Mumbai Court April 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.
ishwarlal Hiralal Gunderia Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-19-1989
Reported in: 1990(2)BomCR232; 1990CriLJ615; 1989MhLJ791
V.A. Mohta, J.1. Ishwarlal Gunderia, a resident of Khamgaon, District Buldana, has by this Habeas Corpus Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenged the order of detention passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 ('the COFEPOSA Act') against his son-in-law Haren Choksey - a dealer in imported cars.2. The detenu is a permanent resident of Bombay. The order of detention dated 30th January, 1989 is served on the detenu on 3rd February, 1989. This petition filed on 1st March, 1989, came up for preliminary hearing on 3rd March, 1989 on which date rule returnable on 17th April, 1989 was issued. In the return filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 3, preliminary objection has been raised - to which our attention was drawn before the hearing on merits commenced - that Nagpur Bench should not entertain this petition since neither a seat of the detaining authority - the Joint Secretary to the Government, o...
Vinayak Pralhadrao Naik and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-1989
Reported in: 1989(3)BomCR180; 1989MhLJ811
B.N. Deshmukh, J.1 These petitions are filed by the students who were admitted by different institutions who were not granted recognition by the Government of Maharashtra. These students were admitted for D.Ed. course and were allowed to continue and prosecute their studies throughout the year. Their examination forms are not accepted by the Commissioner and Bureau of Government Examinations (respondent No. 6 in Writ Petition No. 489 of 1989). The ground given for not accepting the examination forms is that the institutions which admitted these and similar students were not recognised by the State Government and the admissions are given by the managements without having obtained any proper recognition, therefore, the admissions of these and other students are illegal.2. Apart from this, a communication is also addressed to the management by Exhibit F-1 dated 1-2-1989 (in Writ Petition No. 489 of 1989) that the management will be prosecuted for admitting students illegally without obtai...
V. I. P. Industries Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-14-1989
Reported in: [1990]32ITD331(Mum)
ORDERPer Shri S. P. Kapur, Judicial Member - The assessment years involved in these appeals, which have been filed by the assessee, are 1984-85 and 1983-84 respectively. The assessee is a resident public limited company and respective accounting periods ended on 31-7-83 and 31-7-82. The orders impugned in these appeals have been made by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City VI, Bombay. These are dated 26-2-1988 and 11-3-1988 respectively. The learned Commissioner held the assessments made in respect of the two assessment years involved to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. He accordingly directed the learned Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to withdraw the deduction amounting to Rs. 11,73,984 and Rs. 13,62,162 respectively, which, at the assessment stage, stood allowed to the assessee as deduction under section 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Although very many grounds have been taken by the assessee before us in relation to both the assessm...
S.M. Energy Teknik and Vs. Collector of C. Ex. and Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-1989
Reported in: (1989)(24)LC122Tri(Mum.)bai
1. For hearing the applicants appeal on merits, they are required to deposit a sum of Rs. 68,176.23, towards duty and Rs. 500/- towards penalty.2. Shri Willington Christian, the learned Advocate, on behalf of the applicants, contended that the order of the authorities below is prima facie bad in law. The issue relates to the recovery of MOD VAT credit alleged to have been wrongly availed of during the period from April 86 to October 1986. This was sought to be recovered by a show cause notice dated 16-11-1987. Shri Willington Christian stated that they have given a .declaration of the inputs in consultation with the departmental authorities as per their understanding and when they received the inputs, the gate pass showed different classification, which they themselves brought to the notice of the department and sought to correct the clerical mistake. There was no revenue implication involved either by way of MOD VAT credit on ineligible input getting credit.After this application for...
Bimal Kumar and Another Vs. Vishram Lekhraj Menganani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-1989
Reported in: 1990(2)BomCR65; 1990CriLJ444
ORDER1. The present application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings pending in Criminal Complaint No. 114/1988 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 3rd Court, Nagpur.2. The respondent (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant) is a waste paper merchant and is carrying on his business of selling waste paper under the name and style of 'Jagdish Trading Company' at old Reshamoli, Itwari, Nagpur. The petitioners are the accused. The petitioner No. 2 is a paper manufacturing company incorporated under the Companies Act, as a public limited company and petitioner No. 1 is the Managing Director of the said company with its paper mill manufacturing factory at Sihore (Madhya Pradesh). It was purchasing waste paper from the complainant for its factory. The company was liable for sales tax assessment in regard to the sales purchase transaction at the hands of the Sales Tax Authorities. The company used to place orders ...
Miss Sarita Narayan Sawant and Another Vs. State and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-1989
Reported in: (1989)91BOMLR692; 1990CriLJ351; 1989MhLJ604
ORDER1. The essential controversy in this revision application is whether Sarita and Sharmila, who are admittedly 15 and 17 years old, are to be tried by the Court of Session under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or to be proceeded with under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 by the authorities mentioned thereunder.2. The facts are very simple. For an offence of murder and other related offences under S. 324 and others purported to have been committed on 19th April, 1988, the petitioners along with Satish Narayan Sawant, Mohan Narayan Sawant and Smt. Yeshoda Narayan Sawant were chargesheeted by the Ponda Police. On perusal of the chargesheet on July 8, 1988 the Judicial Magistrate, Ponda, committed aforementioned Satish, Mohan and Smt. Yeshoda to the Court of Session to answer the charge under Sections 302, 323, and 324 read with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Admittedly this was an order made under S. 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and while doing that the ...
Anjani Kumar Co. Ltd. Etc. Etc. Vs. (Smt.) Manubai Kashinath Etc. Etc.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-1989
Reported in: [1989(59)FLR172]; (1990)ILLJ316Bom
1. As the question of law as to the interpretation of Section 40A of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is involved in these writ petitions, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The first respondent in Writ Petition No. 2733 of 1982 was in the employment of the petitioner as a Reporter and was working in the Packing Department. She was suspended pending enquiry and was served with the charge-sheet on September 22, 1981. She, therefore, filed Complaint (U.L.P.) No. 648 of 1981 in the Industrial Court at Bombay alleging unfair labour practice covered by item No. 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the MRTU & PULP Act') against the petitioner. Likewise, the first respondent in Writ Petition No. 2734 of 1982 who was also working as a Reporter with the petitioner filed a Complaint (U.L.P.) No. 649 o...
Machhindra Pandurang Chavan Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-1989
Reported in: 1989(3)BomCR501; (1989)IILLJ353Bom; 1989MhLJ505
1. The petitioner was working as Minimum Wage Inspector (Agriculture). On 16th of October 1986 the petitioner was apprehended by the Anti-Corruption Bureau for accepting illegal gratification from one E. S. Pattan Shetti of Gandhinglaj. Thereafter he came to be transferred from Kolhapur district to Sangli District. In pursuance of the said transfer order the petitioner took charge at Sangli on 5th of March 1987. After completing preliminary enquiry, the Anti-Corruption Bureau filed a criminal case against the petitioner under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In view of this pendency of criminal proceedings the petitioner came to be suspended under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979. It is this order of suspension which is challenged by the petitioner in the present petition.2. Shri N. H. Seervai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended before us that the petition...
Nandkumar @ Nandu Laxman Desai Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)BomCR188
S.M. Daud, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 impugning the order of detention made against the petitioner on 6-6-1988.2. From the grounds supplied to the petitioner, it appears that on 4-2-1985 he was detained under an order of detention passed on that date vide the National Security Act, 1980. The detention order in that case was confirmed by the Government on the recommendation of the Advisory Board on 28-3-1985. Completion of the prescribed period of detention for 12 months over, petitioner was released and thereafter he revived his prejudicial activities. These took place on 10-1-1987 and 29-4-1987. The offences committed in these two incidents over, petitioner absconded. Again he figured in two incidents dated 6-11-1987 and 21-2-1988. In the first incident, i.e. the one which took place on 6-11-1987, the petitioner is alleged to have come to an open site in front of the house of Smt. Kamu Narayan Makwana set fire to the said house and when people came out in response to th...
S.H. Karkhanis Vs. Lalita W/O Madhusudan Govind Bhat and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)BomCR311; (1989)91BOMLR852; 1989MhLJ727
G.F. Couto, J.1. These two write petitions by the licensee/deemed tenant and landlady, respectively are directed against the same judgment passed on November 13, 1986 by the appellate Bench of the Small Causes court Bombay. Hence this common judgment.2. Does section 14(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ) protect form eviction a licensee who is a deemed tenant under section 15-A even when the licence to occupy the premises was created in his favour by a tenant thereof, and that too after eviction proceedings had been initiated against the latter by the landlord which ultimately culminated in a decree for eviction and possession In the affirmative is such protection absolute in the sense that it operates in all the cases? These are the main questions that these petitions give rise to. Mr. Abhyankar, the learned Counsel appearing for the licensee, answered the first question in the affirmative, adding, however, t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »