Mumbai Court March 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.
The N.M. Wadia Charitable Hospital and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1987
Reported in: [1987(54)FLR626]; (1994)IIILLJ607Bom
Dharmadhikari, J.1. On a difference of opinion between Bharucha and Vaze JJ the following question is referred to me for my opinion.Whether the Notification dated 19th January 1985 issued under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 in respect of the employment in any hospital not run by a local authority, is vitiated by non-application of mind on the part of the 1st Respondent-Government of Maharashtra? It appears that one of the challenges to the impugned Notification was based upon the non-application of mind by the 1st Respondent in issuance of the Notification, principally to the recommendations of the Committee appointed as required by the Act, to advise in that behalf. Since the whole matter is argued before me afresh, I will prefer to deal with it independently.2. The impugned Notification is dated 29th January 1985 and was issued to revise the minimum rates of wages payable to the employees in the hospital which are not run by any local authority. Entry No. 23 to the sc...
Kumudini Ratilal Bhagat (Sou.) and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1987
Reported in: 1987(1)BomCR634; 1987MhLJ462
V.S. Kotwal, J.1. Village Panchayat for Village Poyanad in Raigad District came to be established under section 9 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act ('the Act'). In due course on observing the procedural formalities the election to the said Panchayat came to be held from time to time for the statutory tenure of five years. For the relevant period the elections to the Panchayat were held under section 11 of the said Act on 27th of May, 1981 for a tenure of five years. The scheduled total strength was 9 and as such 9 persons came to be elected. It so happened that two out of them had to make their exit on account of incurring certain disqualification, one because of his persistent absence from attending the meeting of the Panchayat and the other for being a defaulter in the payment of property taxes. On account of their departure there remained in the field 7 persons. The first petitioner herein was elected as the Sarpanch while the fourth petitioner as the Up-Sarpanch. Though the said ...
Grampanchayat Vs. Kalyan Bhimdas Ramdasi and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1987
Reported in: 1987(3)BomCR292; 1988MhLJ485
Sharad Manohar, J.1. This Appeal has to be dismissed, at the threshold, on the ground that the Grampanchayat, who has filed the Appeal, had no locus to file the same.2. It is unnecessary to state the facts in detail. They have been fully stated in the judgment of the courts below.Very briefly stated, the facts are that the dispute existed or exists between present respondent No. 1 (the plaintiff) on the one hand and present respondents Nos. 2 & 3 (defendants Nos. 2 & 3) on the other as regards the ownership of some house property is village Kini, Taluka, Akkalkot, District Solapur. According to the plaintiff, thought the property belonged to himself and though his name was entered in the Village Panchayat record against the said property, defendants Nos. 2 & 3 prevailed upon him to execute certain documents starting therein that the plaintiff was only a Pujari of the deity installed in the said property and that he had no right of ownership in the same. According to the plaintiff, the ...
income-tax Officer Vs. Shashi Raj Kapoor
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1987
Reported in: (1987)21ITD406(Mum.)
1. Revenue has moved misc. application received on 11-9-1985 seeking rectification of Tribunal's order dated 16-3-1984 for asst. years 1975-76 and 1976-77 regarding the assess ability of outstanding remuneration and annuities receivable by the assessee who is a leading film actor.2. Tribunal, following ITAT Spl. Bench Bombay's decision in N.M. Shah v. Second WTO [1982] 1 ITD 244 and Rajendra Kumar Tuli v. Eighth WTO [1982] 1 ITD 213, held that the outstanding remunerations due to the assessee of Rs. 10 lakhs as on 31-3-1975 and of Rs. 11,41,500 as on 31-3-1976 relevant for asst. years 1975-76 and 1976-77 were not assessable. Tribunal further held that the market value of the annuity policies was not assessable which the WTO had assessed at Rs. 7.50 lakhs as against Rs. 3,95,972 shown by the assesses and at Rs. 8.50 lakhs as against Rs. 3,13,133 shown by assesses in asst. year 1976-77.3. Revenue in the misc. application has pointed out that the aforesaid decision of Spl. Bench of Tribu...
In Re: by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kirkee Vs. Jairam Baburao ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1987
Reported in: (1987)89BOMLR290
Jahagirdar, J.1. A reference made by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kirkee Cantonment, for taking action against respondents 1 and 2 in this petition under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was taken note of by this Court and a rule was issued on the same. That is being heard as Criminal Application No. 2156 of 1986. The charge against respondents 1 and 2 is that they are the another and printer respectively of a pamphlet which was used by respondent 1 - hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent' - in the elections relating to Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation held on 2nd of March, 1986. The pamphlet itself is dated 20th of February, 1986. In that pamphlet, which appealed to the voters to vote for the respondent, the respondent tried to explain a conviction which has been recorded against him under S. 500, Penal Code, in Criminal Case No. 2014 of 1967. While doing so, the respondent has stated that his opponent in the election, who actually later moved the learned M...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.R. Ruia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1987
Reported in: (1987)65CTR(Bom)206; [1988]170ITR512(Bom)
Sugla, J.1. The only question of law we are called upon to answer in this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the expenditure on the foreign trips of the assessee's minor daughters and Dr. Madan, met by the companies, in which the assessee was a director, could not be said to be an obligation which, but for such payment, would have been payable by the assessee and in thus holding that the amount of Rs. 26,021 was not the income of the assessee within the meaning of section 2(24)(iv) of the Income-tax Act,1961 ?'2. It is evident from the question of law itself that the expenditure in question has been incurred by the company of which the assessee is a director on the foreign trips of the assessee's minor children and a friend by the name of Dr. Madan, the break-up of which is as under :Rs.Miss Nandini Ruia 5,161Shri S. M. Ruia 10,511Dr. Mohan Sing...
Laxman Pandu Khadke Vs. Pandharinath Purushottam Rane
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Bom296; 1987(2)BomCR640; 1989MhLJ752
1. This appeal arises out of the suit filed by the present respondent (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) for injunction against the defendant (present appellant) with a view to protect his possession in respect of the suit land.2. Facts are very simple. Admittedly, the suit land belonged to the defendant. By an agreement dated 31-5-1971 the plaintiff agreed to purchase the said land from the defendant for the total sum of Rs. 11,500/-. A sum of Rs. 8,500/- was paid as earnest money and it is now a finding recorded by the lower appellate Court that the possession of the land was made over by the defendant to the plaintiff by way of part performance of the agreement. The land was agricultural land and one of the terms of the agreement, naturally, was that the permission for sale of the land was to be obtained by the parties from the Collector. It is the case of the plaintiff which is accepted by the Court below that an application was made by the plaintiff to the revenue authorit...
Murlidhar Ramchandra Sonar Vs. Ramchandra Pandurang Sonar Since Deceas ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)BomCR301
Sharad Manohar, J.1. This original plaintiff, whose suit for partition and separate possession of his share in the suit property was decreed by the trial Court but was dismissed by the Appeal Court in appeal filed by his brothers, original defendants Nos. 2 and 4, has filed this Second Appeal against the appellate decree dismissing his original suit.2. The facts relevant for the purpose of appeal are as follows :-One Pandu had two sons, Ramchandra and Supdu. We are not concerned with Supdu in this litigation except for considering as to whether the main item of the suit property was the joint acquisition of Ramchandra and Supdu. Ramchandra is defendant No. 1 in these proceedings and will be hereinafter referred to as such. He died during the pendency of the suit. He had three sons : (i) Murlidhar (present appellant and the original plaintiff), (ii) Dattatraya (original defendant No. 2); (iii) Pandurang (original defendant No. 3); and -- (iv) Vasudeo (original defendant No. 4).He had al...
Jayesh Bhupatri Parikh Vs. University of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1987
Reported in: 1987MhLJ483
ORDER1. This petitioner under Art. 226 of the Constitution seeks a writ to quash Ex. F, being an order passed by the respondent, treating petitioner's appearnace at the examination of April, 1985 as null and void and further debarring him from appearing for any University examination till the end of the first half of the year 1986.2. Respondent, the University of Bombay, conducts examinations for various faculties, instructions wherein is imparted by different colleges affiliated to the University, one such college being the K.J. Somaiya Engineering College of Vidyavihar, Bombay. Petitioner appeared for the second semester examination, which began on April 12, 1985 and was over in April 29, 1985. On April 17, 1985, he together with one Parikh Milan, appeared for the Applied Chemistry paper. Petitioner's seat number was 1192, whereas Milan who sat directly behind him, was at seat No. 1193. On 12-6-1985, petitioner was served with Ex. B which is a show cause notice calling upon him to ap...
Sunshine Exporters Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1987
Reported in: 1987(13)ECC235; 1988(36)ELT546(Bom)
1. The short point for determination to which I propose to restrict myself in this judgment dealing with a petition under article 226 of the Constitution, is the maintainability thereof having regard to the facts and circumstances in which it is shrouded.2. Petitioner is a firm registered under the Partnership Act and deals in the export and import of various kinds of goods. Respondent No. 1 is the Union of India and respondents 2 to 4, the officers of the customs departments. Petitioner is a transferee of REP licences issued under Appendix 17 of the Policy AM, 85-88. Purporting to exercise the right given to it under the transfer, petitioner imported goods described as a 'mixture of odoriferous substances'. The goods came in two consignments under bills of entry dated 5.6.1986 and 7.6.1986. An initial test of the goods was carried out by the Deputy Chief Chemist and he issued a report certifying that the sample taken was a mixture of odoriferous substances (OS), liquid in form and bei...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »