Mumbai Court November 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.
Wilfred Lovette Vs. Ganesh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Bom142; 1988(1)BomCR637
ORDER1. This revision application under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, challenging the judgment and decree of ejectment and arrears of rent mesne profits passed by the learned Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Nagpur oin 25-3-1985 in Civil suit No. 592 of 1981, against the applicant-defendant Wilfred Lovette, raises an important question as to whether Small Causes Court loses jurisdiction in an ejectment suit, as soon as the defence is raised in the written statement under Section 53A of the T. P. Act, 1882, contending inter alia that the defendant is in possession of the suit premises in part performance of a contract for sale of the suit property by virtue of an agreement in writing executed by the owner, and that the plaintiff being a transferor of the suit property by a sale deed from the owner is debarred enforcing against the transferee-defendant under Section 53A of the T. P. Act any right in respect of the property of which the defendant-transfer...
E.K. Anusapa Vs. D.N. Capoor and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)BomCR655
P.S. Shah, J.1. The Petitioner who is a National of Thailand has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging his detention by virtue of an order dated January 28, 1987, issued under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, (hereinafter called 'the Act') passed by Shri D.N. Capoor, Officer on Special Duty, who was specially empowered by the Government of Maharashtra. The order of detention shows that the Detaning Authority directed the detention of the petitioner with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods. It appears that the petitioners who was arrested in connection with the offence which forms the grounds of detention on August 22, 1986, and on the date of which the order of detention was served on him. viz. January 28, 1987, he was still in jail in connection with the said offence. He was granted bail by the Magistrate, but he did not avail of the same. Along with the order of de...
Associated Engg. Construction Vs. Fourth Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-1987
Reported in: (1988)27ITD380(Mum.)
1. These cross-appeals before us arise out of the CIT (A)'s order relating to assessment for 1976-77. The essential question in the appeal by the assessee (firm), which we deal first, has relation to an addition made as "Income from short-term capital gains".2. To furnish a narrative of facts: The firm was constituted on 19-12-1973 with five partners. The capital assets of the firm, inter alia, included an immovable property situate at Majiwada, Thane, upon which there were thirteen godowns. The firm was carrying on business as contractors. Under a document dated 2-10-1974, three of the partners retired from the firm. They were Surendra Industries (Bombay) Pvt.Ltd., Satpal Sharma and Girdhar Rai Sharda. The remaining two partners continued the firm's business in the same name and style taking over the goodwill. The retirement of the three partners was effective from 1st October, 1974. As per the agreement dated 2nd October, 1974, made by and between the retiring partners and the conti...
Registrar of Companies Vs. F.S. Cabral and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-1987
Reported in: [1988]63CompCas126(Bom)
G.D. Kamat J.1. All these four appeals could be conveniently disposed of by common judgment as the parties involved are the same and the offences alleged under the Companies Act, 1956, are the various contraventions of not holding the first annual general meeting and not taking appropriate measures as per the mandate under that Act.2. Having regard to the controversy involved, I will set out a few facts in each case, the common facts which are indisputable and show how the respondents came to be prosecuted by the Registrar of Companies, Goa, Daman and Diu for various lapses.3. The respondents, Mr. F.S.Cabral and Mrs. Ivy Ina Cabral, are the directors of M/s. Cabral & Co. P. Ltd. which was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, on April 26, 1980.4. In Labour Case No. 329 of 1982, the complaint filed against the directors is for contravention and non-compliance of section 210(1) and (3) as they failed to place before the annual general meeting of the company the balance-sheet and th...
R.N. Pattiwar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-1987
Reported in: 1988(2)BomCR284
A.A. Desai, J.1. These appeals are directed against orders dated 20-2-1987 rejecting the applications purported to be under section 8 of the Arbitration Act. The appeals raise a common question arising out of common facts and hence proposed to be disclosed of by this common judgment.2. The appellants is a partnership firm and entered into a contract with the respondent for construction of canal. The work orders were issued in favour of the appellants. According to the appellants, dispute arose between the parties due to certain breach committed by the non-applicant. According to them, Clause 30 of the agreement provides for arbitration of dispute. Therefore, they have served with a notice on the non-applicant to submit a dispute for arbitration of the Superintending Engineer. It was contended that the Arbitrator-the Superintending Engineer entered into arbitration proceedings but subsequently has abandoned the same without completing. The appellants, therefore, applied under section 8 ...
Jethmal Son of Jagganathji Dangra Vs. Parmeshwar Son of Sheotabal Teli
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-1987
Reported in: 1988(3)BomCR435; 1988MhLJ711
A.A. Desai, J.1. This revision by plaintiff under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29th July, 1987, dismissing the claim towards arrears of rent.2. According to the plaintiff, defendant was permitted to occupy the suit premises on monthly charges of Rs. 10/- without there being a relations of landlord and tenant. The premises are admittedly situated in a notified slum area as per section 4 of the Maharashtra Slum Area (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as the Act 1971). The plaintiff applied to the competent authority under section 22(2) of the Act for permission to evict the defendant. However, the permission was refused and appeal to the Tribunal was also dismissed. The plaintiff, therefore, in 1983 instituted the suit for recovery of arrears of Rs. 360/- towards the occupation charges. The trial Court held that he claim is not recoverable.Mr. Deopujari, the learned Counse...
The Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-1987
Reported in: 1988(15)ECC322
M.L. Pendse, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the Union of India against the judgment dated April 29, 1983 delivered by Mr. Justice Lentin in Writ Petition No. 1149 of 1980. The judgment directs the Union of India to refund the amount of Rs. 12,17,537.17 within 12 weeks from the date of the order. The facts which gave rise to the filing of the petition are as follows:2. The respondent-company is successor-in-title of International Tractor Company of India Limited and since 1964, the Company manufactures agricultural tractors and the components of the tractors including hydraulic lifts and 3-point linkages are imported. Agricultural tractors are declared to be 'essential commodities' and the selling prices were fixed by the Government of India, By notification dated August 6, 1960, certain exemptions were granted for component parts of the machinery required for the purpose of initial setting up or for its assembly or manufacture. By another notification dated January 5, 1963, issued...
National Harbour Launch Services Vs. A.M. Prasad, Additional Collector ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-1987
Reported in: 1992(41)LC647(Bombay)
Pendse, J.1. This is an appeal preferred against the order dated August 20, 1983 passed by Mr. Justice Bharucha summarily dismissing Writ Petition No. 1938 of 1983. The petition was filed to challenge the legality of the order dated July 7, 1983 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal in exercise of powers under Section 129-A of the Customs Act. Only few facts are required to be stated to appreciate the grievance of the appellant.2. The appellant M/s. National Harbour Launch Services is owner of a launch M.L. YAZDAN1 and on December 28,1980 at about 9.30 p.m. the launch was interrupted in Bombay harbour by Customs Petrol party on suspicion. The search of the vessel resulted in the finding of (a) 8 plastic bags containing chemical powder totally weighing 300 kgs., (b) 18 bottles of beer, (c) 9 cartons and 5 loose packets of 555 cigarettes, and (d) 30 cassettes tapes. Then occupants of the vessel were arrested and these occupants include the Master of the vess...
C.D. Thadani, Income-tax Officer, Companies Circle-vi(12) and Others V ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-04-1987
Reported in: [1988]172ITR30(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the Income-tax Department against the judgment dated June 16, 1982, delivered by the learned single judge in Writ Petition No. 1246 of 1978 Universal Ferro & Allied Chemicals Ltd. v. P. G. K. Warrier : [1983]143ITR959(Bom) , partly allowing the petition and directing that various assessment proceedings of Universal Ferro & Allied Chemicals Ltd. pending at different stages before the income-tax authorities should be heard and decided expeditiously in the light of the directions given in the judgment. The relevant direction reads as under (p. 963 of 143 ITR) :'... it becomes necessary to direct the Department to decide the petitioners' assessment proceedings by considering all aspects, including not only the Special Bench ruling but also the High Court ruling, and without feeling bound by the Special Bench ruling on question covered by the High Court ruling. Indeed, on such latter on question, the High Court ruling would continue to bind tax au...
Gtc Industries Limited, Bombay and Another Vs. Union of India and Anot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-04-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)BomCR256; 1988(15)ECC56; 1988(33)ELT83(Bom)
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution impugns an order passed by the 2nd respondent, viz. the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, rejecting an application for refund of a sum of Rs. 54,40,642.71 P.2. Petitioners are engaged in the manufacture of cigarettes. They have their factory at Vile Parle Bombay and are required to pay Excise duty on excisable articles produced or manufactured by them as per the rates that prevail under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (CESAT). The 1st respondent on 1st March, 1979 issued a notification under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (Rules) granting cigarettes partial exemption from duty of excise leviable vis-a-vis a particular item falling in the first Schedule to Central Excises and Salt Act. By the notification issued on 30th November, 1982 published in a Gazette of the same date, the exemption granted by the notification dated 1st March, 1979 was rescinded. The Excise department on 14th December, 1982 informed th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »