Mumbai Court January 1988 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.
Pandurang Chimaji Agale Vs. New India Life Insurance Company Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1988
Reported in: II(1988)ACC353; (1988)90BOMLR144
P.B. Sawant, J.1. The question referred to us by the Division Bench is as follows: 'Whether a private road or private place to which the public have a permissive access would be the 'public place' within the meaning of Section 2(24) as well as used in Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939?'.The facts which give rise to the question may briefly be stated for the correct appreciation of the question as well as the answer that we propose to give. The deceased Pradeep alias Prodyumna Fulshankar Kapte was working as a Sales Engineer in a company called W.G. Forge and allied Industries Limited, Thane. At the relevant time he was on duty at Pune and was looking after the work entrusted to him by the company. As a part of his duty, he was required to visit various factories, and on February 27, 1981 he visited the factory of the 2nd appellant, namely Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited, situate at Pimpri-Pune, hereinafter referred to as 'TELCO'. He bad gone to the factory on h...
A.Z. Industries Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1988
Reported in: 1988(16)LC124(Bombay)
ORDERS.C. Pratap, J.1. There is no dispute that against the impugned order dated 23rd October, 1987 at Exhibit N an appeal lies to the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay. If so, I see no good and valid reason why the petitioners should not prefer appeal against the impugned order, if they feel aggrieved thereby. The impugned order discloses reasons in support thereof. It also discloses application of mind. It may be that the order may or may not stand the test of judicial scrutiny or the scrutiny by the appellate authority. That, however, is no reason why the petitioners should ignore the statutory remedies and rush to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution all the more so when in an appeal provided by the statute all questions both of law and fact are open for consideration, appreciation and adjudication.2. One more point. In the process of the petitioners approaching this Court, the appeal, if now filed, would be beyond the period of limitation. This delay is on the only...
A.Z. Industries Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1988
Reported in: 1989(20)LC72(Bombay)
ORDERS.C. Partap, J.1. There is no dispute that against the impugned order dated 23rd October, 1987 at Exhibit N an appeal lies to the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay. If so, 1 see no good and valid reason why the petitioners should not prefer appeal against the impugned order, if they feel aggrieved thereby. The impugned order discloses reasons in support thereof. It also discloses application of mind. It may be that the order may or may not stand the test of judicial scrutiny or the scrutiny by the appellate authority. That, however, is no reason why the petitioners should ignore the statutory remedies and rush to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution-all the more so when in an appeal provided by the statute all questions both of law and fact are open for consideration, appreciation and adjudication.2. One more point. In the process of the petitioners approaching this Court, the appeal, if now filed, would be beyond the period of limitation. This delay is on the only...
Soni Maneklal Kanjibhai Vs. Collector of Customs and C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-1988
Reported in: (1988)(19)LC88Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the Order-in-Original bearing No. 4/Gold/Collr/87 dated 16.2.1987 passed by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Ahmedabad.2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are: The appellant was holding a Gold Dealers Licence. This licence was valid upto 31.12.1985. The appellant applied for the renewal of the said licence for a further period of three years i.e. upto 31.12.1988. But the licencing authority instead of granting renewal issued a show cause notice as to why renewal should not be refused and why licence itself should not be cancelled.3. The Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Ahmedabad, who held the adjudication rejected the appellants aplication for renewal of the Gold Dealers Licence and also ordered cancellation of the licence. Hence this appeal.4. During the hearing of this appeal Shri Mehta, firstly contended that in the show cause notice issued to the appellant he was not called upon to ...
F. Hoffman-la Roche and Co. Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-1988
Reported in: (1988)27ITD17(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 1980-81.The only point involved in this appeal is about the determination of the cost of acquisition of the bonus shares acquired by the assessee after 1-1-1964.2. The assessee acquired 160 shares of Anglo-French Drug Co. (Eastern) Ltd. in November 1959 at the rate of Rs. 12,000 per share, the total cost being Rs. 19,20,000. In July 1979, the assessee received 38,240 bonus shares in the ratio of 239: 1. Out of these bonus shares, the assessee had sold 13,600 shares on 31-8-1979 to the financial institution at the rate of Rs. 50 per share with the approval of the Reserve Bank of India, In order to find out the cost of acquisition of these bonus shares the assessee has divided the market value of the original shares as on 1-1-1964 by the total number of shares, i.e., 38,400 (160 original shares plus 38,240 bonus shares). The average price so worked out was claimed t...
Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hirabai Vithal Nikam ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-1988
Reported in: II(1988)ACC435; 1988(4)BomCR625; (1988)90BOMLR103; [1988]64CompCas769(Bom)
G.H.Guttal1. The Division Bench, consisting of Dharmadhikari and vaze JJ., during the hearing of this appeal, came to the conclusion that there is a conflict between the judgment in Nasibdar suba fakir v. Adhia and Co., : AIR1984Bom1 , herein after referred to Nasibdar's case, : AIR1984Bom1 , and the view expressed by another Division Bench in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Abdul Munaf Majur Hussain Momin . These appeals have been referred to us for the purpose of resolving the conflict. We formulate the question arising for determination as under:'Where a passenger is carried in a goods vehicle for hire or reward and the terms of the contract of insurance do not provide for such carriage, is the insurer liable for the death or bodily injury to such passenger?'2. This appeal and, therefore, the question formulated by us arises out of these facts.3. Respondent No.8, Balasaheb Chavan, was, at about 9 a.m. on July 3, 1978, driving truck NO. BYX 5435 on pandharpur-Miraj road. The decea...
Chandrakant Jagannath Manjrekar and anr. Vs. Shripad Vaikunth Naik
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Bom91
ORDER1. Judgment dated August 24, 1987 is sought to be reviewed by the applicants who are petitioners in the revision application No. 56/87. By the impugned judgment while confirming that the respondent/original plaintiff has made out a prima facie case that he is possession of the property 'Deusum' I remanded the matter to the District Court to render fresh findings and decide whether the petitioners were in possession of the house and that they were dispossessed as alleged in the light of the observations made, for I found that the case of the petitioners viz, the house has to be separately dealt with from that of the property (sic).In paragraph 10 I observed that the petitioners' names having not been shown as tenantsand mention to have 'koti' right that too in the Other Rights column in the survey record prima facie 'khoti' cannot be equated to tenancy rights going by the work 'khoti' as mentioned in the dictionary. The fact remains that the tenants column is blank in Forms 1 & ZIV...
Ramanlal Lalbhai Desai Vs. Central Board of Film Certification, Bombay ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-1988
Reported in: AIR1988Bom278; 1988(3)BomCR438
ORDER1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is to impugn a decision of respondent No. 1 hereinafter also referred to as the 'Board' -- refusing a certificate for exhibiting the feature film titled 'Bed-room Story' produced by the petitioner.2. Petitioner is the producer of the feature film titled 'Bed-room Story' which is in the Hindi language. It is in colour and 35 mm. guage. Petitioner after completing the production of the film applied to the Board for a certificate to exhibit the product. The Board declined to issue the certificate and that decision was upheld by the Film Certificate Appellate Tribunal hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal' under its verdict delivered on 23rd May, 1986.3. The 'Bed-room Story' revolves around four characters viz. (1) the hero of the film Ravi, who is a professional Photographer with an artistic bent of mind, (2) the heroine of the film Roma, who is a model by profession, (3) Prince Ajitsingh the villain of the film, who is a sex ...
Ashoke Arya Vs. M.V. kapitan Mitsos, Board of Trustees of the Port of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-1988
Reported in: AIR1988Bom329
ORDER1. This is a notice of motion taken out by the plaintiff in an Admiralty Suit. It seeks a declaration that the plaintiff has priority for his claim, which has been decreed, against the sale proceeds of the 1st defendant vessel (M.V. 'Kapitan Mitsos'), which are lying in Court; in the alternative, for a declaration that his claim ranks pari passu with the claim of the Trustees of the Port of Bombay (B.P.T.) for anchorage fees in regard to the said vessel; and for ancillary reliefs.2. The said vessel entered the port of Bombay on 9th June, 1980 and remained therein until after 24th Oct., 1985. It was first arrested by this Court in Admiralty Suit No. 13 of 1980, Adam Abdul Khan v. M.V. Kapitan Mitsos.3. On 27th Sept., 1980 the B.P.T. passed a resolution sanctioning an amendment to its Port and Pilotage Scale of Rates. The sanction of the Government of India in regard to the amendment was sought on 20th Oct., 1983 under Section 52 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. The sanction was ...
Mahamadsha Rahimansha Patel and ors. Vs. Abdulsha Ibrahimsha Patel and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1988
Reported in: 1988(2)BomCR448
V.V. Vaze, J.1. Our story start in 1877 and no one can tell unless he has a peep into the womb of time, when it will end. This appeal concerns itself with partitioning of agricultural property in `Khoti' village of Mouje Har kul Budruk in the Kankavli taluka of Kokan area. The land tenure system prevalent in this part of Konkan was akin to the Malguzari system of central area unlike the Rayatwari system of rest of Maharashtra. A number of muslim families were allotted Khoti village and it is a common ground that so far as inheritance and succession to Khoti property was concerned, the Patels of Mouje Harkul Budruk (Harkul BK.) whether Hindus or Muslims were governed by Hindu Law. 2. Certain parcels of land numbering about 70 described in the schedule to the plaint constituted the holdings of the village Harkul BK. All these parcels of land though large in number hardly extended over 15 acres and 20 gunthas and vested in one Ismalisha as the Patel of that village whose family genealegy ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »