Mumbai Court February 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.
Hirak Ghosh (Dr.) Vs. Amarendra Nath Sinha and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1989
Reported in: 1989(1)BomCR480a
H. Suresh, J.1. By a letter dated 20th June, 1968 issued at Jamshedpur, the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Medical Officer at the Tata Main Hospital, Jamshedpur, which is run by the Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. The petitioner was given his residential quarters by the company. After 17 years of his service, on 3-10-1985 by a letter of the same date, issued at Jamshedpur, the services of the petitioner were terminated abruptly. The petitioner has challenged his termination in the Labour Court at Jamshedpur. The said proceedings are pending. In the meanwhile, the company wanted him to vacate the residential quarters. He has refused to do so. In 1986, the company filed an eviction suit in the Munisiff's Court at Jamshedpur and sought possession and mesne profits. The said suit in the Munisiff's Court is being contested and is pending.2. In the meanwhile, sometime in June 1988, the company was advised to file a Criminal Case No. 54/S/88 in the Court of the Additional Chief Metropoli...
Kamlesh Jayantilal Ganatra Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1989
Reported in: 1989(23)LC27(Bombay)
D.N. Mehta, J.1. The Petitioner herein, Kamlesh Jayantilal Ganatra, hereinafter referred to as 'the Detenu', has challenged in this Writ Petition the Order of Detention dated 10th October, 1988 pased by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the COFEPOS A Act').2. Shri A. H. Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the Detenu, has submitted only one contention before us and that is that vital and material documents which could have swayed the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority one way or the other, had not been placed by the Sponsoring Authority before the Detaining Authority resulting in non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority.3. Shri A. H. Desai has produced before us 28 documents out of a bunch of 150 documents, which according to learned Counsel, were documents which could have influenced the Detaining Au...
Khanbhai Esoof Bhai Vs. the Union of India (Uoi), the Collector of Cus ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1989
Reported in: 1989(22)LC243(Bombay)
C. Mookerjee, C.J.1. The Petitioner-firm at the material time carried on business, inter alia, of purchasing old ships and dismantling and breaking up the same. Sometime in the year 1978, a vessel named M.V. Ocean Star had called at the Port of Bombay for the purpose of loading cargo. After loading, on 6th December i 978 the said vessel had capsized and sank in the Bombay harbour. The owners of the vessel did not take any steps to salvage the wreck of the said vessel. The Deputy Conservator of the Bombay Port Trust as Receiver in terms of the provisions of Section 14 of the Indian Ports Act, 1908, had issued notice to the owners of the vessel who did not take any action. It is not disputed that after the said vessel was salvaged by Respondent No, 4 along with the broken parts and scrap the vessel had vested in the Government of India.2. In November 1980 the Deputy Conservator of the 4th Respondent had issued tender notice for disposal of the said salvaged vessel and its parts and scrap...
Ashapura Electricals Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1989
Reported in: (1989)(20)ECC105
1. This is an appeal directed against the order of the Collector (Appeals) bearing No. V. 2(336)762/81/4220 dated 9-3-1983.2. The facts of the case for the purpose of disposal of the appeal can be briefly stated as below: The appellants are the manufacturers of electric wires and cables classifiable under the then T.I. 33B CET. Their inputs viz. copper and aluminium bare wires were eligible for proforma credit under Rule 56A. Till May, 1987 the manufacturing activity was carried on by the partnership firm in the name and style of Ashapura Electricals. In May, 1987 it was converted into a limited Co. The successor company according to the Articles of Association, acquired and took over as a going concern, the assets and liabilities of the partnership firm and carry on the business conducted by the said firm. The appellants sought for transfer of the licence in the name of the Limited Company on account of the change in the constitution of the firm. This letter alongwith the application...
Farjanabi Vs. Ayub Dadamiya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1989
Reported in: AIR1989Bom357; 1989(2)BomCR120; (1989)91BOMLR107; 1989MhLJ373
1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and other of the Addl. District Judge, Dhule, allowing the application of the present respondent for being appointed the guardian of his two minor sons and for their custody.2. The appellant and the respondent are Muslims. They were married under the Muslim Law in 1975. They cohabited together until 1979. On 17th December, 1976 the elder child Sayyad and on 19th April 1979 the younger child Yusuf were born to them.3. After the appellant and the respondent started residing separately in 1970 the appellant filed an application under the code of criminal Procedure for maintenance for the two sons and on 12th October, 1981 the maintenance aggregating to the 1982 the respondent filed a suit against the appellant for restitution of conjugal rights and it was decreed on 10th January, 1983. The parties, however, did not reside together thereafter.4. In 1986 the respondent preferred an application under the Guardians and Wards Act . the order where...
Ashok Dwarkanath Ghurye and anr. Vs. Narayan Vasudeo Dhond
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1989
Reported in: 1989(1)BomCR625; 1989MhLJ538
Sharad Manohar, J.1. Three quite interesting questions fall for the determination of this Court in this petition, which arise from the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Land Act, 1948 (hereafter, the Tenancy Act). To formulate the questions, it is necessary to give a few facts, about which there exists no dispute.2. The suit property consists of Survey No. 42/2, admeasuring 24 Acres and 24 Gunthas. It belonged originally to one Vishram Ghurye. He parttitioned the property during his life time into 3 parts, one for himself the other for his Sumatibai and the 3rd for Dawarkanath, who was his son from his earlier wife.In 1957 Vishram filed Civil Suit No. 70 of 1957 against Vishram Vithoba Maharao and one Rukmini for possession of the suit lands in the Court of the Civil Judge, at Vengurle. On 2-7-1957 Vishram Ghurye also executed Will, by which Will he bequeathed his own 1/3rd share in the suit property upon Sumatibai alongwith his 1/3rd in the other property. But it needs t...
Alka Vilas Joshi Vs. Vilas Dattatraya Joshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1989
Reported in: II(1990)DMC205
A.A. Desai, J.1. The appellant-wife in this appeal is challenging the decree granted in favour of the respondent-husband for restitution of conjugal right.2. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 16-5-1982. They were residing at Amravati. The appellant is working as a teacher; whereas the respondent original plaintiff is serving as a clerk in N.C.C. On 5-5-1983 the appellant Alka went to her parents perhaps for delivery of a child. On 23-5-1983 she delivered a child. Thereafter on 30-8-1983 she issued a notice to the respondent-husband claiming separate maintenance. She therein made allegations regarding assaults on her by the husband.3. The husband respondent on 24-10-1983 filed an application for restitution of conjugal right. According to him, he went to his in-laws place on 16-8-1983 to take his wife-appellant to his house. However, she refused. The appellant-wife resisted the claim for restitution of conjugal right on the ground that the husband-respondent frequently ...
income-tax Officer Vs. Montedison of Italy
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1989
Reported in: (1989)31ITD142(Mum.)
1. These are appeals by the department for the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81 and cross objections by the assessee for the same years, all of which were heard together and are disposed of by a consolidated order.2. The main ground in the departmental appeals, which is common for both the years, is that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in holding that all the payments received by the assessee-company from Fertilizer Corporation of India, Indian Petrochemicals Corporation, National Fertilizers Ltd., J.K. Synthetics Ltd. and Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation under different contracts are in the nature of technical service fees covered under Section 9 (1)(VH) and are therefore to be excluded from taxation.3. Certain facts in this regard require to be stated. The assessee is a non-resident company incorporated in India. One M/s. Technimont was a subsidiary company of the assessee-company M/S. Montedison. This subsidiary company merged with the assessee-company on...
K.S. Abdul Sattar and Another Vs. Issak Adam and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Bom1; 1989(2)BomCR159; (1989)91BOMLR87; 1989MhLJ260
1. The carriers by sea, who are the defendants accepted goods for carriage by sea from Bombay to the port of Sharjah, the scheduled voyage being of ten days. The ship received aboard, unmanifested goods resulting in seizure and detention of the ship at Bombay by the Customs Authorities. Therefore, the ship did not leave the port of embarkation. Consequently, the goods were not delivered at the port of destination. Rule 6 of Art. III of the Indian Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', lays down that the carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all liability in respect of loss or darnage, unless suit is brought within one year after delivery of the goods or the date when the goods 'should have been delivered'. What, in the circumstances of this case, is the date on which the goods 'should have been delivered'? This is the question arising in this suit.2. The plaintiff 1 exporter and importer of chemicals and machinery, carrying on business in India and ...
Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Veena Pruthi and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1989
Reported in: [1991]70CompCas848(Bom)
S.B. Wad, J. 1. I had allowed the appeal and dismissed the cross objections on January 24, 1989. The reasons are as follows. 2. This appeal has been filed by Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited with which truck No. HRB 4969 which caused the death of Shri Jai Kishan Pruthi in a road accident on April 7, 1975 was insured. Respondent No.1 was the driver and respondent No.4 was the owner of the truck. The Tribunal awarded Rs.1,34,500 as compensation to the legal heirs with 6 per cent. Interest per annum from the date of the petition till realisation. This award was made by the Tribunal on December 20, 1979. The submission of the appellant is that they are liable to pay only Rs. 50,000 under the contract of insurance/insurance policy between the owner and the insurance company. There is a cross-objection filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 4, claiming that the entire liability was that of the insurance company. 3. It is an admitted fact that the owner of the offending vehicle did...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »