Mumbai Court February 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.
Elchem Sales Corpn. (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1988
Reported in: (1988)27ITD189(Mum.)
1. This appeal by the assessee relates to the assessment year 1983-84.The assessee-company had made advances to eight parties, the aggregate of which amounted to Rs. 16,15,531 on which the interest was not charged and not shown in the profit and loss account. The assessee-company claimed before the Income-tax Officer that in respect of advances to these parties, there was a decision dated 19-2-1981 of the Board of Directors to the effect that no interest would be charged for the year ended 30th June, 1980 and onwards. It was submitted that the principal amounts had become doubtful of recovery and as such, interest was given up. Consequently, no interest accrued and hence, no interest was shown in the profit and loss account. The Income-tax Officer called upon the assessee to place the material on record to show that those parties were suffering from financial difficulties and that original advances were of doubtful recovery. The assessee could not produce the details called for by the...
Damodar Kashinath Rasane Vs. Shahajsdibi and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Bom1; 1988(2)BomCR339; 1988MhLJ750
Sawant, J.1. Plaintiff Shahajadibi is the widow of late Bapubhai Momin, a Muslim governed by the Hanafi School of Mohamedan Law. Bapubhai owned a place of agriculture land which is the subject -matter of the suit. During his life time on Oct.9, 1944, he made a will under which he bequeathed the entire land to one Bakshushaha who was his father's -sister's son. Bapubhai died on 9-11-1949 leaving the plaintiff his widow, as the only heir. It appears that Bakshushaha renounced life and became a Fakir and his wife Hafizabi leased out the land in the 1968 to defendants 2 and 3 . Plaintiff Shahajadibi, therefore, filed the present suit in 1972 for recovery of the land from the defendants claiming the same in her capacity as the sole heir of her husband Bapubhai. The suit was resisted by defendants 2 and 3, defendant1, Bakashushaha, whose wife had leased out of the property to defendants 2 and 3 had become the owner of the entire land under the will and the plaintiff had no right, title or in...
Official Liquidator, Dadhich Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs. Murlidhar S. Sharm ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1988
Reported in: AIR1988Bom429; 1988(2)BomCR141; (1988)90BOMLR127
Sawant, J.1. Normally this Court does not interfere with orders such as the one impugned in the present case, more so in a writ petition. However, the point which falls for consideration in the present case is of a general public importance and unless it is decided proceedings under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) may become a plaything in the hands of the parties interested in protracting them. The facts in the present case prove the apprehension.The petitioner is the Official Liquidator of a Co-operative Bank called Dadhich Sahakari Bank Limited. It was registered under the Act on September 17, 1980 and commenced work from November 3, 1980. Respondents Nos. 1 to 15 to the petition were the Directors of the Bank with Respondent No. 1 as the Chairman of the Board of Directors. For reasons which are as yet not known and to investigate which the present proceedings under Section 88 have been instituted the Bank functioned unsatisfacto...
V.P.S. Gill Vs. Air India and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1988
Reported in: AIR1988Bom416; 1988(3)BomCR292; (1988)90BOMLR88
ORDER1. This petition invokes the writ jurisdiction to quash a 'no flying' order and to restore all benefits of which the petitioner has been deprived as a consequence thereof.2. Respondent No. 2, the Union of India, owns and operates the 1st respondent which shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the Air India' or 'Corporation'. Petitioner is a Pilot who served the Indian Air Force from 1962 to 1976 and for distinguished service received the Vayu Sena Medal in 1971. In 1976 he joined the Air India and until mid-1984 underwent the usual progression. Came June 1984 and the entry of the Army into the Golden Temple on 6 June, 1984. Agitated by this entry, the Petitioner addressed a letter on 10 June 1984 to the Dadar Gurudwara Prabhandak Samiti to forward his protest and the return of the Vayu Sena Medal to the Governor of Maharashtra. The letter emphasised Petitioner's not being actuated by political considerations and his aversion to the protest being publicised. The caution notwithstandi...
Tukaram Vs. Grampanchayat Karyalaya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1988
Reported in: 1990(1)BomCR271
B. N. Deshmukh, J.1. This second appeal is filed by the original plaintiff who has filed a suit against the Gram panchayat for declaration of ownership and also for injunction regarding the house bearing No. 117 of village Sawargaon.2. The learned trial Judge dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on several grounds namely that the plaintiff has failed to establish his title. So also the suit is bad for want of notice to the Gram panchayat as per section 180 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. The trial Court found that even though the house belongs to the plaintiff, the portion of Baithak constitutes an encroachment made by the plaintiff.3. The plaintiff went in appeal before the District Court at Nanded. The learned District Judge, Nanded, who heard the appeal, confirmed the findings recovered by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal.4. The learned Counsel Shri Vaishnav, appearing for the appellant, tried to challenge the concurrent finding of facts regarding the encroachment...
Chandraman H. Upadhyay Vs. Rajasthan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1988
Reported in: (1993)IIILLJ356Bom
H.H. Kantharia, J.1. The petitioner was in the employment of the Respondents M/s. Rajasthan Co-operative Housing Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Society'), as a watchman. He was retrenched with effect from 1st June 1982. He raised a demand for his reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages as according to him his services were illegally terminated. After the conciliation proceedings in his demand failed and a failure report was submitted in that behalf, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour referred his dispute to the First Labour Court, Bombay under Section 10(1) read with Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The said reference was registered in the Labour Court as Reference (IDA) No. 613 of 1983. At the hearing of the reference the. workman adduced his oral evidence and two witnesses were examined on behalf of the Society. On appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence produced before him the le...
Atomica Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. B.R. Ballal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1988
Reported in: 1988(2)BomCR104
G.H.Guttal, J.1. In these five writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the orders of the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court are impugned.(i) Writ Petition No. 5270 of 1985 is by the Atomica Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Chembur, Bombay---71, hereinafter referred to as 'the Society'. It is against B. R. Ballal, a member of the Society. In this petition, the validity of the order dated October 14, 1985 made by the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Bombay in Appeal No. 390 of 1985 confirming the decision of the Co-operative Court No. 1 in Case No. ABN/632/1922 of 1980 dated 10th June, 1985 is challenged. By this order the Appellate Court confirmed the finding of the Co-operative Court in Case No. ABN/632/1922 of 1980 that the cancellation of the shares and allotment of the flat to Ballal, a member of the said society was illegal.(ii) Writ Petition No. 5271/1985 is also by the Society. In this petition, the Society challenges the validi...
Dinoo F. Byramji Vs. Dolly Jahangir Ranji (Mrs.)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1988
Reported in: 1988(1)BomCR587; 1988MhLJ1078
G.H. Guttal, J.1. In this petition, the defendant 'paying guest', challenges the validity of the decree for possession made by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes in Appeal No. 201 of 1983, reversing the decree of Single Judge of that Court in Suit No. L.E. & C 163/213 of 1978. The Appellate Bench held that the petitioner is a 'paying guest' and not a 'licensee', protected by section 15-A of the Bombay Rents, Hotel & Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the 'Bombay Rent Act').2. The question in this petition is whether the petitioner, who occupies a room and a kitchen in the flat held by the respondent as a tenant, is a 'paying guest', as defined in section 5(6-A) of the Bombay Rent Act, or is a licensee as defined in section 5(4-A) of the Act. The petitioner hereafter shall be referred to as the defendant and the respondent as the plaintiff.3. There is on the third floor of Ali Building, Wadia Street, Bombay 400 034, a flat held by the plaintiff as a ...
Tukaram S/O Lingappa Nagthane Vs. Grampanchayat Karyalaya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1988
Reported in: 1988(3)BomCR351
B.N. Deshmukh, J.1. This second appeal is filed by the original plaintiff who has filed a suit against the Grampanchayat for declaration of ownership and also for injunction regarding the house bearing No. 117 of Village Sawargaon.2. The learned trial Judge dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on several grounds namely that the plaintiff has failed to establish his title. So also the suit is bad for want of notice to the Grampanchayat as per section 180 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. The trial Court found that even though the house belongs to the plaintiff, the portion of Baithak constitutes an encroachment made by the plaintiff.3. The plaintiff went in appeal before the District Court at Nanded. The learned District Judge, Nanded, who heard the appeal, confirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal.4. The learned Counsel Shri Vaishnav, appearing for the appellant, tried to challenge the concurrent finding of facts regarding the encroachment. I ...
State of Maharashtra and anr. Vs. Nanabhai Rathod and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Bom9; 1988(4)BomCR282
Deshpande, J.1. First Appeals Nos. 209 of 1984 and 1984 by the state of Maharashtra are directed respectively against the awards made by the Land Acquisition Officer, Bhandara in Land Acquisition Officer in both the cases and evidence was recovered by the trial Court in Land Acquisition Case no. 1 of 1978 and compensation was awarded by the common judgment recovered in both the cases.2. In Land Acquisition Case No. 1 of 1978, 4.97 acres (2.15.622 sq. ft.) of land and in Land Acquisition Case No. 2 of 1978. 4.55 acres (1.99.134 sq.ft.) of land belonging respectively to Bhadupotes and Rathods came to be acquired. A notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act came to be issued on 25th July 1974 in Land Acquisition case No.1 of 1978,and notification under S. 4 of the Act was issued in respect of the land acquired in Land Acquisition Case No. 2 of 1978 on 25 Th. July. The notification under S. 6 of the Act in both the cases was issued on 18th Sept. 1976. The whole of the hand was di...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »