Mumbai Court October 1987 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.
Second Income-tax Officer Vs. Bharat B. Shah
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1987
Reported in: (1988)26ITD329(Mum.)
1. These are two appeals by the department for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78. The only ground of appeal taken for both these years is that the learned AAC erred in holding that the share of profits from the firm of M/s. Chhaganlal Keshavji belongs to Shri Bharat B. Shah in his capacity as the karta of his family and not in his individual capacity. Certain facts need to be stated.2. The assessee in this case is one Bharat B. Shah who claims to be a karta of the HUP consisting of himself and his wife, Neena. The accounting years for the two years under appeal are the years ended 30th Sept., 1975 and 30th Sept., 1976. During this period, according to the assessee, the HUF consisted of Bharat B. Shah and his wife. It is further claimed that after the marriage of Bharat the HUF of Bharat B.Shah received a gift of Rs. 6,000 from Shri Manubhai Amrutlal Desai.This gift was made by the said Desai out of natural love and affection and it was given in the form of a cheque dated 23-4-1...
Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Dattaram Advertising (Priva ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1987
Reported in: [1989(58)FLR781]; (1988)ILLJ413Bom
Jahagirdar, J.1. The question as to the interpretation of the world 'shop' occurring in a notification issued by the Government of Maharashtra under S. 1(5) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, is involved in this appeal. The facts will be mentioned in a moment. Before that, one must notice the legal provision under which the notification is issued. The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 makes a provision that it will apply, in the first instance, to all factories, including factories belonging to the Government, other than seasonal factories. However, by virtue of the provisions contained in sub-sec. (5) of Sec. 1, the appropriate Government is empowered, in consultation with the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, to extend the provisions of the Act or any of the said provisions, to any other establishment, or class of establishments, industrial, commercial, agricultural or otherwise. Where, however, the appropriate Government is the State Government, not only the consu...
Barthels and Luders Gmbh Vs. M.V. dominique
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Bom380; 1988MhLJ728
ORDER1. This is a Chamber Summons taken out by the plaintiff to the suit and defendant to the counter-claim for excluding from the suit the counter-claim filed by the defendants. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff, a company incorporated in the Federal Republic of Germany and having its registered office at Hamburg to recover a sum of DM. 45,365 which is equivalent to Rs. 2,99,409, together with interest thereon in respect of various spare parts applied and repairs carried out to the 1st defendant vessel at Hamburg and elsewhere. The suit was filed under the admiralty jurisdiction of this court when the 1st defendant vessel was in Bombay. The vessel arrived in Bombay on 12-11-1986. The suit was filed on 27-11-1986 and the 1st defendant vessel was arrested under an order of 29th Nov., 1986 of this court. The defendants furnished a security in the form of Bank Guarantee in the sum of Rs. 4,50,000 as per the order of arrest and secured the release of the vessel under instrum...
Vikram S/O Vinayakrao Buty Vs. Ram Achal S/O Loknath Tiwari and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1987
Reported in: 1988(2)BomCR282
H.W. Dhabe, J.1. This is a writ petition arising out of the proceedings under Clause 13(3)(iii) of the C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (for short, 'the Rent Control Order').2. According to the petitioner/landlord the respondent No. 1 has inducted the respondent No. 2 as a sub-tenant who was carrying on the business of dealing in spare parts of motors and scooters etc. which was without the permission in writing of the petitioner landlord. The respondents resisted the said application by filing their written statement and their case was that they were doing the business in partnership with each other under the registered partnership deed. The parties led evidence. The learned Rent Controller thereafter granted permission to the petitioner landlord under Clause 13(3)(iii) of the Rent Control Order. By preliminary order, the learned Appellate Court in appeal preferred by the respondent/tenant directed that additional evidence should be recorded by the learned R...
Bajrang S/O Murlidharji Paliwal Vs. Dean, Indira Gandhi Medical Colleg ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1987
Reported in: 1988(3)BomCR71
W.M. Sambre, J.1. The petitioner is a student of 1st year M.B.B.S. having completed his 3 terms and was eligible for appearing at the First M.B.B.S. Examination in October, 1986. The petitioner was given Roll No. 220 and his University Enrolment No. is V/18043. Petitioner appeared for First M.B.B.S. Examination in three subjects. He failed in two subjects and could clear only one subject i.e. Anatomy. Petitioner claims that he was eligible to appear in the supplementary Examination and clear that two subjects in which he failed. It is the case of the petitioner that once he has completed the terms, it was obligatory on the part of the respondent, Dean to permit him to appear for M.B.B.S. Examination only in two subjects in next terms for which he took admission in the College but did not attend the classes as it was not obligatory for him to attend the classes once he has completed the term in the beginning. The petitions forwarded the examination form in the Summer 1987 for having sec...
Shrijee Sales Corporation Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1987
Reported in: 1993(67)ELT458(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. This petition is companion to writ Petition No. 697 of 1983 in which today we have delivered judgment and for the reasons recorded in that judgment this petition must also fail.2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that Section 3(2) of the Customs Tariff Act,. 1975 is ultra vires because the learned counsel that Entry 83 of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India does not confer power on the Parliament to provide for mode of determining assessable value by loading c. i. f. value with Customs duty or the purposes of payment of countervailing duty. It is not possible to accept the submission of the learned counsel. Entry 83 in the Seventh Schedule reads as under :' Duties of customs including export duties',We fail to appreciate why this entry will not authorise the Parliament to legislate and pass Customs Tariff Act. Various duties like basic customs duty, auxiliary duty and additional countervailing duties are levied on imported good...
Ramakant Rajmangal Yadav Vs. Ramnilan Vijay and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1987
Reported in: (1987)89BOMLR538; (1993)IIILLJ692Bom; 1987MhLJ994
H.H. Kantharia, J.1. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 made application (IDA) No. 3083 of 1977, under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'I.D. Act'), in the Labour Court, Bombay, presided over by Respondent No. 17, against the petitioner and Respondent No. 16 for computation of money due to be on the ground that they were in the permanent employment of the petitioner and Respondent No. 16 and were performing the jobs of reconditioning steel or galvanising drums which work came within the purview of an Engineering Industry and as per a notification issued by the Government of Maharashtra under the Minimum wages Act, 1948, prescribing the minimum wages for the Engineering Industry with effect from 1st Dec., 1974, they be paid the difference between the wages actually paid to them and to which they were entitled under the Minimum Wages Act for the Engineering Industry under the said notification. They thus claimed Rs. 2,77,916/- for all of them.2. Th...
Pathandhare Anveshan Grahanirman Sanstha Maryadit (Proposed) Through I ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)BomCR596
M.S. Deshpande, J.1. It will be convenient to take up these three petitions together for decision as the facts are identical. In all the three cases the petitioners were allotted certain land for being converted into plots by the resolution dated 30th October, 1981 passed by the respondent Nagpur Improvement Trust. In respect of the property which was allotted in Writ Petition No. 2461 of 1932, the respondent issued a notice on November 14, 1982 regarding the proposed construction of certain tenements within the limits of Shambagh which was the area from which the land was allotted to the petitioners in that petition. In respect of the land alloted to the petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos. 2691 of 1983 and 2892 of 1983, notices were issued on November 2, 1983 by the respondent withdrawing the allotments made to them under the resolution dated 30th October, 1981. There is no dispute that the land came to be allotted to the petitioners in pursuance of the power which the respondent had i...
Shaikh Said Shaikh HussaIn Vs. A.D. Chaudhary and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)BomCR26; (1987)89BOMLR530; 1987MhLJ1035
C.S. Dharmadhikari, Acg., C.J.1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner against the judgement dated 11th August, 1986, passed by the Addl. Session Judge, Dhule, in appeal filed under section 61-D of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, confirming the order of confiscation of the truck by the authorised officer.2. A truck bearing No. MWD 7951 belonging to the present petitioner was intercepted on 26th May, 1986 on Bombay-Agra road near Dhule by the Flying Squard of the Forest Department. On the search of the truck, 93 pieces of teak wood were found loaded therein without there being a pass or permit. Therefore, the wood as well as truck were seized and an offence was also registered. After issuing the necessary show cause notice and giving an opportunity to him of being heard, the authorised officer passed an order of confiscation of the truck. It came to be challenged before the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule, in appeal. The Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the finding of fact reco...
Punamchand Dahyalal Nanwati Vs. Ramanlal Balubhai and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1987
Reported in: 1987(3)BomCR521
A.D. Tated, J.1. The petitioner-defendant No. 2, who was a partner of the dissolved partnership firm Bharatkumar and Company, filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the judgment and decree in Civil Appeal No. 323 of 1983 decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Pune, on 16th January, 1985 whereby he dismissed the appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 20th September, 1982 in Civil Suit No. 2996 of 1978 passed by the learned Vth Additional Judge, Small Cause Court, Pune, whereby he ad decreed the respondent No. 1-plaintiff's suit for eviction and arrears of rent.2. The facts giving rise to this petition are that the suit premises situate at 92, Raviwar Peth, Pune, were let out by the respondent No. 1-plaintiff to the petitioner-defendant No. 2 for carrying on business of his partnership firm Bharatkumar and Company on monthly rent of Rs. 90/-. The defendant No. 2 and his brothers respondents Nos. 2 to 4-defendants Nos. 3 ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »