Mumbai Court November 1989 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.
Yunus HussaIn Rathod and Others Vs. the Assistant Collector of Customs ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)BomCR449; 1991CriLJ437; 1990(47)ELT240(Bom)
1. The question which arises for consideration is whether the Sessions Court possesses legal authority to stay the operation of the Order of a Magistrate releasing the accused on bail.2. The petitioners are the accused in a case under the Customs Act. They were arrested on 15th September, 1989 and produced before the Magistrate on 16th September, 1989. By the Order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court, Bombay, dated 16th September, 1989 in Remand Application No. 968 of 1989, they were remanded to custody. However on 23rd October, 1989 they were released on bail. On 24th October, 1989, the Assistant Collector of Customs the Respondent No. 1, preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 299 of 1989 before the Sessions Court of Greater Bombay. On the same day, the Additional Sessions Judge, Bombay, who was hearing criminal applications, stayed the operation of the Order releasing the petitioners on bail. The Order granting stay of the operation of bail is impugned in ...
Tata Textile Mills (U.C.) and ors. Vs. Munnlal Nanhoo Yadav and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1989
Reported in: [1990(60)FLR244]; (1994)IIILLJ476Bom
S.K. Desai, J.1. By consent of Advocates, the matter is taken on Board for hearing. The Advocate for Respondent No. 1 waives service.2. In this matter we had given certain directions in the Appeals from interim orders and in pursuance of those directions, necessary order has been obtained from Hon'ble the Chief Justice and then Writ Petition referred to a Division Bench. It is now taken up for hearing since in our opinion if we give judgment in the Writ Petition, that will serve the requirements of the parties as also dispose of the Appeals automatically. Once the Writ Petition is disposed of, the Appeal (viz. Appeal No. 1282 of 1989) will not survive and the same can be disposed of by an appropriate order to that effect.3. It is unnecessary to set out the facts in detail in the Writ Petition and it is sufficient to deal with the law point which arises. However, the law point arises in the following back-ground.4. The petitioners before us are a silk cotton textile undertaking taken ov...
Abdul Gani Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)BomCR293
G.H. Guttal, J.1. Abdul Gani, accused No. 1 in Case No. 742/CW of 1989 pending in the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay, seeks an order of bail under section 438(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This case has a long chequered history. Although the complaint charging the applicant and his wife with the offence punishable under section 120-B r/w 13(1) I.P.C., section 11, 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b) both r/w 135(1)(i), 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b) both r/w 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 and section 5 and 5-a of Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 has been filed on 31st August, 1989, the circumstances in which this application has been made, need to be set out. The applicant filed Criminal Revision Application No. 2630 of 1988 for anticipatory bail which was granted on 26th December, 1988 with the direction that he shall report to the Superintendent of Customs (Prevention), Air Intelligence Unit, Bombay from 27th December, 1988 to 5th January, 1989 and thereafter the ...
Gopal Ramchandra Potdar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)BomCR630
M.L. Dudhat, J.1. These two writ petitions are filed by the petitioner Gopal Ramchandra Potdar and they are being disposed of by this common judgment. Few facts which are germane to both these petitions are as under :2. The petitioner joined as a clerk in the Collector of Raigad at Uran, District Raigad, in the year 1961. In the year 1962 he was provisionally confirmed in the said post. In the year 1963 the petitioner was transferred to the Office of the Divisional Commissioner, Bombay Division, Bombay, and was posted as a Clerk-cum-Typist on some administrative grounds. In the year 1975 the petitioner was transferred to Pen in Raigad District on administrative grounds as Tagai Aval Karkoon which is a post higher than the post of clerk. It appears that on 13th of July, 1981, respondent No. 2 reverted the petitioner as a clerk in the Office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer (VII). Against the said order of reversion the petitioner made a representation to the Revenue Authorities, ...
Dy. Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Dr. N. P. Tolani.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-1989
Reported in: [1990]33ITD73(Mum)
ORDERPer Shri M. A. Ajinkya, Accountant Member - In these appeals by the department relating to four assessees, the only question for consideration is whether the C. W. T. (Appeals) erred in directing the W. T. O. to value the unquoted equity shares of certain private limited companies held by the assessees as per yield method and not as per Rule 1D.2. The first appellate authority placing reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of CWT v. Mahadeo Jalan : [1972]86ITR621(SC) , CGT v. Smt. Kusumben D. Mahadevia : [1980]122ITR38(SC) and on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Kusumben D. Mahadevia v. N. C. Upadhya : [1980]124ITR799(Bom) held that since the shares were not quoted at the Stock Exchange and the companies in which these shares held were going concerns, the shares should be valued by capitalising the yield and not in accordance with Rule 1D. The first appellate authority has relied on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and the...
Vardichand Shankarlal Oswal Vs. L. Hmingliana, Secretary (Preventive D ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)BomCR261; (1989)91BOMLR560; 1990CriLJ1021
Daud, J.1. This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution takes exception to an order of detention made on 27-7-1989 under S. 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act; 1974 (52 of 1974).2. The detenu was travailing by an S.T. bus from Bombay to Karad. Acting on information, certain Officers of the Customs and Central Excise, Preventive Branch, Satara Division were on the alert at the Satara Bus Station from the evening of 11-10-1988. In the early hours of 12-10-1988, came S.T. bus bearing registration No. MWQ 972. The detenu was occupying seat No. 21. He was apprehended and in the presence of panchas; a search of the bus was taken by the Officers. Under seat No. 21, the Officers came across a cloth bag the ownership of which was denied by the detenu when questioned on the subject. The bag was opened and found to contain amongst other things a brown paper wrapped over gold pieces. The said pieces were attached and on the person of detenu ...
Tribhavandas Jeevraj Patel and ors. Vs. Babu Govind Ghatal Since (Decd ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)BomCR705
H. Suresh, J.1. Petitioner No. 5 was the owner of certain lands which are all agricultural lands referred to in this petition as 'the suit lands'. One Babu Govinda Ghatal (deceased) was the owner in respect of the suit lands. The present respondents Nos. 1 to 7 are the heirs and legal representatives of the said tenant and petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 are the purchasers of the suit lands from petitioner No. 5.2. It appears that since the suit lands were covered by the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tenancy Act'), as on 1-4-1957, the deceased tenant was entitled to be declared as the owner of the suit lands. Thereafter, the proceedings under the Tenancy Act commenced and by an order dated 22nd May, 1959 the purchase price payable in respect of the suit lands was fixed as per section 32-G of the Tenancy Act. However, the deceased tenant did not pay any of the instalments payable as per the said order. On 2nd November, 1965 th...
Arun Narayandas and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1989
Reported in: 1991(2)BomCR609
V.V. Kamat, J.1. This petition seeks a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the order dated 31st July 1981 made in Case No. Rent 45/80 by the Rent Controller, Goa North Division, respondent No. 4 and order dated 12th September, 1988 made in Eviction Appeal No. 65/81 by the Administrative Tribunal, respondent No.3.2. Facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioners are the landlords of a building called Ganga Niwas situated at Panaji, Goa. By a lease agreement executed between the parties on 9th August 1968 the first floor premises consisting of 11 rooms was let out as office accommodation of the Directorate of Agriculture or any other Government Office. The lease stipulated that it shall be for a period of 360 days with effect from 1st May, 1968 to be automatically renewed for equal period in future on payment of the monthly rent of Rs. 1,925/- to the be paid by the 10th of the following month...
Rambhau Anandrao Kedar and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)BomCR540
M.S. Ratnaparkhi, J.1. An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the four petitioners before this Court. The offence springs from the death of one Rekha, who happens to be the sister of the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3. On 6-11-1989 at about 12 noon or so, the body of Rekha was found in the well situated within the compound of the petitioners 2 and 3. It was taken up and from there it was directly taken to the village Patansaongi in a Car. The body came to be cremated at Patansaongi. Initially this death came to be registered as an accidental death, but subsequently the offence came to be registered under sections 302 and 201 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is in respect of this offence that anticipatory bail is being sought from this Court.2. It is the case of the petitioners that they happen to be the close relatives of one Babasaheb Kedar, who is a most influential person and they being his relatives, the...
Vinayak Alias Janardan Todankar Vs. Murlidhar Ramchandra Kowli and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)BomCR486
G.H. Guttal, J.1. The petitioner instituted R.A. Declaratory Suit No. 5293 of 1971 in the Court of Small Causes, Bombay, for a declaration that he is the tenant of the Room No. 3/2, Street No. 18, Cadel Road, Dadar, Bombay. The respondents, as the legal representatives of a Ramchandra Kowli, are the owners of the building. The petitioner's claim is based on section 5(11)(c) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Loding House Rates Control Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as 'the Bombay Rent Act'. According to him, he was residing with the deceased tenant Tukaram Achrekar as his heir from 1957 to 2nd August, 1966 when the latter died. The trial Judge, by his judgment dated 31-1-1981, decreed the claim. In Appeal No. 190 of 1981, the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes reversed the decree and dismissed the suit. The decree of the Appellate Bench is impugned in this petition. In this judgment, the petitioner is referred to as the plaintiff', the respondents as 'the Defendants' and the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »