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.
Kalyanji Hansraj and ors. Vs. Kamini A. Agrawal (Mrs.) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-06-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)BomCR348
T.D. Sugla, J.1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Heard.2. These 39 applications arise out of one consolidated order dated 27th February, 1989 passed by Shri R.G. Khedkar, the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Bombay in summonses for Judgement Nos. 1118 to 1956 of 1989 dated 18th October, 1988 taken out in Summary Suits Nos. 2355 to 2393 of 1988 by the respective plaintiffs (respondents herein). The applications raise interesting and somewhat complicated issues.3. The plaintiffs, who are allegedly creditors, filed the 39 suits on 22nd March, 1988 under order XXXVII of the Civil Procedure Code for different amounts due to them alongwith interest upto the date of the filing of the suits at the stipulated rate on the basis of documents stated to be receipts stamped with 20 Paisa revenue stamp. An order of attachment before judgement was granted by the learned Judge Smt. Upasani on 25th March, 1988 on the application made on behalf of the plaintiffs as a result of which a residential flat and a ...
K. Uttamlal (Exports) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-06-1989
Reported in: 1989(24)LC765(Bombay)
Bharucha, J.1. On 7th January 1982 an R.E.P. import licence was issued to M/s. Hindustan Trading Company. The licence was endorsed, inter alia, for Mono, Di and Tri-Enthanolamine. It is the petitioners' case that the said licence was purchased by them from M/s. Hindustan Trading Company on 1st September 1982. The petitioners placed an indent on 17th September 1982 on the foreign suppliers of the aforesaid goods and opened letters of credit in their favour on 21st September 1982. On 15th October 1982 the goods were shipped, as is evident from the bills of lading. Bills of entry in respect of the goods were filed by the petitioners at Bombay on 2nd November 1982 and 2nd December 1982. The goods not having been allowed clearance, this petition was filed. At the stage of its admission, clearance of the goods was allowed on the condition that the petitioners furnished a bank guarantee.2. It is the respondents' case that M/s. Hindustan Trading Company had made a wrong declaration, upon the b...
Bal Gangadhar Shetty Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-05-1989
Reported in: 1989(3)BomCR233
Sharad Manohar, J.1. The appellant in this case was the plaintiff who had filed Special Civil Suit No. 4595 of 1961 in the City Civil Court, Bombay, inter alia for the declaration that he continue to be in the services of the Employees State Insurance Corporation and that the order of termination of his service, dated 23rd January, 1958, was illegal and unconstitutional, for a decree for arrears of salary, etc. in the sum of Rs. 6,030/- being the amount then due to the plaintiff and for other ancillary reliefs.The respondent's contention (which contention has been strenuously repeated in this Court by Mr. Sethna, the learned Counsel for the respondent) was that, after the completion of the plaintiff's probation period, he was only a temporary employee whose services could be terminated by an appropriate notice which was duly given by defendant No. 2 to the plaintiff. Defendant No. 2, therefore, contended that the plaintiff had no cause of action to file the suit.Defendant No. 2's plea ...
Bbc Brown Boveri and Co. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-02-1989
Reported in: (1989)31ITD408(Mum.)
Method adopted for allowance of research and development expenditure by assessing officer resulted in excessive allowance. No basis for such conclusion there orders were not erroneous and prejudicial.The Commissioner has not given any basis for holding that as to how the deduction allowed by the assessing officer was considered by him to be excessive or incorrect. The expenses claimed by the assessee for research and development attributable to royalty income in India are also supported by the certificates of the licensed auditors. The mere fact that the method selected by the assessing officer resulted in lower tax liability of the assessee compared to the liability which would have resulted from the adoption of another method, it cannot be said that discretion was not exercised by the assessing officer in a proper and judicious manner. In view of the aforesaid, the assessment orders passed by the assessing officer for both the years under consideration cannot be said to be erroneous...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›