Mumbai Court August 1989 Judgments
In Re: Kenji Tamiya and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-1989
Reported in: [1990]68CompCas142(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. This petition is filed by two directors of Orson Electronics Limited under section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, for being relieved from any criminal proceedings and/or liability that might be launched or brought or action taken against the petitioners in respect of fefault in complying with the provisions of section 210 and 220 of the Companies Act. The facts giving rise to the filing of the petition are as follows.2. The petitioners are officers of a company registered in Japan and know as Sony Corporation. Sony Corporation entered into collaboration or joint venture agreement with Chhabria to establish Somtron Company at Hongkong. Holding of Sony Corporation was 40% while that of Chhabria 60%. In the year 1979, Orson Electronics Limited was incorporated in Indian company was 76%, while the balance 24% was distributed amongst the shareholders, who are Indian residents. In view of the holding of 76% of Somtron, two directors on the Board of Orson Electronics Limited ...
Tag this Judgment!B.S. Rawat, Asstt. Collector of Customs Vs. Mohmed Azan Khan and Other ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-1989
Reported in: 1990(2)BomCR122; 1991CriLJ820
ORDER1. Faced with the difficulty created by the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, by which he refused the Customs authorities or any other Central Government Agency such as D.R.I. Central Excise, Narcotic Control Bureau, Enforcement Directorate to have the accused placed in their custody, the Asstt. Collector of Customs by this application seeks a direction for issue of an examination warrant for production of respondents 1 to 5 for investigation and for holding that under the provisions of S. 267 or any other provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the authorities abovementioned are entitled to move the competent court for production of accused persons in judicial custody for being handed over to such agency for carrying out investigation and enquiries under any of the Central Enactments by issue of examination warrant.2. On July 19, 1989 the staff of the Preventive Collectorate intercepted two fiat cars at the junction of Tejpal Lane, off Go...
Tag this Judgment!Chimaniram Gyanbha Dhotre Since Decd. by His Heirs Vs. Vishwanath Ramc ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)BomCR274
Sharad Manohar, J.1. Both the above writ petitions arise out of a common judgment of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal stemming from a thoroughly mala fide proceeding set in motion by the respondent No. 1 in Writ Petition No. 2539 of 1980.A brief statement of the relevant facts would show how the proceedings were thoroughly malicious.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to with reference to their position in Writ Petition No. 2539/80.Respondent No. 1 in that petition was the owner of the land in question. It was an agricultural land. There was no tenant on the same. Hence, there arose no question of respondent No. 1 being a 'landlord' of the land. He was the 'owner'; not the 'landlord' within the meaning of section 32-P of the Bombay Tenancy Act.Likewise, the land which was the agricultural land ceased to be so after the same was admittedly converted to N.A. use by virtue of the order dated 7-1-1962 passed by the authority under the Land Revenue Code as also by v...
Tag this Judgment!Netaji Vidya Vikas Mandal Mohol Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-1989
Reported in: 1989(3)BomCR681
S.K. Desai, J.1. We are inclined to dispose of this matter at the stage of admission. Hence Rule is issued.2. Shri C.J. Sawant for respondent No. 1 waives service. Shri Shah for respondent No. 3 waives service. Service on respondent No. 2 is dispensed with. By consent matter is taken up.3. The principal dispute is between the petitioner-Society and the 3rd respondent. We have already indicated in our previous order made on August 23, 1989, the prima facie incorrect manner in which a decision has been taken by the Honble Minister over-ruling the preference of the University. However, it must be accepted, as has been submitted by Shri Shah, that even the University gave an unreasoned preference by just designating Nos. 1 and 2 against the names of the two applicants without indicating why it was preferring one to the other. To recapitulate, the University had given first preference to the petitioner and relegated the 3rd respondent to position No. 2. This has been reversed by the Ministe...
Tag this Judgment!State of Maharashtra Vs. Hon'ble Mr. M.H. Kania, the Hon'ble the Chief ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-1989
Reported in: 1989(3)BomCR692; (1989)91BOMLR291
H. Suresh, J.1. In this appeal, the State is challenging an order passed by the learned single Judge allowing Writ Petition No. 1526 of 1986 whereby respondent Nos. 2 to 17 who are all in the category of the lowest self drawing gazetted officers on the Original Side in this High Court, have been equated with their counter parts on the Appellate Side, namely, the Assistant Registrars.2. At the time of the filing of the petition, the respondents were in the pay scale of Rs. 650 1250, which was the same as that of Senior Superintendents and the Shirestedars, though their function was comparable to that of the Assistant Registrars on the Appellate Side. The Assistant Registrars were in the pay scale of Rs. 1000-1500. Therefore, they had contended that they were being equated with unequals (i.e. Shirestedars/Senior Suprintendents) and they were not being equated with their equals. That is how they had sought a writ directing the Government to grant them the pay scale on par with that of the...
Tag this Judgment!Trustees of the Estate of R.D. Vs. Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-1989
Reported in: (1989)31ITD359(Mum.)
1. These are six appeals by the assessee. The facts leading to these appeals may be briefly stated.2. One Mr. R.D. Patel died on 13-2-1939. He left behind a will. The Bombay High Court granted a probate of the last will and Testament of the late R.D. Patel on 10-8-1939. Thereafter, the assets left behind by the late Shri R.D. Patel were realized, liabilities paid and distributions made between the persons entitled to the estate, namely, the beneficiaries under the will. However, one piece of agricultural land situated at Andheri-Versova and admeasuring approximately 20 acres was not distributed between the persons entitled to the estate.3. It appears that the Trustees of the Estate of the late Shri R.D.Patel filed a return of net wealth declaring net wealth at 'nil' on 30-1-1980. The WTO first passed an order under Section 16(5) read with Section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act on 20-7-1980. This order was set aside by the CIT(Appeals) on 19-10-1980. Another assessment was made Under Section...
Tag this Judgment!Vitthalrao Narayanrao Patil Vs. Maharashtra State Seeds Corporation Lt ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)BomCR60; [1990]68CompCas608(Bom)
M.M. Qazi, J.1. The applicant in C.R.A. No. 885 of 1989, who is the non-applicant in C.R.A. No. 723 of 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff'), filed a suit for a declaration and injunction before the Second Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Akola, against the non-applicants in C.R.A. No. 885 of 1989, who are the applicants in C.R.A. No. 723 of 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendants').2. According to the plaintiff, he was a duly elected director of the Maharashtra State Seeds Corporation Ltd., Akola (hereinafter referred to a 'the corporation'), which is a public limited company registered under the provisions of the company law. The sixty-ninth meeting of the board of director was Scheduled to be held at Akola on June 15, 1989. On June 14, 1989, he received a letter from the managing director of the corporation (defendant No. 1) intimating that he has ceased to be a director of the company with effect from November 12, 1987. The plaintiff challenged this letter b...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Industrial Cables (India) Ltd. and Another Vs. the Board of Trust ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Bom249; 1990(1)BomCR296; (1989)91BOMLR500; 1991(31)ECC62; 1990(45)ELT369(Bom)
ORDER1. Though the discussion under the controversy has fallen on quite a specious and expanded field still the point involved is very short one and, therefore, it is in that smaller field that this petition can be conveniently disposed of. Since, however, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, argued some other points in deference only a passing reference to these points would suffice the purpose. This is more so since the petitioners are bound to succeed on the short premises that is avalable on the record which appears to be unassailable.2. Only a short narration of the facts would suffice the purpose. The petitioners are a limited company inter alia dealing in manufacture of electrical cables. They have their registered office outside the State. The 1st respondent is the authority acting under the Major Ports Trusts Act and the 2nd respondent is the authority acting under the Customs Act. Respondent No. 3 is the Union of India. The petitioners through their indenting agents viz.,...
Tag this Judgment!Yeshwant Damodar Patil Vs. Hemant Karkar, Dy. Commissioner of Police a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1989
Reported in: 1989(3)BomCR240
R.A. Jahagirdar, J.1. The order of externment dated 29th of October, 1988 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Thane, and confirmed by the Government of Maharashtra in an appeal preferred by the externee, is challenged in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is the externee.2. The order of externment passed under section 56(i)(b) of the Bombay Police Act was naturally preceded by a notice given under section 59 of the said Act. Mr. Chitnis, the learned Advocate appearing in support of the petition, has challenged the order of externment on the ground that the said order has taken into consideration a factor of which the petitioner has not been given notice under section 59 of the Bombay Police Act. The contention is well-founded, as we will show shortly. In order to understand the same, however, it is necessary to first notice the relevant provisions of the Act and thereafter the contents of the notice and the order of externment.3. Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Suryakant Ramdas More and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)BomCR653; 1990(1)MhLj124
ORDER1. In this bail application by the three applicants, who came to be arrested under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, a few points of some importance arise for consideration and it would be expendient to set out a few facts.2. The applicants were arrested on June 24, 1989 and were produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court, Bandra, Bombay, on the next day. A remand was granted. The first remand was for 12 days and thereafter for 10 days. On July 12, 1989, the applicants filed an application for being released on bail and pending consideration of that application, they came to be produced before the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, on July 17, 1989, and since then they came to be remanded from time to time. An application for bail, presented by them, raising several contentions came to be considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and was decided on August 7, 1989, holding that he was invested with the powers ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »