Mumbai Court July 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.
P.T. Gandhi Vs. Manjulaben Maganlal Shah (Smt.) and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-1988
Reported in: 1988(3)BomCR191
C.S. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Respondent Landlords Smt. Manjulaben Maganlal Shah and Smt. Nanbai Kalyanji filed a suit against petitioner tenant P.T. Gandhi for possession of the premises on the ground among others that the said premises were required by them reasonably and bona fide for use and occupation by Smt. Manjulaben. The suit was decreed on 31st August, 1978 and the appeal preferred by the tenant was also dismissed on 3rd June, 1981. It is the case of the petitioner that within a short time thereafter he discovered that the respondents had been in occupation of another flat. Therefore he sought to get the order in appeal reviewed on the ground of discovery of fresh material which with due deligence he could not have discovered earlier. The appellate Bench of the Small Cause Court, Bombay by its Judgment and order dated 2nd November, 1985 rejected the review petition on the ground that the same is not maintainable. While passing the order the Appellate Bench of the Small Cause Court...
Arun Dattatray and ors. Vs. Shaikh Nizam Babumiya Jagirdar and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-1988
Reported in: 1988(3)BomCR695
S.M. Daud, J.1. The main petition is for the purpose of quashing an order whereby the petitioners therein have been summoned to appear before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Srirampur to answer charge of having committed offences punishable under Section 409 r/w. 34 of I.P.C.2. Respondent No. 1 in the main petition who is the petitioner in the 1988 application and who shall hereinafter be referred to as the complainant, is a cultivator-cum-practicing Advocate of Srirampur in District Ahmednagar. He owns some agricultural land at village Bklahare, Taluka Srirampur, District Ahmednagar. Petitioners 1 to 10 are the Directors of a company incorporated under the Companies Act doing business in the name and style of 'The Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd.' This Mills being in the private sector and apparently finding it difficult to get cultivation to supply sugarcane to it, introduced a scheme. Under this scheme the Mills stood guarantee for repayment of loans advanced by the State Bank o...
Trident Agencies Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-1988
Reported in: (1990)(45)ELT116Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the order-in-appeal bearing No. S/49-48/83-L, dated 30-9-1983 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.2. The undisputed facts are - that the appellants imported in all 12 drums of Vitamin AD3 B3 K3 and presented 6 Bills of entry and sought clearance against the additional licence issued to the Export Houses.The Customs, however, objected to the clearance on the ground that the goods imported are canalised items and only the canalising agency was eligible to import. The Asstt. Collector of Customs who held the adjudication ordered confiscation but allowed redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 36,000/- in lieu of confiscation. On appeal, the Collector (Appeals) confirmed the order of the Asstt. Collector. Hence this appeal.3. During the hearing of this appeal, Shri Patel firstly submitted that what had been canalised under Appendix-9 of the Policy AM-83 were the drugs and not any substance containing drugs. There was no fi...
The Premier Automobiles Limited Vs. the Premier Automobiles Employees' ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-1988
Reported in: (1994)IIILLJ1048Bom
Sujata Manohar, J. 1. Second Respondent M.S. Phatate joined the service of the petitioner - The Premier Automobiles Ltd. in the year 1957 as a daily rated workman in the capacity of a Number Taker. In 1958 he was transferred to the Internal Audit department as a clerk. In 1974 he was transferred to the Traffic department as an intermediate clerk. While the 2nd respondent was working as an intermediate clerk in the Traffic department he claimed additional allowance on the ground that he had carried out duties as in charge of the Traffic department when the Officer-in-charge had gone on leave. This demand was not accepted by the petitioner.2. On 1st August 1974 the 2nd respondent was promoted as a Supervisor in the Paint Shop of the petitioner by an order of promotion and transfer of that date (1.8.1974). The order stated that 'effective today' (1.8.1974) he was promoted as Supervisor and transferred to Paint Shop. There is an office memo addressed to the 2nd respondent dated 3rd May 197...
Bharat Barrel and Drum Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-1988
Reported in: 1988(3)BomCR222; (1988)90BOMLR266; 1988MhLJ665
C. Mookerjee, C.J.1. The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgement and order of the learned single Judge dismissing their writ petition challenging, inter alia, bills presented by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay for consumption of water in excess of the quota fixed under Bye-Law 34-A of the water Bye-Laws framed under section 461(b) of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act. The appellants have also purported to impugn the supplementary bills for water charges on the ground that they were excessive. The learned single Judge in his judgement under appeal has rejected the appellants' writ petition in view of the decision of another learned Single Judge in Miscellaneous Petition No. 278 of 1974 disposed of on 13th August, 1975.2. Before we set out the points on either side in this appeal, we may briefly indicate the relevant statutory provisions and also bye-laws and rules. The 1st respondent Corporation under section 140(1)(a) is empowered to levy on buildings...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›