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.
Ashokkumar Shantilal Shah and Another Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Bom163; 1989(3)BomCR491
ORDER1. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Plaintiffs in R. A. Suit No. 502/1589 of 1981, pending in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay, impugn the validity of the Order dated 27th March, 1984, made by the Court of Small Causes in Misc. Notice No. 532 of 1983, whereby the learned Judge set aside the ex parte decree of eviction made on 3rd March, 1982.2. The only question urged in this petition is whether the service of the writ of summons on the Defendants is valid. The question arises in these circumstances :The Defendants -- State Bank of India -- are the Plaintiffs' tenant of two flats on the 1st floor at 235/237, 'Reman Smruti', Vithalbhai Patel Road, Bombay-400004. The Plaintiffs instituted the suit for eviction on grounds available under the Bombay Rent Act. The writ of summons was despatched by registered post, acknowledgement due, at this address :'State Bank of India, Central Office, New Administrative Building, Madam Cama Road, Bombay-400021...
Chandabai Daga Vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1989
Reported in: (1989)79CTR(Bom)200; [1992]194ITR422(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. One Badridas Daga died on June 8, 1963, i.e., in the midst of the previous year (October 29, 1962 to October 17, 1963) relevant to the assessment year 1964-65. On September 4, 1964, his executors (the petitioner being the sole surviving executor) filed a return of net wealth of behalf of the estate for the assessment year 1964-65 pursuant to notices issued to them in this behalf. It is the petitioner's case that they did so because they entertained the mistaken belief that executors were liable for wealth-tax even if the person whose wealth was to be assessed had not been alive on the relevant valuation date. On November 6, 1965, the assessment order was made. The valuation date for the purposes of the assessment was, as stated therein, October 17, 1963. On December 4, 1964, an appeal was preferred against the assessment order. In the appeal, pending its disposal, an additional ground was taken that the executors were not liable to pay upon the value of the estate w...
J.E. Bilmoria and Sons Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1989
Reported in: 1990(2)BomCR108
M.S. Deshpande, J.1. It would be convenient to take up together for consideration these seventeen petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, the challenge in all being to the authority of the respondents to recover excise duty on breakages caused in transit or in the Bonded Warehouse, by recourse to the circulars issued by respondent No. 2. Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise on 19th April, 1980 and 6th April, 1981 (Annexures C and D in Writ Petition No. 1168 of 1981), and the difference in the supervision charges leviable under section 58-A of the Bombay Prohibition Act.2. Reference to the material allegations in Writ Petition No. 1168 of 1981 would suffice for examining the challenges raised, as the facts and questions of law arising in the other petitions are indentical.3. On April 19, 1980, the respondent No. 2, Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise issued a circular ( Annexure-C) modifying and revising the instruction contained in his earlier circular dated May 29, 1979 ...
Ganpatrao Bhiwaji Chandiwale Vs. Jaibai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1989
Reported in: I(1990)DMC457
A.A. Desai, J.1. This appeal by the original respondent-husband is directed against the order dated 23-11-1981 ordering payment of maintenance of Rs. 100/- per month, in favour of the respondent-wife, passed under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act.2. Appellant married with the respondent about 35 years before the initiation of the proceedings. Respondent-Jaibai continued at her matrimonial home with appellant-Ganpatrao for a period of 5 to 6 years. Thereafter, she was driven. She, therefore, in 1980 initiated the proceedings under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights. The trial Court on 23-11-1981 decreed the claim. She also filed application under Section 24 for interim alimony. However, the same was not decided. She then presented application under Section 25 of the Act claiming permanent alimony. She states that the appellant-husband owns about 200 acres of land and he has not provided anything for the maintenance. In support of her claim she examined herself. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›