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.
Prem Ratan Vohra Vs. Lalitkumar Dayalji Kakhani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1988
Reported in: AIR1988Bom264; 1988(2)BomCR210; (1988)90BOMLR71
Sawant, J.1. This is a Reference to the Full Bench for answering two questions of law, namely how should the market value of the suit property be arrived at for the purposes of jurisdiction of the Court whether by valuing it on the basis of the valuer's report or on the basis of the compensation or rent that is charged to the occupant, and if it is the latter, what should be the multiplier of the compensation or rent which should determine the value.2. The facts which have given rise to the questions, are as follows :The petitioner before us is the defendant-licensee in the suit filed by the respondent, who is the tenant-licensor of the suit premises. The suit premises admeasure 620 square feet and are situate on the first floor of Municipal House No. 22, Police Court Lane, Fort, Bombay. By a leave and licence agreement of October 5, 1967, the respondent created a licence in favour of the petitioner for a period of 11 months at the monthly compensation of Rs. 450/-. The agreement also ...
Mansingka Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1988
Reported in: 1988(36)ELT540(Bom)
Bharucha J.1. We have heard Mr. Desai for the appellants. We have heard Mr. Pochkhanawala for the 2nd respondent. No one has at any stage of the hearing of this appeal today appeared on behalf of the 1st respondent, which is the principal respondent. We are told that Mr. Bulchandani is briefed for the 1st respondent but is on his legs in another court. No explanation, however, unacceptable is vouchsafed for the favour of the 1st respondent's advocate on record to appear.2. The appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned judge on the notice of motion taken out by the appellants. The learned judge refused relief on the notice of motion.3. The appellants entered into an agreement with the 2nd respondent for the purchase of edible oils imported by the 2nd respondent on the basis of allocations made by the 1st respondent for the purposes of manufacturing vanaspati at their factory at Pachora in the State of Maharashtra. On 30th June 1986, the 2nd respondent informed the appel...
Allahabad Bank Vs. Ramswarup Cloth Traders and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1988
Reported in: 1988(2)BomCR382
M.S. Ratnaparkhi, J.1. An order passed by the Second Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nagpur on 4-1-1985 below Exhibit 33, rejecting the plaintiff's application for leave to produce documents on record has been challenged in this revision.2. The plaintiff-Bank, who is the petitioner in this case, instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 5,00,000/- and odd against the defendants. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff filed extracts of the accounts (but without any certificate appended thereto as required by the Bankers' Book Evidence Act) and Xerox copy of a letter addressed by the plaintiff to the defendants filed a written statement. The parties went to trial. P.W. 1 was examined by the plaintiff and while he was under the cross-examination, some questions were asked to him. Therefore, during the course of cross-examination, the plaintiff filed Exhibit-33 before the trial Court seeking leave of the Court to produce five documents including the two filed along with the plaint. The othe...
Uniferro International Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1988
Reported in: 1988(16)LC257(Bombay)
ORDERS.C. Pratap, J.1. This petition is filed at the stage of show cause notice. It is difficult to entertain petitions at this stage when proceedings in pursuant to show cause notice are yet to be heard and decided and when against orders in those proceedings statutory remedies under the Act are available.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, submits that show cause notices are issued impliedly and/or expressly in view of circular or circulars issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. In view thereof, the authority deciding the proceedings in pursuant to show cause notice will have left with him hardly any discretion to decide the same on merits and in accordance with law. The apprehension does appear to be reasonable. It is, therefore, directed that proceedings in pursuant to the show cause notice issued to the petitioner should be decided purely and strictly on their own merits and in accordance with law and de hors and regardless of circular or circulars issued ...
Chirag International Vs. Collector of Customs and C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-1988
Reported in: (1988)(38)ELT339Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against Order-in-Original bearing No.F.VIII/10-14/CUS/Tech/87 dated 23.9.1987 passed by the Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Rajkot.2. The appellants imported 12.600 M.T.(252 drums) of Potassium Cyanide and sought its clearance against three REP import licences issued under the Registered Exporters Policy against Export product group A 82(i).Their licences included "electroplating salts and brighteners" as one of the specific items of import. The appellants sought clearance of Potassium Cyanide against this entry. The Collector has held that this entry did not cover the goods and that, therefore, the licences were not valid for the following two reasons:- (1) The generic description "electroplating salts and brighteners" could cover such items as found widespread and general use in electroplating. Potassium Cyanide had a rare or scant application in electroplating. It could not, therefore, come under the generic entry in the impor...
Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-1988
Reported in: 1988(3)BomCR485; (1988)90BOMLR54; 1989MhLJ964
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. These two appeals arise on orders made by the Single Judge on petitions to set aside two awards. The only difference between the two appeals is that in the first the award is for the sum of Rs. 3.46,236/- and covers the vessel 'Jag Shakti' and in the second the award is for the sum of Rs. 2,68,457/- and concerns the vessel 'Jag Doot'.2. Both vessels are owned by the respondents. They were chartered to the appellants to transport cargoes of wheat from Australia to Vishakapatnam in 1982. The charter parties contained the usual arbitration clause. Disputes having arisen, references were made to arbitrators as provided by the arbitration clause. The arbitrators disagreed and the references were heard by the umpire. On 12th September, 1985 the umpire made the awards.3. The appellants were informed of the awards by letters written by the respondents, wherewith photostat copies of the awards were enclosed. The appellants thereupon filed petitions in the Court of the 1st Ad...
Shanta Genevieve Pommeret and Another Vs. Sakal Papers Pvt. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1988
Reported in: [1990]69CompCas65(Bom)
S.N. Variava, J.1. This is a company petition under section 155 of the Companies Act, 1956. Before stating the facts of this petition, it is necessary to set out in brief the nature of the controversy involved in this petition.2. The first respondent-company is a private limited company and the first petitioner is one of the founder-members thereof. Under the articles of association, the first petitioner has a right of pre- emption, i.e., a right to purchase any shares of the first respondent company in the event of the same being sold by any other member. The petitioners challenge the transfer by respondents Nos.2,3 and 4 of 3,417 shares and 93 shares in favour of respondents Nos. 5,6,8,11,12,13and 14. The petitioners also challenge t he issue and allotment of 17,666 shares in favour of respondents Nos.11,12,13,15 and 16. It must be mentioned at this stage itself that both Mr.Cooper and Mr.Chagla have, in their usual fairness, admitted that respondents Nos.11 to 16 re companies owned ...
Joti Prasad Om Prakash Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1988
Reported in: 1988(15)ECC237; 1988(19)LC428(Bombay); 1988(36)ELT90(Bom)
1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr. Shringarpure, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waives service. He, however, seeks adjournment to take instruction. Going through the order and considering the fact that the refusal to adjourn the appeal by a mere one day from 14-9-1987 to 15-9-1987, which is the only grievance made by the petitioner's Counsel before me, I am not inclined to adjourn the petition.2. One is at this stage not concerned with the merits of the dispute between the parties. What stares one in the face is the rather adamant refusal of the Appellate Authority to adjourn the matter by mere 24 hours to accommodate the Advocate who had certain difficulty on the previous day because of a matter in the Supreme Court. Interest of justice would not have suffered if the hearing of the appeal had been adjourned by mere one day as prayed for by the Advocate.3. In the result, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 8-12-1987 at Exh. 'C' is set aside. The appeal pro...
Ganesh and Others Vs. the Maharashtra State Electricity Board
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1988
Reported in: (1990)IILLJ61Bom
Ratnaparkhi, J.1. A mandate had been claimed against the respondent, the Maharashtra State Electricity Board directing them to grant equal fringe benefits such as the generation allowance and others, equal with the degree and diploma holders, with a view to do away with the unequal treatment meted out to the non-graduates and non-diploma holders.2. The petitioner No. 1 is presently working as a Supervisor/Assistant Shift Engineer at Khaparkheda Thermal Power Station. The petitioner No. 2 is working as a Head Supervisor/Assistant Superintendent at Nasik Thermal Power Station. The petitioner No. 3 is working as a Supervisor/Assistant Shift Engineer at Koradi Thermal Power Station. The petitioner No. 4 is working as Chargeman Grade-II at Koradi Thermal Power Station. The petitioner No. 5 is working as a Head Supervisor/Assistant Superintendent at Koradi Thermal Power Station. The petitioners are neither graduates in Mechanical, Civil or Electrical Engineering, nor do they hold any Diploma...
Tarquino Raul Henriques Vs. Damodar Mangalji and Co. Pvt. Ltd. and anr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Bom309
ORDER1. This review application by the applicant in Civil Revision Application No. 80/87 seeks to obtain a review of the judgment dt. Sept. 18, 1987. On setting aside the order made by the lower Court by my judgment. I directed the present respondents to pay Rs. 4000/- per annum as and by way of mesne profits from the date of the institution of the suit till the delivery of the possession of the property i.e. from the year 1969 up to 1978 the amount comes to Rs, 40,000/- and Rs. 1066/- from Jan. 1979 to May, 1979 till the property was handed over to the present applicant. The controversy now centers around not granting the interest on the mesne profits.2. The foremost contention of the learned counsel Shri Thali for the applicant is having regard to the very definition of mesne profits In S. 2(12) of the Civil P.C. 1908 in grant of interest is implicit besides being a substantive right and therefore it was clearly incumbent upon the Court while directing the respondents to pay the mesn...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »