over to June 17, 1986 for further orders. Such a direction was also a part of the order dated April 9, 1986. But this fresh direction meant that the matter was kept open for orders arising also from the order dated May 3, 1986. These directions coupled with the d...
income-tax Officer Vs. Hindustan Diamond Co. (P.) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-1986
Reported in: (1986)19ITD184(Mum.)
1. The revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objections raise one question and that is, whether the loss claimed should be allowed.2. The assessee is a company incorporated on 10-2-1978. The business was to import and export diamonds and other precious stones, cut, clean, polish, set and otherwise prepare for the market of such stones either as principals, agents, brokers or otherwise. The accounting year relevant to the assessment for 1979-80 ended on 31-3-1979. In the return, the assessee claimed net loss of Rs. 11,12,558 from business.The ITO did not allow it on the reason that the business had not yet started. He took the net loss at nil. In the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the business had been set up during the year and the loss claimed was eligible to be allowed and carried forward. The revenue has appealed to object. The grounds in the cross-objection are only to support the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).3. The assessment had been completed under Sect...
Mumbai Mazdoor Sabha Vs. the Ahmedabad Advance Mills Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-1986
Reported in: (1995)IIILLJ752Bom; 1986MhLJ687
Bharucha, J.1. The appellant (the original petitioner) is a trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. According to the appellant, employees of an undertaking called M/s. Tata Textiles enrolled themselves as members of the appellant in September 1977. In 1979 the appellant made an application to the Industrial Court at Bombay under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (now called 'the Act') seeking the grant of recognition in respect of the undertaking of M/s. Tata Textiles. The application referred to M/s. Tata Textiles and called it a company incorporated under the Companies Act. It also stated that this undertaking was owned by Naval H. Tata.2. A written statement was filed on behalf of respondents 1, 2, 3 and 4. It stated that Tata Textiles had no separate or independent legal existence. The employees working therein were employed by respondents 1 to 4 jointly and severally and they worked exclus...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »