Mumbai Court September 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.
Standard Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-1989
Reported in: [1990]181ITR233(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. The question posed in this reference made at the instance of the assessee reads thus :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 22,448 incurred by the assessee for the replacement of staircase was capital expenditure, not entitled to deduction as revenue expenditure ?'2. The question relates to the assessment year 1967-68, the relevant previous year being the calendar year 1966. During the previous year, the assessee replaced an existing wooden staircase with an R.C. staircase with steel structural support and wider steps. The assessee claimed a deduction in respect thereof which was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer and also in appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on the ground that it was expenditure of a capital nature. The Tribunal noted the argument of the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and before it that the existing roof had been leaking and, be...
Kirloskar Cummins Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-1989
Reported in: 1989(3)BomCR217; (1989)91BOMLR197; 1990(47)ELT242(Bom)
Sharad Manohar, J.1. The main question that arises for consideration in this Writ Petition relates to the interpretation of Section 36(2) read with Section 36(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.2. The facts out of which the petition arise are as follows :-(A) In December 1973 the petitioner, Kirloskar Cummins Ltd., had negotiations regarding export of 29 Engines to Tanzania. In March & April 1974, 5 Engines were cleared from the Factory for the purpose of export to Tanzania. In view of the export promotion policy the duty leviable on the export goods intended to be exported was much lower than the excise duty payable for the goods to be sold in India. Hence, the goods were allowed to be cleared by the Government on the payment of such lesser duty only. However, it so turned out that for reasons beyond the control of the petitioner/company the goods could not be exported. The petitioner/company had no doubt sold the goods to Kirloskar Electric Company Ltd., for export. But sin...
Saramma Varghese Vs. Secretary/President, S.i.C.E.S. Society and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)BomCR185; 1989MhLJ951
G.H. Guttal, J.1. The petitioner Mrs. Varghese and the respondent No. 5 Smt. Malati Bhide currently hold the offices of Assistant Teacher, and Assistant headmistress respectively in S.I.C.E.S. High School, Ambarnath. The respondent No. 1 is the Secretary of the S.I.C.E.S. Society who own the School known as 'the S.I.C.E.S. High School' Ambarnath. The respondent No. 2 Smt. Sabitadevi Menon is the Headmistress. The respondents Nos. 3 and 4 are, respectively, the Education Officer and the Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad, District Thane. The State of Maharashtra is the respondent No. 6. The petitioner who claims to be the senior most teacher in the School impugns the validity of the decision of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to appoint the respondent No. 5 as the Assistant headmistress and seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint her as the Assistant Headmistress.2. On the 1st June, 1973, the petitioner applied for a job as teacher in the School. On 5th June, 19...
Purushottam and anr. Vs. Avinash Vasudeo Javdekar and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)BomCR711
V.A. Mohta, J.1. A preliminary objection is raised to the maintainability of this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. In our view, the objection has to be upheld for the following reasons :2. After considering the two decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of (i) Umaji Keshao Meshram and other v. Smt Radhikabai and another : [1986]1SCR731 and (ii) The Ratnagiri District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Dinkar Kashinath Watve and others. Civil Appeal No. 520 of 1989, decided on 27th January (1989) 3 Bom.C.R. 69 a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Sushilabai Laxminarayan Mudliar and others v. Nihalchand Vaghajibhai Shaha and others 1989 Mh.L.J. 695 has laid down certain tests to be applied in deciding the question of maintainability of appeals under clause 15 of the Letter Patent against the judgment of a Single Judge upon a petition filed under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India by which is impugned the order of the Subordinate Court or T...
Mazgaon Dock Limited Vs. Association of Engineering and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-1989
Reported in: 1989(3)BomCR593
P.B. Sawant, J.1. The Appellant Messrs Mazgoan Docks Limited, Bombay (hereinafter referred to a 'the Company') is a public sector undertaking in the administrative control of the Ministry of Defence. It is engaged in ship building, ship repairing, merchant engineering and construction of off share platforms, and employees as on 31st March, 1989 about 11,920 workers of various categories (at the time of dispute they were about 10,000). The wages and other service conditions of the workmen were governed by various Awards/Settlements made from time to time. The last of the settlements was of August 28, 1973. On the expiry of the said settlement, demands were raised by the workmen as well as the Company between June to October, 1976 (there being different Unions of workmen, they had raised demands on different dates between the said period). The demands related to various items. We are, however, concerned in the present case with only five of the said demands. Although these demands, as st...
Mrs. Indira Bhalchandra Gokhale (Deceased by Lrs) Vs. Union of India a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Bom98; 1990(1)BomCR23; (1989)91BOMLR283
1. This appeal assails the dismissal of a suit wherein the deceasedplaintiff had claimed a declaration, possession and incidential reliefs in respect of plot bearing No. 19-A described with sufficient precision in para 1 of the plaint.2. The land in suit was purchased by the plaintiff from the Central Mutual Life Insurance Co. under a registered sale deed dated 16th April, 1954. At the time the land was acquired, it was lying vacant. The Defence of India Act, 1962 was enacted to provide for special measures to ensure the public safety and interest, the defence of India and civil defence etc. etc. It received the assent of the President on 12-12-1962. Purporting to act under S.29(1) of the said Act, the Collector of Pune requisitioned lands located at Yera-wada, Pune including the suit land. In the order of requisition which is at Ex. 56 the interested person vis-a-vis the suit land was given out to be the Life Insurance Corporation of India. After the issue of the order of requisition,...
Bank of Maharashtra Vs. M.V. 'River Ogbese' a Vessel Registered outsid ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Bom107; 1989(3)BomCR452
ORDER1. This Notice of Motion raises a question relating to the practice on the original side of this Court.2. The ship M. V. 'River Ogbese' was arrested pursuant to the warrant of arrest dated 27th May, 1989. The arrest was 'confirmed' by the order dated 30th June, 1989 made on the Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion No. 958 of 1989. This Notice of Motion by the Defendant No. 3 is for an order of release of the ship.3. The Bank of Maharashtra have instituted this suit for a decree compelling the Defendants to deliver the consignment in accordance with the contract of carriage. The suit was instituted on 10th March, 1989. The Plaintiffs filed an application on 10th March, 1989, for arrest of the ship. It was accompanied by an affidavit in support of the order of arrest. The draft order of arrest was also placed in the proceedings. The Plaintiffs did not press the application for arrest of the ship.On 10th March 1989, an ad interim order was passed in accordance with the minutes presented by t...
Daji Govind Kamble Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1989
Reported in: 1989(3)BomCR448; 1990CriLJ2191
ORDER1. This is an application for bail by the Petitioner who was arrested on 24th June, 1989 by N. M. Joshi Marg Police Station in C.R. No. 8/89 under Section 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The Accused was produced from time to time before the Metropolitan Magistrate who authorised his detention. He was produced before the Additional Sessions Judge on July 25th, 1989. The presents application for Bail was presented on August 25, 1989.2. The main ground on which bail is being sought is that the detention by the Metropolitan Magistrate which was for a period exceeding 15 days was in contravention of Section 36(1)(b) of the Act, as the Magistrate had no powers to authorise detention for a period exceeding 15 days, the duty of the Magistrate in the event of the detention being unnecessary, to forward him to the Special Court having jurisdiction and since the initial detention pursuant to the orders of the Magistrate when it exceeded 15 days was unauthorise...
Ram Sadshiv Shinde Vs. Khanderao Chintaman Panse (Since Deceased by Lr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Bom262; 1989(3)BomCR332; (1989)91BOMLR315; 1990(1)MhLj421
ORDERChaudhari, J.1. These four petitions have been referred to a larger Bench for disposal by Sharad Manohar, J., by his referring Order dated 29th March 1989, since in the opinion of the learned Judge, the questions relating to the interpretation of Section 13A-1 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereafter referred to as 'Bombay Rent Act', for short), and, the right of a stranger to challenge partition in a joint Hindu family, are of great importance.2. The petitioner-original plaintiff filed 10 suits against 10 of his tenants (original defendants-respondents) who are in occupation of different rooms in the property bearing House No. 215 situate at Shukrawar Peth, Pune, for recovery of possession of the rooms on the ground of bona fide requirement for his personal use under S. 13A-1 of the Bombay Rent Act. Additionally, he sought eviction of one of the tenants viz., Khanderao Chintaman Panse (since deceased), whose heirs are the respondents in Peti...
Straw Products Limited Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)BomCR49; 1990(47)ELT523(Bom)
1. This proceeding which was initiated long back in the year 1975 or at least 1977 has got itself entangled in the spate of litigation where there have been repeated remands and the matter has been tossed from one forum to another and ultimately it is being argued though the impugned order carries more or less same deficiencies. The petitioner is a Company registered under the Companies Act. Petitioner No. 2 is the Works Secretary. The respondents are the Officers exercising jurisdiction under the Indian Tariff Act and Customs Tariff Act as also under the Customs Act as their statutory obligation. The petitioner company is division called J.K. Batteries, which is engaged in manufacturing and marketing of Dry Cell Batteries at Bhopal in the state of Madhya Pradesh. High Grade Natural Manganese Dioxide Ore is the product utilised in the manufacture of dry cell and Company has been importing said product and it is commercially known as activated manganese dioxide ore or electrolytic manga...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »