Mumbai Court September 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.
Kirti Natwarlal Thakkar Vs. J.D. Jamdar and ors. and
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)BomCR195
V.S. Kotwal, J.1. To fulfil construction activities on a plot in Juhu Parle Scheme in Vile Parle area of this metropolis the respondent herein who is owner of the said plot was in need of finance and thus was responsive to the willingness of the intending persons to offer loans with a stipulation that they would get the flats on rental basis after completion of the building. The petitioner herein is one of such needy persons who was on the look out for accommodation. After being posted with the knowledge of this project and having realised that the proposed building was to be located in the close proximity of the present residence the petitioner felt that it would be an ideal accommodation for himself and his brother. With this desire he approached the respondent in February 1980 and after negotiations between the plaintiff and his brother and the respondent an agreement was arrived at between the parties under which the respondent agreed to give on rent the second and the first floor ...
Pannalal Khivraj Dugad Vs. Janardhan Gopal Deshpande and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1986
Reported in: 1986(3)BomCR400; (1987)89BOMLR8; 1986MhLJ937
S.M. Daud, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution takes exception to the passing and confirmation of a decree for ejectment based upon the alleged default in payment of rent and the professed need of the landlords of the premises for their personal use and occupation.The questions that arise for determination in this petition have to be considered in the following background :-Respondents-plaintiffs are the landlords of the suit premises and the petitioner-defendant a tenant thereof, on an agreement to pay rent of Rs. 15/- per month. On 9th January, 1979 the plaintiffs addressed a notice to the defendant informing him that he was in arrears of rent since February, 1973 and that his tenancy was deemed determined at the end of the calendar month February, 1979 because the premises was required for the personal use and occupation of two persons amongst them, viz. plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2. The said notice was served upon defendant on 12th January, 1979. On 18th January, 19...
Brijlal Zumbarlal Sarda Vs. Amrulla Asadulla Irani and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1986
Reported in: 1986(3)BomCR681
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. Mr. Hegde, Government Pleader, states that the State Government does not desire to file an affidavit.2. Heard.3. This writ petition, which comes up before us for admission today, challenges the order of Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, dated the 1st May, 1986 passed under the provisions of section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. The order holds that the first respondent had not voluntarily acquired Iranian citizenship.4. We propose to dismiss the petition in limine and set out briefly the reasons for so doing.5. The petitioner and the first respondent contested the election to the Ahmednagar Municipal Council. The 1st respondent was declared elected. The petitioner filed and election petition challenging the 1st respondent's election upon the ground that he was an Iranian and not an Indian citizen. In the election petition the petitioner sought and obtained an interim injunction restraining the 1st respondent from functioning as Municipal Councillor...
Prabhakar Purushottam Lonkar Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corp ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1986
Reported in: (1995)IIILLJ835Bom
Jahagirdar, J.1. In Complaint (ULP) No. 29 of 1984 a grievance has been made on behalf of the petitioner, who is an employee of the second respondent Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, (hereinafter referred to as- 'the respondent'), that the respondent has committed a breach of a settlement subsisting between the employees of the respondent and the respondent. Clause 5(A) of that settlement, dated 1st of August 1981, which is the subject-matter of interpretation before me and which was the subject-matter of interpretation before the Industrial Court in the complaint filed by the petitioner, is in the following terms:--'Except those workmen who are in the grades of 390-15-450-20-530-25-605-30-905 and 410-20-530-25-705-30-945 all other workmen who complete 12 years of continuous and satisfactory service in their existing grade shall be granted the scale of immediate next higher promotion post. Where there is no immediate next higher promotion, post for the particular category,...
Escorts Electricals and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1986
Reported in: 1986(3)BomCR599
M.S. Jamdar, J.1. The first petitioner M/s. Escorts Electricals, a partnership firm of electrical engineers, work as licensed electrical contractors and claim to have specialised in industrial electrification work. The second petitioner is one of the partners of the said firm. The petitioners seek to challenge the order Dt. 26th August, 1985, passed by the Collector of Sangli District, cancelling the Administrator's Resolution dated 28th May, 1985, accepting the tender of the petitioners for providing Sodium Vapour lamps on some roads in the Sangli city and directing the Municipal Council to accept the tender of respondent No. 5 on certain terms and conditions.2. Tenders for purchase of H.P.S.V. Lamp fittings, manufactured by Philips India Ltd. Genelec Ltd. and three other companies were invited by third respondent, the Sangli Municipal Council by the tender notice published in the Times of India, Dt. 26th March, 1985 and other newspaper. In pursuance to this notice, the petitioners su...
Vasudev C. Wadhwa Vs. Muktaben B. Khakhar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1986
Reported in: (1986)88BOMLR587; 1986MhLJ931
S.K. Desai, J.1. In this appeal, on behalf of the respondents, a preliminary point as to maintainability of the appeal has been taken and we are of opinion that we must dispose of the preliminary point at the outset, since, in our opinion, it has to be negatived by reason of a clear direct decision of the Supreme Court on the very point. In order to appreciate the preliminary point and the observations of the Supreme Court, a few relevant facts may be stated:2. Arbitration Suit No. 2921 of 1985 was instituted by the plaintiffs under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and the plaintiffs sought an order for filing the arbitration agreement between the parties contained in Clause 20 of the agreement dated September 12, 1981. The plaintiffs also claimed further orders including one for reference to a sole arbitrator. The plaintiffs also filed Arbitration Petition No. 136 of 1985 for interim reliefs. By a common judgment and order dated May 2, 1986, a single Judge of this Court made a...
First Income-tax Officer Vs. H.J. Watson
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1986
Reported in: (1987)20ITD505(Mum.)
1. This is a departmental appeal relating to the assessment year 1980-81. The only ground of appeal is as under: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that the entrance fees and subscription of Rs. 6,200 and Rs. 1,730 respectively paid by the employer company to the assessee could not be taken to be perquisite within the meaning of Section 17(2)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and in accordingly deleting the same from the taxable income.2. The assessee was Chief Manager in India of the Chartered Bank from June 1979 to 1983. The assessment relates to the assessment year 1980-81. The assessee, Shri H.J. Watson, while coming to India as Chief Manager of the Chartered Bank sought membership of two prestigious clubs of Bombay, i.e., Willingdon Sports Club and the Breach Candy Swimming Pool in June 1979 and the bank paid entrance fees of these two clubs of Rs. 5,000 and Rs. 1,000, respectively. During the assessment year unde...
Ratanlal Gulabji Bhati Vs. Himmatlal Hukumaji Parihar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)BomCR458
Sharad Manohar, J.1. By my earlier order dated 18th August, 1986. I had directed the appointment of Receiver in respect of the suit premises and the Receiver was directed to take possession of the suit premises from the defendant and to remain in possession of the same until further orders. There is no dispute that the order has been complied with, at least, substantially. There is some dispute as to whether the possession of all parts of the suit premises have been taken or not. The plaintiff's contention is that a portion of the premises still remains in possession of the defendant in spite of the order of appointment of Receive passed by me. I will deal with that contention in this judgment a little later. At present, I am delivering the final judgment and I am passing this final order in the Second Appeal.2. The facts relevant to the appeal have been already set out by me in my said earlier order dated 18th August, 1986 and I direct that the said order should form part of this judg...
Mahindra Ugine Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1986
Reported in: 1986(10)ECC354
Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. The appellants had an import licence dated 3rd March, 1975 to import alloy steel blooms and stainless steel blooms. Under the said licence the appellants placed orders for import of alloy steel blooms under five invoices, one dated 28-1-1976, three dated 29-12-1975 and one dated 18-12-1975. Two consignments covered by these five invoices arrived per s.s. 'Eastern Express at Bombay., Bills of entry in respect of these two consignments were submitted by the appellants on 6th March, 1976, and 9th March, 1976 before the ship's agents had filed their final entry manifest. The said ship entered the Bombay Port on 14th March, 1976 at about 6 p.m. The. ship's agents filed the final entry manifest on 15th March, 1976 at 2 p.m. Entry inwards was granted to the ship on 19th March, 1976.2. Prior to 15th March, 1976 the consignments in question were covered under tariff, item 63(8) of the Customs Tariff. Under item 63(8) the appellants were required to pay ad valorem duty of...
Mohamed Maroof Vs. Additional Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-1986
Reported in: (1987)(10)LC230Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the order bearing No. S/l4-4-115/82-83PB dated 30.11.1982 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs (Preventive), Bombay.2. The subject matter of challenge in this appeal is the absolute confiscation of two TV sets, one VCR, 10 Video cassettes, two Video Rack, 2 cartons Acropal, 1 T.V. fal, 1 Gas stove, 2 Pampers, 3 Gripe water bottles and 2 takas Bosky textiles.3. Shri Shah appearing for the appellant contended that the above items were sent by the appellant's son-in-law through some Haj passengers as gift items to the appellants. It was also urged by Shri Shah that during the relevant period Government of India had allowed the relatives abroad to send T.V. sets as gift and therefore no licence was required for importing the T.V. sets. Shri Shah further contended that other items were not prohibited goods and therefore the confiscation was bad. The further contention of Shri Shah was that the passenger had made true declaration...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »