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.
Goa Chitrapur Bus Service Vs. Jayant Gajanan Naik and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1987
Reported in: [1987]62CompCas405(Bom)
Couto, J.1. This appeal by the owners of a vehicle is directed against the award dated June 24,1985, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,South Goa.2. On january 6, 1981, an accident took place involving bus No. GDT 2433. Respondent No. 1 herein who was travelling in that bus got injured in the said accident and, therefore, he filed an applications for compensation under section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. He claimed a compensation of Rs. 55,000. His case was that the said bus was proceeding form panjim to Margo and when it reached Farmaguidi near a turn of the road at about 8.15 p.m., respondent No. 3, who was driving the said vehicle in a rash and negligence manner, tried to overtake another bus which was ahead and in the process dashed against a minibus which was coming from the opposite direction. As a result of the impact the bus GDT 2433 went off the road and fell in a valley, causing injuries not only to respondent No. 1 but also to other passenger in the same ...
Shivshankar Tilakraj Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1987
Reported in: 1988(16)ECC147; 1988LC331(Bombay); 1987(28)ELT342(Bom)
ORDER1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by a person who is the sole proprietor of an enterprise which is carrying on business of merchant exporter of various kinds of fabrics. As per the Import Policy Appendix 19 of AM-88, the petitioner has been given on Import licence for importing raw material without payment of any customs duty. That the petitioner has been given such an import licence is not deputed. In fact, as it is mentioned in paragraph 4 of the petition, the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports has issued to the petitioner two separate licences to enable him to import two separate quantities of polyester filament yarn of 10 deniers and above. The petitioner accordingly imported one consignment and filed a bill of entry for home consumption. The goods imported are undoubtedly notified goods, but the consignment after clearance was stored in the godown belonging to the clearing agents. The clerk of the clearing agents by inadvertence did not a...
The Indian Resort Hotels Ltd. and ors. Vs. Sushil Prakash and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Bom13; 1987(2)BomCR529
Pendse, J.1. Petitioner No. 1 is a Company registered under the Companies Act and runs a hotel situated at Sinquerim, Bardez, Goa known as 'Fort Aguada Beach Resort'. Respondent No. 1 is the Divisional Engineer, Telegraphs and is an authorised officer working for the Department of Telegraphs. In Feb. 1973, petitioner No. 1 applied to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Telegraphs, Goa for telephone facilities, like (a) Switch Board capacity 20/200 -- 1, (b) internal extension -- 166, (c) external extension -- 34 and (d) junction lines -- 20 plus 1. Petitioner No. 1 had also applied for a private branch exchange, A 'private Branch exchange' (PBX) means an exchange provided for any one party and connected to a departmental exchange. The PBX facility requires junction lines from the departmental exchange, a switch board and extensions, both internal and external. On Sept. 10, 1973 petitioner No. 1 received letter from the Sub-Divisional Officer, Telegraphs, Panaji quoting the rent in respect of t...
Jokhiram Jiwanram Ginning Factory Vs. Radhamohon Badridas Bajaj
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1987
Reported in: 1988(3)BomCR428
H.W. Dhabe, J.1. The petitioner landlord has challenged the order of the learned Rent Control authorities dismissing its application under Clause 13(3) of the C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, (for short the Rent Control Order) as barred by the principles of res judicata.Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner landlord previously filed an application on or about 21-10-1963 seeking permission to give quit notice to the non applicant No. 1 in that case under Clauses 13(3)(iii), (iv), (v), (vi) and (vii) of the Rent Control Order and the case of the landlord in that case was that non applicant No. 1 in the said case viz. Velji Pachubai Gujarathi was its tenant and that the non-applicant No. 2 in that case viz. Radhakisan Badridas Bajaj, the respondent in the instant writ petition, was a sub-lessee, who was inducted by the aforesaid tenant without permission in writing of the petitioner. The said application was registered as Revenue Case No. 113/71(2)/63-64. ...
Kannad Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs. Suresh Khandsari Mills and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)BomCR260
V.P. Salve, J.1. This petition will have to be rejected on the short ground that the Maharashtra Sugar Factories (Reservation of Areas and Regulation of Crushing and Sugarcane Supply) Order 1984, does not bar the Khandsary Sugar Factories from purchasing sugarcane growers. The reservation, as contained in section 3 of the order, is to the following effect-' 3. Reservation of areas.---(1) Having regard to the crushing capacity of sugar factories and, the yield of sugarcane in the reserved areas, and the need for production of sugar, the area as specified in each of the schedules is hereby reserved for the factory mentioned in that schedule, with a view to enabling it to purchase the quantity of sugarcane required by it.(2) Subject to the provisions of Clauses 4 and 5 of this order, no sugar factory shall purchase cane or accept supplies of cane from cane growers except from the area reserved for the factory.'Apparently, the Khandsary Sugar Factory is not included in this provision. On t...
Second Wealth-tax Officer Vs. N.V. Iyer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1987
Reported in: (1988)27ITD577(Mum.)
1. Assessee is a partner with 17 per cent share in a leading firm of chartered accountants styled 'C.C. Chokshi and Co.', Bombay, and with 40 per cent share in firm of the same name at Ahmedabad.2. WTO in making the assessment for assessment year 1979-80 (valuation dated 31-3-1979), included in the assessee's net wealth his share of outstanding fees of Rs. 10,19,640 in respect of the Bombay firm and Rs. 73,560 in respect of Ahmedabad firm. AAC has reduced this figure to Rs. 78,502 accepting valuation report of M/s. K.A. Pandit, actuaries dated 3-1-1983 in respect of Bombay firm. The said actuaries had also valued the assessee's share at Rs. 5,663 in respect of Ahmedabad firm but the AAC's order is silent in respect of the assessee's share from the said Ahmedabad firm.3. Revenue's grievance is against the AAC reducing the assessee's share of outstanding fees from Rs. 10,93,200 to Rs. 78,502. Assessee in the cross-objection claims that nothing was includible in the assessee's net wealth...
Ahmedally G. Kathawala Vs. Jhaverbai H. Daulat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1987
Reported in: (1987)89BOMLR277
Sujata Manohar, J.1. Suit No. 594 of 1981 was filed originally by appellants Nos. 1 to 8 (hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 8) against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as defendants Nos. 1 and 2) for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated November 9, 1973 as varied. Respondent No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as defendant No. 3) has been joined as a party defendant because he claims an interest in the suit land as hereinafter stated. The 9th appellant (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff No. 9) is a partnership firm registered on September 16, 1982 consisting of plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 8 as partners. Plaintiff No. 9 has been joined as a party plaintiff pursuant to an application for amendment in the suit which was granted on October 20, 1982.2. The suit pertains to plot of land at Ghatkopar admeasuring about 48.282 sq. metres. In or about 1964 it seems that Mrs. Kathawala and Mrs. Pittalwaia had agreed to purchase the said plot and had paid to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›