Mumbai Court February 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.
Dr. Shanti Sarup JaIn Vs. First Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1987
Reported in: (1987)21ITD494(Mum.)
1. These three appeals are by the assessee against the order of the CIT under Section 263. On scrutiny, the CIT found that the assessee had shown income from the Hospital both under the head 'Salary' and under the head 'Profession', and the ITO has assessed accordingly. According to the CIT, the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Therefore, the CIT had issued show-cause notice as to why the consultation fees should not be treated as income under the head 'Salary'. In response to the notice, the assessee had made the following submissions before the CIT : (i) Notice under Section 263 was issued on a total misapprehension without appreciating the nature of contract between himself and the Bombay Hospital. (ii) There is no relationship of master and servant or one of the employer and employee of the Bombay Hospital. The fixed amount described as salary is in the nature of honorarium for rendering services to the Bombay Hospital in the General Ward,...
Premchand Somchand Shah Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1987
Reported in: 1987(12)ECC273
S.M. Daud, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is now restricted to the quashing of the order incorporated in Ex. H and for a mandamus in terms of prayer (b) to the petition.2. The petitioner is a partnership registered under the Partnership Act and is engaged in the business of importing rough diamonds and exporting these after cutting and polishing. It is a registered exporter and the holder of an Export House Certificate. The aforesaid are terms appearing in the Import and Export Policy for the period April, 1978 to March, 1979 as also April, 1985 to March, 1988. For some reason, petitioner's application for the grant of an Export House Certificate was rejected by the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. The rejection was of an application dated 25-5-1978. Having failed to secure redress by recourse to supplicatory methods, the petitioners moved this Court under Article 226 to which, the respondents 2 and 3 of this petition (R.B.I.), were not parties. The re...
Jagannath Sakharam Sahale and anr. Vs. Vasudeo Vyankatesh Kanade and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1987
Reported in: 1987(3)BomCR178
A.D. Tated, J.1. Original defendant Nos. 3 and 4 preferred this second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Satara, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 173 of 1975 dismissing the appeal preferred by them against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Satara, in Regular Civil Suit No. 49 of 1971 decreeing the plaintiffs' claim for partition and separate possession of their 5/6th share in the suit property.2. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 (plaintiff Nos. 1 to 4) filed Regular Civil Suit No. 49 of 1971 in the Court of the Joint Civil Judge, J.D., Satara, for a declaration that a sale transaction by respondent No. 5 (defendant No. 1) in favour of the present Appellants (defendant Nos. 3 and 4) executed on 26th August, 1970 was void ab initio and also for partition and possession of their 5/6th undivided share in the suit property. The suit property consists of an agricultural land bearing S. No. 157/1A area 4 acres 38 gu...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Lucas Carvalho
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)BomCR588
G.D. Kamat, J.1 These three appeals under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 arise against three different Awards made by the District Court, North Goa, Panaji, on three references made to him under section 18 of that Act.2. The Appeal No. 85/85 arises against the Award dated 29th March, 1985 made in Land Acquisition Case No. 100/1979. The Award dated 29th March, 1985 in Land Acquisition Case No. 101/1979 is challenged in First Appeal No. 86/85 and in First Civil Appeal No. 87/85 the award challenged against is dated 29th March, 1985 in Land Acquisition Case No. 102/1979.3. A preliminary point is taken by Union of India, the appellant in all appeals, as such it is convenient to decide the same by a common judgment. If the preliminary objection is upheld in favour of the appellant, the question of hearing of the appeals on merits will not arise.4. In all these three Awards it is found that the learned District Judge took upon himself the power to condone the delay caused in fi...
Shantabai Vs. Manakchand Ratanchand Raka
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Bom82
1. This is the plaintiff's appeal against the decree passed by the trial Court dismissing the plaintiff's suit for specific performance of the agreement dt. 20-4-1971 for purchase of the suit land.2. As will be presently pointed out, the defendant has not a leg to stand upon in the matter of his defence and the learned Judge allowed himself to be swayed by a totally false plea raised by the defendant as regards the responsibility to make application for conversion of the land to N.A. use and has dismissed the plaintiff's suit with minimum justification conceivable.3. The facts are very simple. The defendant is admittedly the owner of the suit land Survey No. 140, Hissa No. 5B admeasuring 1 H. 65 A. situate at Nashik. On 20-4-1971 he entered into the agreement (Exhibit 36) with the plaintiff for sale of the land to him for the total price of Rs. 22,000/-. On the date of the agreement, admittedly, he had received the earnest money of Rs. 10,000/-. Since the land is an agricultural land, ...
Maharashtra General Kamgar Union Vs. Hotel in Phom. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1987
Reported in: [1987(54)FLR441]; (1995)IIILLJ198Bom
Desal, J. This Appeal can be disposed of at the stage of admission. Accordingly, the Appeal is admitted. Mr. Madon on behalf of the 1st Respondent waives service. Respondent No. 2 being the Industrial Court need not be served in Appeal. By consent, the Appeal is placed on board for hearing and called out. Advocates are heard.2. This Appeal is from a speaking order passed by the single Judge holding; that no intervention with the decision or the Industrial Court is called for. The Industrial Court had held on the material before it that what the employer had done after giving notice of closure on 28th December 1983 was to effect a closure from 1st March 1984. However, it is the admitted position that the restaurant in the Hotel was restarted on 15th June 1984 and that within one or two weeks thereafter all the departments of the hotel being the employer's business had resumed activities and had recommenced work though not with all the original employees.3. It was very strenuously urged ...
Arvind Laxmanrao Kinge Vs. State of Maharashtra, Urban Development Pub ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)BomCR280; 1988MhLJ575
H.W. Dhabe, J.1. All these writ petitions can conveniently be disposed of by this common judgment Broadly speaking, these writ petitions fall into two groups. The first group is of writ petitions in which the petitioners belongs to the other Medical Colleges affiliated to the Nagpur University itself to which the Medical College giving admissions to the post-graduate courses is affiliated. These writ petitions are Writ Petition No. 1707 of 1986, Writ Petition No. 1592 of 1986, Writ Petition No. 1921 of 1986 and the Writ Petition No. 2356 of 1986. The rest of the writ petitions belong to a group in which the petitioners do not belong to the Medical Colleges affiliated to the Nagpur University. Some of the petitioners in this group are from the colleges even outside the State of Maharashtra.2. Briefly, the facts in these writ petitions are that an advertisement was issued on 28-7-1986 by the Dean of the Government Medical College Nagpur and on 31-7-1986 by the Dean of the Indira Gandhi M...
Kanta International and Motilal Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1987
Reported in: (1990)(48)ELT549Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The above appeal was filed jointly by Kanta International said to be the H.U.F. and Moti Lal Gupta said to be Kartha of the H.U.F. They together filed a stay application which was numbered as CSP (BOM) 340 of 86. The prayer in the stay application is for dispensation of the pre-deposit of the penalties of Rs. 75,000/- imposed on M/s. Kanta International and Rs. 1,50,000/- on Shri M.L. Gupta, imposed by the Collector of Customs (Preventive), Bombay under Section 112 of the Customs Act.2. When the stay application came up for consideration, Shri Prabhu, appearing for the Collector, raised a preliminary objection, regarding the maintainability of the joint appeal filed by the parties to the appeal. He contended that the appellants should have filed two separate appeals and two separate stay applications. Alternatively, Shri Prabhu contended that even if it is permissible to file a joint appeal, two sets of fees should have been paid. Since two sets of fees have not been paid the stay ...
Bombay Pharma Products Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1987
Reported in: (1988)(34)ELT691Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Revision Application filed before the Government of India against the Order No. 936 of 1980 dated 29-11-1980 passed by the Central Board of Excise & Customs statutorily stood transferred to the Tribunal for being heard as an appeal filed before it.2. When this appeal was taken up for consideration none represented the appellant. Shri Pal appearing for the Collector submitted that the Board had not gone into the merits of the case and it had rejected the present appeal on the ground that it was barred by time as the same had not been filed within the statutory time limit. The appellant have not shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay and in the said circumstances, the Board's order does not require any interference.3. In the Revision Application, the appellant herein admit that the appeal before the Board was time barred. They, further, admit that they had not filed any application for condonation of delay. They, however, stated that the submission made by them before...
Percy Jal Padiwalla Vs. the Bar Council of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1987
Reported in: 1987(3)BomCR281; (1987)89BOMLR99; 1987MhLJ317
Kania, C.J.1. This is a petition under Art. 226 of the constitution of India, praying for a writ of mandamus or a writ inthenature of Mandamus or any other appropriate weit dircetion or order directing the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 ot desist the forberar form enforcing r. 1 (1) 9d) of Part IV of the Bar Council of India Rules as they stood prior to their amendment in 1982. The Bar Council of India rules inquestion have beenpublished in the Gazetter of India on 6thSeptember 1975. The petitioner has also asked for a direction or order directing Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to desist and forbear form regusing enrolment to the petitioner on the basis of the said R. 1 (1) (D).2. The Petitioner is a student who has passed his law examination. Respondent No. 1 is Bar Council of India, Respondents No. 2 is The Bar Council of Maharashtra, Respondent No. 3 is the University of Bombay and respondent No. 4 is Sta te of Maharashtra.3. the Petitioner passed his I. C. S. E. Examinations in December 1977 s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »