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.
Jugalkishor Pannalal Darak Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1988
Reported in: II(1989)ACC486; AIR1988Bom377
1. Jugalkishor Darak, a trader of Rahuri in Ahmadnagar Districttravelled on 20th May 1975 from Bombay V.T. to Rahuri by Bombay-Pune-Manmad Passengar. As the railways do not allow heavy parcels of luggage in the passenger compartments, Darak had to load some bales in the brake van for which he obtained a luggage ticket bearing No. 904141. Jugalkishor arrived at Rahuri, the brake van was opened and while taking delivery of one of the bales, he found that it was in a tampered condition. He asked for an open delivery which having been given cloth weighing 33 Kgs. was found missing when compared with the bijak. Jugalkishor filed Regular Civil Suit No. 601of 1976 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ahmednagar for price of goods short-delivered but the railway administration disclaimed liability to pay compensation as the plaintiff had failed to comply with provisions of Section 77B of the Indian Railways Act (the Act'). The trial Judge negatived the defence and decreed the suit whi...
Union of India Vs. India Photographic Co. Ltd
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1988
Reported in: 1988(36)ELT425(Bom)
Desai, A.C.J.1. We propose to dispose of this Appeal at the stage of admission. Accordingly, the Appeal is admitted. Mr. Parsrampuria on behalf of the Respondents (original Petitioners) waives service. The appeal is taken up for hearing forthwith and heard.2. Mr. Parsrampuria has pointed out and presumably this submission appealed to the single Judge that the conduct of the Appellants in refusing refund and not following judgments of the Supreme Court and of the High Court which were cited is contumacious and, therefore, interim relief is required to be given to the Respondents (original Petitioners). In our opinion, although this aspect has to be taken into account, there are various other circumstances such as the size of the Petitioners, their need for the money as well as the question whether without an interim order the Petitioners would suffer so much that they are required to be protected but by an unusual interim order without deciding the Writ Petition. In the instant case, be...
Leukoplast (India) Ltd. Vs. State of Goa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1988
Reported in: 1992(40)ECC186; 1988(36)ELT369(Bom); [1988]71STC180(Bom)
Couto, J.1. Petitioners are a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, they seek the quashing of the assessment orders made by the Sales Tax Officer on August 23, 1985, December 26, 1986 and December 24, 1986, the first relating to the period from 1-1-1981 to 31-12-1981, the second and the third to the period commencing on 1-1-1982 and ending on 31-12-1982 and on 24-12-1987 as regards the period starting on 1-1-1983 and ending on 31-12-1983 in respect of the Central and Local Sales tax payable by them, as well as a mandamus directing the respondents to withdraw the orders of assessment, and further, to refund to the petitioners the Local and Central Sales Tax paid by them in excess for the period commencing on 1-1-1981 and ending on 31-12-1987 together with interest at the rate of 21% from the date of collection till the date of refund.2. Petitioners manufacture under a licence dated July 13, 1967, issued by the Drug...
Suresh Govind Mandavgane Vs. Raghunath Moreshwar Pendase and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Bom267; 1988(2)BomCR329
Sawant, J.1. The question which has been referred to us by the learned single Judge is whether the property which was given to the widow in fieu of her maintenance under the Will dt. Nov. 27, 1947 executed by her husband. Had become of her full ownership under s. 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act , 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). 2. The facts necessary to appreciate the question of law are as under:One Dadaji died leaving certain properties. He had two sons Govinda and Vinayak. Vinayak's son was one Shridhar, Govinda has to sons and a Daugher. Defendants 1 and 2 are the sons and defendant 3 is the daughter. Vinayak died while he was joint with Govinda. Thereafter there was a partition between Govinda, his sons and his partition between Govinda, his sons and his nephew Shridhar and in that partition the suit property which consisted of a house and some agricultural lands came to the share of Shridhar. Shridhar died on Oct. 20, 1948 leaving his widow Ramabai. Before his death...
K. Ramachandra Nair Vs. the Bombay Gymkhana Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1988
Reported in: 1988(2)BomCR318; (1988)90BOMLR76; (1995)IIILLJ574Bom
H.H. Kantharia, J.1. As common questions of facts and law are involved in these two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Petitioner K. Ramchandra Nair in writ petition No. 1115 of 1983 was in the employment of the first respondent, the Bombay Gymkhana Limited, from 22nd June, 1964. Petitioner-Abdul Q. Bakali was in the employment of the said Gymkhana from 31st May, 1971. At the relevant time both of them were working as Clerks.3. The relevant facts giving rise to these writ petitions are as under:It appears that every year on the 20th of December there always used to be an annual day celebrations in the Gymkhana. On that day, as a matter of practice, some ex-gratia payments were made to the workmen of the Gymkhana. In the year 1977, some dispute arose between all the workmen on one hand and the management of the Gymkhana on the other on the issue of usual ex-gratia payment. On 19th De...
Babu and anr. Vs. Digambar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1988
Reported in: 1990(1)BomCR321
B.N. Deshmukh, J.1. This second appeal is filed by the plaintiffs who have filed a suit for redemption of property agricultural land Survey No. 57/A admeasuring 14 Acres 4 Gunthas of village Dhondrai Tq. Gevrai.2. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit property was mortgaged by the father of the plaintiffs with one Digambarrao-defendant No. 1 who subsequently died. This property was mortgaged by executing a mortgage-deed on 20 July, 1330 F for Rs. 1,200/-. The period of mortgage was mentioned as 10 years. The possession of the land was given to deceased Digambarrao-defendant No. 1. The father of the plaintiffs was in need of more amount. Therefore, he took another Rs. 1,000/- from deceased Digambarrao and allowed him to continue in possession as mortgagee. As the mortgage-deed was executed on 20-7-1330 F, no 'document was executed after taking Rs. 1,000/- subsequently. According to plaintiffs, property was mortgaged on 20-7-1330 F and it continued to be in possession even after ob...
Babu S/O Balaji Kale and anr. Vs. Digambar S/O Annasahaeb by His Legal ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1988
Reported in: 1988(3)BomCR25; 1988MhLJ962
B.N. Deshmukh, J.1. This second appeal is filed by the plaintiffs who have filed a suit for redemption of property agricultural land Survey No. 57/A admeasuring 14 Acres 4 gunthas of village Dhondrai Tq. Gevrai.2. The case of the plaintiffs is that he suit property was mortgaged by the father of the plaintiffs with one Digambarrao-defendant No. 1 who subsequently died. The property was mortgaged by executing a mortgage-deed on 20 July, 1330-F for Rs. 1200/-. The period of mortgage was mentioned as 10 years. The possession of the land was given to deceased Digambarrao-defendant No. 1. The father of the plaintiffs was in need for more amount. Therefore, he took another Rs. 1,000/- from deceased Digambarrao and for that allowed him to continue in possession as mortgagee. As the mortgage-deed was executed on 20-7-1930-F, no document was executed after taking Rs. 1,000/- subsequently. According to plaintiffs, property was mortgaged on 20-7-1330-F and it continued to be in possession even af...
Ramchandra Vithal Prabhu Dessai Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1988
Reported in: 1988(3)BomCR347
G.D. Kamat, J.1. This petition challenges the communication bearing No. 28/17/84-ll-D of the Industries and Labour Department of Government of Goa, Daman and Diu, dated July 17, 1984, refusing to refer the dispute raised by the petitioner for adjudication under section 10(1)(d) r/w section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, the point for consideration is whether the said communication dated July 17, 1984, can stand scrutiny having regard to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in various decisions.3. Shortly stated, the facts are that the petitioner was employed with the respondent No. 3 Bank as a Clerk as from 1st April, 1974. A charge-sheet dated 14th February, 1983, was served on the petitioner and that was in connection with some embezzlement of funds. An enquiry was conducted and as a result of what transpired in that enquiry, the petitioner was dismissed from service by an order dated November 30, 1983. The p...
Vishwanath Gangaram Ghugare Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1988
Reported in: 1988(4)BomCR159
H.W. Dhabe, J.1. The only point raised in this writ petition is that the Tahsildar, Yavatmal, cannot exercise the jurisdiction of the State Government under section 80-A of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (for short, the 'Tenancy Act'). It is also urged that under section 119 of the Tenancy Act the State Government can delegate any of its powers under the Tenancy Act to any of its officers not below the rank of Assistant or Deputy Collector. The submission thus is that since the Tahsildar is below the rank of an Assistant or Deputy Collector, the powers of the State Government under section 80-A of the Tenancy Act cannot be delegated to him.2. It cannot be disputed that a Tahsildar in the set up of the Revenue Officers of the State is an officer below the rank of an Assistant or Deputy Collector. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner is therefore, well founded. The power of the State Government under section 80-A of the Tenancy Act cannot...
Raj Woollen Industries Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1988
Reported in: 1988(16)LC445(Bombay)
ORDERS.C. Pratap, J.1. The bill of entry has been assessed on 29th January, 1988. When the petitioners, if aggrieved, have remedy by way of an appeal on facts, law and evidence, open under the statute. I see no good reason why this Court should interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. Mr. Kantawala submits that the petitioners have filed application for registration on 31st December, 1987 and if the said application is granted the petitioners would be entitled to the benefits thereof qua the goods in the instant case. That may or may not be so. I express no opinion thereon. I would, however, direct the respondents to decide the petitioners' application for registration as expeditiously as possible and after providing the petitioners an opportunity of personal hearing in that behalf.3. In the result but subject to the aforesaid direction, this petition fails and the same is dismissed....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »