Mumbai Court March 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.
Karna Laxman Gawali and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1989
Reported in: (1989)91BOMLR134; 1990CriLJ163; 1989MhLJ780
V.A. Mohta, J.1. Can the cattle instrumental in the commission of forest offence under S. 26(1)(d) and/or (f) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (the Act) be confiscated under S. 61-A(3) of the Act, is a point of some importance raised in this petition.2. Factual background is :The petitioners Karna Gawali, Hira Gawali and Pandu Wada are nomadics who migrate along with their cattle from place to place. They had at the material time settled in the village Zari in district Chandrapur which is in the vicinity of a forest. On 25-6-1988 herds of about 125 cattle were found grazing deep inside the compartment No. 345 of a reserved forest. The cattle belonged to the petitioners. Three graziers were looking after the cattle. With the help of about 150 labourers engaged by the Forest Officers the herds of cattle was attempted to be caught. On noticing the Forest Officers and the labourers, graziers ran away. 65 cattle heads were caught in the forest and a large number ran towards the village where ...
Babulal and ors. Vs. Shantabai Widow of Hari Dekate
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1989
Reported in: 1990(2)BomCR70
A.A. Desai, J.1. This appeal raises the questions as to whether :---A. Members of the tribes notified by the Constitutional (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, (hereinafter referred to 'the order of 1950') are deemed to be scheduled tribe regardless of the area specified in relation to them for the purposes of exception as provided under sub-section (2) of section 2 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to 'the Act of 1956) ?B. The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order (Amendment) Act of 1976 (hereinafter referred to the Act of 1976) being a declaratory Statute, operates retrospectively ?2. The plaintiff Shantabai married to late Hari. She was his second wife. She gave birth to daughter Suman. Hari died in 1961. Suman died in 1966. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are respectively brother and mother of Hari. Defendant No. 3 Smt. Chindhi is a daughter of Hari from first wife.The parties have been the residents of District Wardha which is within the region known as Vidarbha. T...
Oil and Natural Gas Commission of India Vs. the Western Company of Nor ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Bom276; 1989(2)BomCR332
ORDERSavant, J.36. We may now turn to the grounds of attack against the Award. The Award is assailed on two grounds, namely, the misconduct of the Arbitrators and the Umpire and the errors of law apparent on the face of the record. In support of the first ground vis. the misconduct, the Petitioners' contentions are fourfold. Firstly, it is contended that the Umpire actively participated in the arbitration proceedings and in fact dominated the same. Secondly, it is contended that the Arbitrators wrongfully rejected the application for adjournment on two occasions when the applications were made to secure the presence of the Indian counsel to agrue law points arising under the Indian law. Thirdly, it is submitted that the refusal on the part of the Arbitrators as well as Umpire to state a special case and the refusal on the part of the Umpire to inform the parties that he was not stating a special case vitiated the award. The last contention was that the Umpire entered on the reference a...
Chhotu Vs. State of Maharashtra and Other
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ139
H. Suresh, J.1. The petitioner is an office bearer of the trade union known as 'Swatrantra Kamgar Sanghatna Nagpur' which is a registered trade union. He used to work with one Girish Mishra, who is the organiser of the said union. There are three cases pending against him, all of the year 1987, and they are under Sections 324, 337 read with S. 34, Indian Penal Code in one case; under Sections 341, 306(b) Indian Penal Code in the second case; under Sections 448 and 323. Indian Penal Code, in the third case. The cases are pending in the trial Court. Obviously investigation must have been over in those three cases and charge-sheets have been filed. It appears and the cases have not been disposed of the trial court for want of presiding Officer in the that Court.2. During the pendency of the said cases, the Deputy Commissioner of Police (C.I.D.) Nagpur-passed an order of externment dated 3-7-1987. Similar orders were passed as against Girish Mishra and also against one Deonarayan Yadav. Al...
Hasnabi Aslam Ali Kapde Vs. L. Huingliana
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1989
Reported in: 1989(22)LC539(Bombay); 1989(42)ELT367(Bom)
S.K. Desai, A.C.J.1. In our opinion, in the present Writ Petition, we will perforce be required to quash the order of detention because of the casual and careless manner in which the detaining authority has performed his task.2. On the statement of detenu, it would appear that he is a professional carrier. In the instant case, he has consciously and for a fairly substantial amount agreed to act as carrier for foreign currency to take it outside. Generally speaking, the detention, process under the COFEPOSA Act would be required to have applied to such persons to prevent them from repeating their activities in future after availing of bail granted which is fact has been granted and availed of in the instant case. It is to be regretted that despite detention being eminently suitable and deserved in the instant case, we have to quash the order of detention because of the clearly casual and careless manner in which the same has been passed.3. The detenu was leaving Bombay at the Internatio...
Nargis M. Baldiwala Vs. M.N. Sawant, Second Ito and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1989
Reported in: (1989)79CTR(Bom)11; [1990]185ITR143(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. This writ petition impugns a notice dated December 31, 1982. issued to the petitioner by the first respondent under section 148 of the Income-tax Act proposing to reopen her income-tax assessments for the assessment years 1979-80, 1980-81 and 1981-82, because he had reason to believe that her income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147.2. The petitioner was born in Tanzania and came to India upon her marriage in November, 1975. A search was conducted of her premises and safe deposit lockers in January, 1982, and gold ornaments and jewellery were seized. On April 14, 1982, an order was made by the first respondent under section 132(5) retaining the seized assets and ordering the addition of an amount of Rs. 3,40,190 credited to the petitioner's savings account on the ground that it was an unexplained receipt. On December 7, 1982, an order was made under section 132(11) of the Act by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Investigation) ...
Chloride Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1989
Reported in: 1990(47)ELT318(Bom)
S.C. Pratap, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service.2. Delay of 16 days in the filing of the appeal in question was not condoned by the Tribunal. Hence this petition.3. Now, it is very difficult for this Court to exercise its discretionary powers to interfere with the matter which itself is basically discretionary and when the said discretion could not be said to have been exercised arbitrarily. In this case, however, we find that the appeal is filed not against any demand as such but on the question of refund sought to be claimed by the petitioner company and this claim for refund runs into, what we are informed at the bar, over Rs. 40 lacs. The delay again has occurred not because of any sheer negligence or neglect on the part of the petitioners but because of certain circumstances not entirely within the control of the petitioners. The legal advice and opinion obtained from an Advocate who later shifted to Delhi and the legal advice obtained from a subsequent Advo...
Nandkumar S/O Madhukarrao Girme Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)BomCR641
H.W. Dhabe, J.1. All these writ petitions are connected writ petitions and can conveniently be disposed of by this common judgment. Since the subject matter of all these writ petitions relates to the acquisition of land of the petitioners for approach lights for night landing of the aeroplanes at the Airport at Aurangabad, an urgent hearing was pressed in these writ petitions by the respondents as there was an interim stay precluding them from taking any further proceedings in this matter. We have therefore, heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length at the stage of notice before admission and are, therefore, disposing of these writ petitions finally. We thus issue rule in these writ petitions which are heard forthwith.2. Briefly, the facts are that originally the Notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') was issued by the respondent No. 5 i.e. the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 19-11-1987, published in the Govt. Gazette on 2...
Bhanushankar Jatashankar Bhatt, Adv. Vs. Kamal Tara Builders Pvt Ltd. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Bom140; 1989(2)BomCR526
ORDERDharmadhikari, J.1. This reference under S. 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been made by Shri Mani, Judge, City Civil Court, Bombay for seeking opinion of this Court as to whether the provisions of S. 2(9)(f) and S. 2(9)(f1) of the Bombay. Money Lenders Act, 1946 are ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution of India.2. The plaintiff Bhanushankar Jatashankar Bhatt filed a suit against the defendantsKamal Tara Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Madan Tarachand Samant. The claim in the suit is based on a bill of exchange dt. 1st Dec., 1983 for a sum of Rs. 20,000 drawn by the defendant 1 and alleged to have been accepted by the defendant 2. Defendant 1 did not appear in the suit. Defendant 2 filed his affidvit in reply dt. 20th April, 1987 to the summons for judgment in which he prayed for grant of unconditional leave to defend the suit. Since the defendant 1 did not contest the suit an ex parte decree came to be passed against him and unconditional leave is granted to the defendan...
Morarjee Goculdas Spining and Weaving Co. Ltd. Vs. M.M. Das, Inspectin ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1989
Reported in: (1989)78CTR(Bom)133; [1991]189ITR406(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. This writ petition challenges a notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, proposing to reassess the petitioners to income-tax for the assessment year 1977-78, the previous year whereof ended on June 30, 1976.2. The petitioners were assessed to income-tax for the said assessment year by an assessment order dated December 8, 1977. Thereunder the Income-tax Officer allowed a deduction for 'liability due to excise duty' in the sum of Rs. 70,44,000. The deduction in this behalf had been claimed thus :Rs.'Additional excise duty in terms of showcause-cum-demandnotice from Excise Department datedFebruary 7, 1976, forthe period March 16, 1972 to September15, 1975 51,20,018Excise duty liability calculated by the1st petitioneritself on the basis of notice for theearlier periodfor period September 16, 1975 to June30, 1976 19,23,995-------------70,44,013'-------------3. The notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act was issued on March 30, 1982. It stated that th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »