Mumbai Court July 1987 Judgments
Mukherjee Biswa Nath and ors. Vs. Samir Kundu and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Bom26; 1987(3)BomCR517
ORDER1. The applicants are joint receivers of various properties of the 1st defendant and were appointed as such joint receivers by the Calcutta High Court in Suit No. 297 of 1983 before the Calcutta High Court, The suit filed in the Calcutta High Court was a representative suit, filed by the creditors of the present 1st defendant. The applicants, who are barristers practising in the Calcutta High Court, were initially appointed by the court as joint special officers under its order dated llth May 1983. Thereafter they were appointed as joint receivers under an order dated 23rd November 1983. Two of the properties of which they were appointed joint receivers are Flat No. G-68 of Manikmoti Apartment, Sarla Co-operative Housing Society Ltd at Bombay and Flat No. 6, Jaya Apartments, Juhu Vile Parle Development Scheme, Bombay.2. Pursuant to the order of 11th May 1983 the applicants came down to Bombay and, inter alia, took possession of these two flats on or about 1st June 1983. This is re...
Tag this Judgment!Fulchand Champalal JaIn Vs. Punjaru Shankar Patil and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1987
Reported in: 1987(3)BomCR175; 1987MhLJ1032
Sharad Manohar, J.1. The facts of this case are very simple. The appellant/plaintiff advanced a sum of Rs. 9000/- to the father of the defendants Shankar Nandaram Patil way back in the year 1974. There was no dispute either in the lower Court or in this Court that the sum was advanced without any interest. But a document styled as a hand-note was executed by said Shankar Nandaram Patil in favour of the plaintiff. Once again, there is not dispute that the document does not mention any term for payment of interest. The amount was advanced on 31st May, 1974 whereas Shankar Nadaram Patil died on 17-11-1974. The plaintiff gave notice to his son, present defendant No. 1 calling upon him to pay the amount. The notice drew blank. It may be mentioned here that no demand for payment of interest was made even in the notice. What was demanded was the amount of Rs. 9000/- taken by Shankar Nandaram Patil from the plaintiff.The instant suit was filed by the plaintiff on 6th June, 1977 for recovery of...
Tag this Judgment!R.K. Synthetics and Fibres Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Joint Chief Controller of Imp ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1987
Reported in: 1988(17)ECC339; 1987(31)ELT657(Bom)
1. The petitioners are engaged in the manufacture of various products and one of the main raw materials consumed by the petitioner-Company is 'Synthetic Waste', a large part of which is imported by the Petitioner-Company. A considerable portion of the petitioner-Company's product of finished products is exported.2. The petitioners received an order for the supply of about one lakh numbers of woollen blankets for export to Iran. Synthetic waste is an item which is used for the manufacturer of the said woollen blankets. Accordingly, the petitioners submitted an application on 8th September 1982 to the Import Control Authorities for the grant of an Advance Licence for import of the said synthetic waste, so that the same could be processed into the said woollen blankets, which would be exported to Iran. After some correspondence, finally on 6th May 1983 the Import Control Authorities issued to the petitioners an advance licence for the import of synthetic waste of a total C.I.F. value not ...
Tag this Judgment!S.V. Kedari and Co. and anr. Vs. Mohammad Ibrahim and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Bom394; 1988(1)BomCR149
Dhabe, J.1. All the parties including the added parties were heard by us at length on merits and hence the instant letters patent appeal can be conveniently disposed of at this stage only. Hence, Rule, Heard forthwith.2. The proceedings in this letters patent appeal arise out of the orders passed under the provisions of the C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (for short 'the Rent Control Order'). The respondents Nos. 1 to 3 filed an application before the Rent Controller under clauses 13(3)(i), (ii) and (vi) of the Rent Control Order seeking permission to give quit notice to the appellant No. 1, which was the tenant in the suit premises. The appellant No. 1 is a registered partnership firm. By its written statement the appellant No. 1 denied the allegation made by respondents Nos. 1 to 3 in their application. After the written statement was filed, the respondents-londlords filed an application for amendment to add to the original application, Shri S. Narsingrao ...
Tag this Judgment!Roche Products Limited Vs. Shri N.B. Sonavane, Collector of Customs
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1987
Reported in: 1988(14)LC395(Bombay)
ORDER, 1955 : CLAUSE 10C(1).Review powers are not limited if notice of adverse action to be taken is given. Section 130(3)(a).Review powers cannot be limited merely because a remedy of appeal against a review order is not available. Section 130.Penalty can be imposed even while revising an assessment as import and assessment may or may not be done in separate stages. Section 112.Consent of an authority cannot be presumed without waiting for a reasonable period for reply....
Tag this Judgment!Balwant Singh Sethi Vs. Sardar Zorawarsingh Hushnak Singh Anand and An ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1987
Reported in: [1988]63CompCas310(Bom)
Tated, J.1. Respondent No. 1 filed Short Cause Suit No. 6738 of 1987, in the Bombay City Civil Court, Bombay, against respondent No. 2 and the appellant for a declaration that the requisition contained in the letter dated July 27, 1987, being exhibit A-1, is not a valid and lawful requisition for calling an extraordinary general body meeting and as such it is not capable of being acted upon and that the appellant-defendant No.2 either for himself or on behalf of the requisionists is not entitled to convene a meeting of respondent No.2, defendant No. 1, in pursuance of the said requisition dated July 27, 1987. Respondent No. 1 also sought a permanent injunction restraining the appellant-defendant No. 2 and other requisitionists from convening the extraordinary general body meeting. He took out a notice of motion for an injunction restraining defendant No. 2 from holding the meeting pending the decision of the suit. The trial court, after allowing the parties to file their affidavits in ...
Tag this Judgment!Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1987
Reported in: 1987(31)ELT51(Bom)
1. The petitioners imported what are known as industrial fatty acids. This was between December 11, 1980 and February 9, 1981. As the goods landed, the Customs department sought to confiscate them on the ground that they were banned goods. The goods were thus detained. Thereafter by an order issued on February 7, 1982, the goods were confiscated but the Collector of Customs allowed the importers to pay fine in respect of each of the consignment and clear the goods for home consumption. The petitioners then paid the duty and fine and cleared the goods.2. As against this order the petitioners preferred an appeal to the Central Board of Excise and Customs. The Board by its order dated July 5, 1982 reversed the decision given by the Collector and held that the petitioners' contentions were fully valid and the appeal was allowed. However, when this order was passed, no order to refund the penalty amount paid by the petitioners was passed.3. It appears that against this order the Collector o...
Tag this Judgment!State of Maharashtra and ors. Vs. Roop Kumar Dayaram Gursahani (Dr.) a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1987
Reported in: 1987(3)BomCR271
T.D. Sugla, J.1. These appeals raise a common question regarding selection to the post of Registrar from amongst the students registered to post graduate and/or post graduate (super specialities) courses in Medical Colleges at Bombay. The question so far as these appeals are concerned involves interpretation of Rule V of the Rules for the appointment of Registrar in Hospitals attached to Government Medical College in Maharashtra State framed under Resolution No. MCG 2571/24500-Q dated 26th June, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules'). Bombay Municipal Corporation Medical Colleges have similar Rules for appointment to the post of Registrar in hospitals attached to their Medical Colleges, corresponding Rule being Rule 13-A.2. It is pertinent to mention that Rules regarding admission to degree and post graduate degree including super specialities courses have come up for consideration before the Supreme Court as well as this Court in a number of cases where Rules providing for whole sa...
Tag this Judgment!The Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1987
Reported in: 1988(14)LC588(Bombay)
ORDERH. Suresh, J.1. The petitioners imported what are known as industrial fatty acids. This was between December 11, 1980 and February 9, 1981. As the goods landed, the Customs department sought to confiscate them on the ground that they were banned goods. The goods were thus detained. Thereafter by an order issued on February 7, 1982, the goods were confiscated but the Collector of Customs allowed the importers to pay fine in respect of each of the consignment and clear the goods for home consumption. The petitioners then paid the duty and fine and cleared the goods.2. As against this order the petitioners preferred an appeal to the Central Board of Excise and Customs. The Board by its order dated July 5, 1982 reversed the decision given by the Collector and held that the petitioners' contentions were fully valid and the appeal was allowed. However, when this order was passed, no order to refund the penalty amount paid by the petitioners was passed.3. It appears that against this ord...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. Dharambir Hansraj Agarwal
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1987
Reported in: (1987)23ITD589(Mum.)
1. These two appeals by the department relate to the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82. The assessee is an individual. He carried on business of construction of buildings in the relevant accounting years which ended on 31-3-1980 and 31-3-1981 respectively. He also derived income from salary in those two years. In the trading account for the assessment year 1980-81, the assessee disclosed sales of Rs. 2,05,22,750 which included cash amount of Rs. 23,90,000. In the trading account for the assessment year 1981-82, he disclosed sales of Rs. 43,78,000, which included cash amount of Rs. 25,75,000. The submission of the assessee before the ITO was that the cash amounts in both the years represented amounts received in cash from the parties to whom the show-rooms have been sold, over and above, the price mentioned in the sale agreements, and as such, those amounts represented trading receipts of the business. The ITO requested the assessee's representative to intimate the names of the part...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »