Mumbai Court June 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.
Ranasing Ballaram Pardeshi Vs. Dr. Ratanlal Manikchand Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-1989
Reported in: (1989)91BOMLR716
M.L. Pendse, J.1. By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner landlord (original plaintiff) is challenging legality of the judgment dated April 18, 1987 passed by the Additional District Judge, Solapur, in Civil Appeal No. 459 of 1983. By the impugned judgment the Additional District Judge reversed the judgment dated June 6, 1983 passed by the Civil Judge. J.D. Karmala and remanded the suit to the Trial Court with direction to frame a specific issue on the ground of default as well as on the ground of recovery of possession under Section 13(1)(hhh) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rent Act')2. The petitioner instituted a suit for recovery of possession on various grounds, the principal ground being that the premises are required reasonably and bona fide for personal occupation. The Trial Court framed issues Nos. 3 and 4 in respect of the claim based on provisions of Section 13(...
Sayaji Iron and Engg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1989
Reported in: (1990)(45)ELT104Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the Order- in-Original bearing No.9/MP/84 [File No. V(68)15-3-OA/82], dated 24-11-1984 directing the appellants to pay appropriate duty on 4 machines totally valued at Rs. 1,75,380/- alleged to have been illegally removed and imposition of personal penalty of Rs. 1500/-. The duty amount has since been quantified at Rs. 14,030.40.2. On 16-4-1982, the officers of the Central Excise Preventive Wing paid a surprise visit at the factory premises of the appellants and on verification of the actual stock as well as the registers maintained by the appellants, found that there was a shortage of one machine each in the category of Sayaji concrete mixture machine size 10 x 7, Sayaji concrete mixture machine size 14 x 10, Jaw crusher machine and Rotary Screen machine. The officers recorded the statement of the factory manager Mr. JR Dave on the same day who agreed to the discrepancy and shortage of each of those machines and submitted that there was a possibilit...
Mohamed Ali Umar Musa Vs. Pesi D. Pocha and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1989
Reported in: 1989(3)BomCR667
G.H. Guttal, J.1. The question for consideration in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is whether the Bombay Rents, Hotel & Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Rent Act) was applicable to the premises in Pune Cantonment on 27th November, 1973.2. The Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and a gentleman by name Framroze Mistry, since deceased, in their capacity as trustees of the estate of one Mr. D.P. Pocha, are the owners of a flat in House No. 2504 situated at Sir E.H. Jaffar Road Cantonment, Pune. The respondent No. 4 was the tenant and the petitioner was the sub-tenant of the suit premises. In Suit No. 3365 of 1973, instituted on 27th November, 1973 a decree of eviction under the Bombay Rent Act was made against the respondent No. 4 and the petitioner. The decree is dated 21st October, 1975. It was confirmed by the District Court, Pune on 7th March, 1977 in Appeal No. 75 of 1976 and received approval of this Court by dismissal o...
May and Baker (India) Limited Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1989
Reported in: 1989(24)LC338(Bombay); 1989(43)ELT411(Bom)
1. The petitioners manufacture Flagyl tablets in two strengths, 200 mg. and 400 mg. The composition thereof is as follows :Flagyl 200 mg. Flagyl 400 mg.Metronidazole I.P. 200 mg. Metronidazole I.P. 400 mg.Calcium Carbonate 56 mg. Calcium Carbonate I.P. 21 mg.Maize Starch I.P. 92 mg. Maize Starch I.P. 65 mg.Other Excipients : Other Excipients :Rethyl Hydrozybensoate I.P. Lake dye of TartrazineMethul Hydroxybenzoate I.P.Magnesium Stearate B.P. Magnesium Stearate B.P.Cellulose Acetate Sodium LaurylPhthalate B.P.C. Sulphate I.P.Micro Crystalline Dealoa (P)Cellulose Cellulose Acetate PhthalateB.P.C.2. On 3rd May 1979 a notification [Note : This presumably refers to Notification No. 116/69-C.E., dated 3-5-1969. Hence the date here should read 3rd May 1969.] was issued under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, whereby the Central Government exempted patent of proprietary medicines falling under Item No. 14E of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and containing ...
Save Moreshwar Dina Nath Vs. Shantaram Kale and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)BomCR619; (1989)91BOMLR629
B.N. Deshmukh, J.1. The petitioner, who is an elected Councillor of the Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad, has filed this petition for declaration that he be declared elected as Mayor of the Aurangabad Municipal Corporation, as he has secured more votes than his rival candidate respondent No. 5 Narendra Patil, in an election held for that purpose. It may be noted that for the term 'councillor', parties have used the term ' corporator'.2. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that the petitioner is the elected councillor of the Aurangabad Municipal Corporation. So also respondent No. 5 is the elected councillor of the Aurangabad Municipal Corporation. Respondent No. 1 is the Mayor of the Aurangabad Municipal Corporation and is also the presiding officer for the election of the Corporation for this year.3. The Municipal Corporation consists of 60 elected councillors, who are entitled to vote at the election of Mayor and Deputy Mayor. A meeting was actually held on 18th May, 1989 at 11...
Shashikant M. Walhekar Vs. Collector of Customs and C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1989
Reported in: (1990)(45)ELT144Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Both these appeals are directed against the Order-in-Original No.11/27/87-Pr, dated 6-9-1988 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Goa, ordering absolute confiscation of 250 TV sets and 935 cartons containing hay and bricks under Section 113 of the Customs Act and imposing personal penalty of Rs. 5.00 lacs both on Mr.S.M. Walhekar and Mr. Pratap L. Muchandi, the appellants herein, under Section 114 of the Customs Act.2. As common questions of law and facts are involved and the appeals arise out of the same order of the Additional Collector, both the appeals are decided by this common order.3. The facts of the case are that one Arab Dhow by name "Al Yakoobi" which arrived at Marmagoa Port on 11-8-1987 was to take export consignment of 1250 TV sets to Dubai, after discharge of the import cargo. On 20-8-1987, 10 shipping bills, for the said consignment, were presented by one Shri Prakash K. Kamat, the Customs House Agent, for 1,000 black and white TV sets...
Nariman Aspandiar Irani Vs. Adi Merwan Irani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1989
Reported in: AIR1989Bom362; 1989(2)BomCR533; (1989)91BOMLR252
1. The principal question which arise in this suit is this:- Where two partners together hold the premises of the firm as tenants, does the relinquishment of his interest in the tenancy by one partner in favour of the other, constitute , assignment or transfer of his interest in the tenancy, which is forbidden by Section 15(1) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates control Act ?The suit instituted by Dr. Nariman Irani, the partner of the Defendant Dr. Adi Merwan Irani in the business known as 'Dr. Irani's Maternity and surgical Nursing Home, at 7, Jer Mansion, 1st Floor, 70-B, gowalia Tank Road, Bombay -26' is mainly for a declaration that two writings executed by him on 13th October, 1976, purporting to 'gift' his share in the partnership in favour of the Defendant are not valid and that the partnership firm continues to exist as it did, before th execution of the two writings. 2. The plaintiffs case is as under:-The Plaintiff and the Defendanttogether hold, on lease ,afla...
S.P. Trivedi (Dr.) Vs. Chandrakala Trivedi (Smt.)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)BomCR715; (1989)91BOMLR449
Sharad Manohar, J.1. What the appeal is about This appeal is filed by the petitioner/husband, whose petition for divorce filed against the respondent wife, was dismissed by the learned Judge of the Bombay City Civil Court.Ground urged in the petition for divorce.2. The ground mentioned in the petition for divorce was mental cruelty on the part of the respondent/wife vis-a-vis the petitioner husband.Certain acts of cruelty were mentioned in the original petition for divorce. To the said petition, a written Statement was filed by the respondent wife. Certain statements were made by her in the said written Statement, which according to the petitioner/husband themselves constituted cruelty against her husband. Hence, the petition was amended by him, by the leave of the Court, and as per the amended petition he added an additional ground and a particulars relating to 'cruelty'. The statement made by the respondent/wife in her written statement was that the petitioner/husband had indulged in...
Sukhlal Vs. Sushila
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1989
Reported in: I(1990)DMC528
B.G. Deo, J.1. The applicant Sukhalal is the husband of non-applicant Sushila. Sukhalal was employed as a peon and was dismissed from service. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akola dismissed the application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code filed by non-applicant Sushila for maintenance. The learned Magistrate held that Sushila had failed to prove that she was refused or neglected by Sukhalal. She also failed to show that Sukhalal had ill-treated her and her life was in danger at the hands of Sukhalal. That she was living with her parents is no ground to claim maintenance. So far as the income of Sukhalal was concerned, the learned Magistrate found that there was no proper proof, although admittedly Sukhalal had lost his service and there was no proof in the form of 7/12 extracts or certification of Talathi that he was owning agricultural lands or that he was engaged in a business of Loudspeaker. In revision, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola all...
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corpn. Vs. Tulsabai Tukarara Kadave a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1989
Reported in: 1990ACJ523
T.D. Sugla, J. 1. This appeal involves only two questions, namely, (i) whether the driver of the bus No. MTD 9212 was alone negligent or whether the deceased Tukaram Anant Kadave was also negligent; and (ii) whether the amount of compensation awarded was not too small and whether the brothers and sisters of the deceased were also entitled to any compensation.2. The accident took place on September 25, 1981 in which the deceased Tukaram Anant Kadave was crushed between the two buses belonging to the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation bearing Nos. MTD 9212 and MTD 9797. It is common ground that both the buses were about to enter the premises of the State Road Transport Corporation's depot near the railway station, Thane, one after the other. Bus No. MTD 9212 had, in fact, partly entered the gate of the depot but was not finding its way through. The second bus was also trying to enter the depot and was about 2 to 3 feet behind the first bus. When this was the position, the decea...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »