Mumbai Court August 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.
Narayan D. Shetty Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1989
Reported in: [1990]77STC361(Bom)
Sugla, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated July 14, 1986, passed by the learned single Judge dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner under article 226 of the Constitution. The assessee runs a restaurant in the name of M/s. Bharat Jyoti Ice-cream and Bhelpuri Centre at Kailash Darshan, near Nana Chowk, Bombay 400 007. The sales tax authorities conducted a raid in its business premises and seized certain books and documents covering the period from April 1, 1971 to March 31, 1972 and April 1, 1972 to December 31, 1972. Show cause notices were issued and explanation obtained. Eventually the sales tax officer rejected the assessee's books of accounts, completed the assessment by estimating the turnover at a figure much higher than disclosed and levied heavy penalties. The assessee's appeals to the Assistant Commissioner Sales Tax Tribunal were also dismissed. The Tribunal's order is dated July 15, 1977.On September 7, 1978, the Supreme Court delivered a judg...
Art Commercia Advertising Pvt. Ltd., Bombay and Others Vs. Vicco Labor ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Bom123; 1990(1)BomCR1; (1989)91BOMLR361
ORDER1. Heard the learned counsel for both sides.2. In view of nature of the controversy generated and comparatively deeper arguments having been canvassed on behalf of both sides, it is deemed necessary and proper to record a speaking order even at this threshold of the admission stage so as to understand the thrust of the controversy.3. The learned trial Judge has answered the preliminary issue and though this conclusion is correct still he has recorded comparatively short order without referring to necessary details including the basic aspect about the recitals of the plaint and nature of the suit and this feature has created a situation requiring this Court to go into the details and in fact the matter was argued by both sides as if at the final hearing stage citing several authorities and therefore instead of admitting and then disposing of the matter, it is examined at this stage itself, which has inevitably resulted in recording a detailed order on par with the one recorded at t...
Yeshvant Rama Shanbag Vs. United India Fire and Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1989
Reported in: 1991ACJ259
G.F. Couto, J.1. The short question that this First Appeal gives rise to is whether a suit for recovery of money by the insurance company on the ground that it was not liable as in terms of the insurance policy, the liability was not arising when vehicle involved in the accident was driven by a person who was not holding a licence, is maintainable after the same issue had been dealt with and decided against the insurance company in a petition filed under Section 110-A of the old Motor Vehicles Act.2. The relevant facts may be stated: An accident took place on 21 st January, 1976 and one Maria Ermelinda Vaz alias Betty Vaz sustained injuries in the said accident. The vehicle involved was a truck bearing No. MEL 6319 which was driven, at the relevant time, by the present respondent No. 3, who happened to be the cleaner of the vehicle. The present respondent No. 2 was the driver and the vehicle belonged to the present appellant. While resisting the said application, the insurance company,...
Yeshvant Rama Shanbag Vs. United India Fire and General Insurance Co. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1989
Reported in: II(1990)ACC38
G.F. Couto, J.1. The short question that this First Appeal gives rise to is whether a suit for recovery of money by the Insurance Company on the grounds that it was not liable as in term of the Insurance policy, the liability was not arising when vehicle involved in the accident was driven by a person who was not holding a licence, is maintainable after the same issue had been dealt with and decided against the Insurance Company in a petition filed under Section 110 of the old Motor Vehicles Act2. The relevant facts may be stated: An accident took place on 21st January, 1976, and one Smt. Maria Ermelinda vaz alias Betty Vaz sustained injuries in the said accident. The vehicle involved was a truck bearing the No. MEL 6319 which was driven, at the relevant time, by the present respondent No. 3, who happened to be the cleaner of the vehicle. The present respondent No. 2 was the driver and the vehicle belonged to the present appellant. While resisting the said application, the Insurance Co...
In Re: S. Pandit
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1989
Reported in: [1990]68CompCas129(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. This petition is filed by a director of Nihon Electronics Limited under section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, for being relieved from original proceedings and the liability that might be brought against the petitioner in respect of default in complying with the provisions of sections 210 and 220 of the Companies Act. The facts giving rise to the filing of the petition are as follows.2. The company was incorporates on October 15, 1982, as a private limited company and converted into a public limited company on May 5, 1986. Apart from the petitioner, the other directors of the company are : (1) Manohar Chhabria, (2) K. N. Malhotra, (3) A. V. Karnik and (4) S. S. Vaidya, Chhabria is mostly residing at Dubai, while the petitioner, Malhotra, and Karnik are residing at New Delhi and Shri Vaidya is a practising solicitor in Bombay. The company manufactures televisions and commercial production was started in September, 1986. The company belongs to the Orson group of companie...
Panpoi Dharmal Sansthan Dhotarkherda Vs. Bhagwant S/O Maroti Dhakulkar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1989
Reported in: (1989)91BOMLR796; 1989MhLJ710
C.S. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The question as to whether limitation of six months as prescribed by Sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Mamlatdar's Courts Act would govern the applications filed under Section 100 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 is referred to this Full Bench by the Division Bench consisting of Qazi and A.A. Desai, JJ, in Writ Petition No. 1562 of 1982, Writ Petition No. 1585 of 1982 and Writ Petition No. 1780 of 1982.2. In these three writ petitions the landlords have prayed for a negative declaration that the respondents were not tenants of the leased lands: These applications are filed under Section 100(2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958. Section 100(2) of the said Act reads as under:--100. For the purpose of this Act, the following shall be the duties and functions to be performed by the Tahsildar.(2) to decide whether a person is or was at any time in the past, a tenant, a protected lessee ...
Qazi Mohomed Hanif Vs. Smt. Mumtaz Begum and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ171
Jahagirdar, J.1. This is a reference made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Greater Bombay under S. 395(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The reference arises out of proceedings initiated by the Muslim wife under S. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also out of an application made by the husband under S. 127(3)(b) of the Code.2. Few facts ought to be necessarily stated in order to understand the circumstances under which the learned Additional Sessions Judge has made the reference. On 16th of July, 1979, there was a divorce between the wife and the husband who had been married several years earlier. The wife made an application which was treated as Criminal Case No. 915/MN/1979 under S. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter referred to as 'the Code', for maintenance. On 14th of October, 1980, the Metropolitan Magistrate of Vikhroli passed an order giving maintenance to the wife of Rs. 150/- per month.3. As is well known, the Muslim Women (Protection o...
Akbar BadruddIn Jiwani Vs. Collector of Customs Overruled
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-1989
Reported in: (1990)(48)ELT441Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal against the order passed by the Collector Customs, Bombay bearing No. S/26-223/89 Gr. I/ S/10-11/89 Gr. I, dated 24-4-1989.2. Before going into the factual position of the case, certain facts connected with the hearing and disposal of the appeal by this Bench are required to be set out for purpose of record. The appellant filed a writ petition in the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay against the aforesaid order of the Collector. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in its order dated 12-5-1989 passed in W.P. No. 1398/1989 has observed that the questions involved are disputed questions of facts, which are difficult for the High Court to answer and the petitioner's remedy is by way of an appeal. The High Court further directed that the petitioner may be permitted to clear the goods on payment of redemption fine and full Bank guarantee for penalty amount. Subsequently, the High Court, on an appeal filed by the petitioner, before the Division Bench, dismissed the appeal observ...
Bhalchandra Anant Mayekar and Others Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1989
Reported in: 1990(3)BomCR50; 1990CriLJ685
1. The petitioners along with one Vinayak Krishna Mandrekar were tried for an offence falling under Section 3 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Public Gambling Act, 1976, for short the Act. However, by the Order dated 8th February 1989, the trial Magistrate while acquitting Vinayak Krishna Mandrekar convicted the petitioners and sentenced them to undergo one month of simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to undergo 8 days of simple imprisonment. The Magistrate held that he was bound to impose a substantive sentence of imprisonment and also a fine on the grounds that Section 3 of the Act is mandatory and leaves no scope for discretion.2. The appeal taken by the petitioners before the Sessions Court was dismissed as the learned Sessions Judge took the same view that Section 3 of the Act leaves no scope for discretion and that on conviction the accused shall have to be sentenced to imprisonment and also to a fine. This has now become the subject matter of dispute in this ...
Rizwan Ahmed Javed Shaikh and ors. Vs. Jammal Patel, S.i. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1989
Reported in: 1990(2)BomCR297
S.P. Kurdukar, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Criminal procedure Code has been directed against the order of discharge dated 8th January, 1987 (Exh. 'H') passed by the Additional Chief metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court, Kurla, Bombay. The learned trial Magistrate discharged the accused 1st respondent (P.S.I.) on the ground that the petitioner (complainants) did not obtain sanction from the competent authority under section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, before filing the complaint.2. The petitioners are original complainants-hereinafter referred to as 'petitioners'. The 1st respondent is the Sub-Inspector of Police attached the Chembur Police Station against whom the petitioners have filed Criminal Case No. 55/S of 1986 for offences punishable under sections 220 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 147 and 148 of Bombay Police Act, 1951. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are the Police Officers attached to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »