Mumbai Court January 1990 Judgments
State of Maharashtra Vs. Nav Bharat Corporation and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)BomCR292; [1991(61)FLR213]; (1991)IILLJ554Bom
1. The State impugns a verdict of acquittal against respondents who were charged with the commission of an offence punishable under Para 59 read with Para 4 of the Dock Workers (Safety, Health and Welfare) Scheme, 1961.2. Respondents were functioning as Clearing Agents in the year 1981. Their requirements of dock workers used to be met by the Dock Labour Board, wrongly mentioned as Bombay Custom House Agents Association in the judgment of the Metropolitan Magistrate. One of the dock workers supplied for work to the respondents on August 27, 1981 was Ananda Laxman Bellote. While working, Ananda met with a mishap which resulted in his death. Written intimation of this mishap was not given by respondents in the sense that neither the concern which is respondent No. 1 nor respondents 2 to 5 personally, addressed a communication about the death of Ananda to the Inspector, Dock Safety in the Bombay Port.Alleging that the employer-respondents had committed a breach of Paras 4(1) of the Scheme...
Tag this Judgment!State of Maharashtra Vs. Thakare and Co. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)BomCR80
S.M. Daud, J.1. The short question arising in this appeal is whether Hari Maruti Deokar was a 'dock worker' and respondents the 'employer' of Hari-the two expressions occurring in the Dock Workers (Safety, Health and Welfare) Scheme, 1961.2. For the purpose of determining the point at issue formulated in the first paragraph, the factual position no longer disputable is thus:---Respondents are Clearing Agents working as such in the Bombay Port Trust. Uday D. Phadnis was the registered owner of a truck bearing registration No. M.R.L. 2217. Possibly the truck was given on hire by Phadnis to a concern doing business in the name and style of Pankaj Transport Co. The truck was used on 28-11-1979 to carry a consignment of goods by Godrej Co. to the Indira Dock. This was because the goods had to be exported. At the steering wheel was a Driver and the truck had two Cleaners on its. One of them was Hari. After the truck has effected an entry into the dock it came upto the sport where goods were ...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kantabai and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1990
Reported in: 1991ACJ22
M.S. Deshpande, J.1. The original respondent No. 3 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Amravati in Claim Petition No. 18 of 1985 by this appeal challenges the decree passed jointly against it and the original respondent No. 1, Dr. Anand Ghongade and the original respondent No. 2, Messrs Saikrupa Bore-Wells in which the claimant Nos. 1 to 6 had laid claim, the award being jointly and severally against the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for Rs. 4,05,000/- together with interest.2. The deceased Devidas was a partner of firm M/s. Saikrupa Bore-Wells which owned jeep No. MXG 9675 which met with an accident at 2.30 a.m. on 18.11.1984 while it was proceeding from Nagpur to Jamgaon near Warud. The jeep was at that time driven by Dr. Anand Ghongade and the deceased Devidas was one of the persons travelling in the jeep. The accident resulted in his death. The Tribunal held that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving by Dr. Anand Ghongade and that the claimants were entitled to Rs...
Tag this Judgment!The American Refrigerator Company Ltd. Vs. the Pimpri Chinchwad Munici ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1990
Reported in: (1991)93BOMLR352
Sujata Manohar, J.1. The petitioners are a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having their registered office at Calcutta, The petitioners have a factory at Pune. The 1st respondent is a Municipal Council established under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965. The area where the petitioners' said factory is situate is under the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent Municipal Council. By a notification dated 11th October 1982 the said Municipal Council has been converted into a Municipal Corporation under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. At all times material to the present petition, the respondent was a Municipal Council under the provisions of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965.2. The petitioners manufacture hydraulic equipment such as punches, shears, mobile fabricators, N.B.C. open throat presses and hydraulic cylinders in the factory at Pune. The raw material required for the manufacture of these items consist...
Tag this Judgment!Second Income-tax Officer Vs. Bandekar Engineers.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1990
Reported in: [1990]33ITD680(Mum)
ORDERPer Bench - This is an appeal by the revenue which is directed against the order of the CIT (A) wherein he held that the assessee who designed, manufactured and erected the cyclone system was eligible for deduction u/s 80HH as the activity of the assessee amounted to manufacture as the end-product was different from the raw materials used. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Orissa High Court in the case of CIT v. N. C. Budharaja & Co. [1980] 121 ITR 213. Revenue has taken grounds to urge that the CIT (A) erred in his decision on the ground that the said judgment was not accepted by the department and the activity of the assessee only amounted to processing and not manufacturing.2. The assessee is a registered firm. The original assessment for the assessment year 1980-81 was made on 16-2-1983 but it was set aside by the CIT in his revisional order with direction to consider and give clear finding as to whether the assessee was entitled to relief u/s. 80HH in accordance with...
Tag this Judgment!Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissio ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1990
Reported in: [1990]33ITD355(Mum)
ORDERPer Shri Dongzathang, (Accountant Member) - This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT (A). It is relevant for the assessment year 1971-72.2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows. The assessee is a company. The previous year is the financial year 1970-71. During the relevant year, the company sold its entire holding of 1,06,276 shares of M/s. Godrej Soaps Ltd., a subsidiary company, to the members of the Godrej family at the rate of Rs. 200 per share. In the Income-tax return, the said sale of shares was declared by returning capital gains to the tune of Rs. 99,99,322 which was duly assessed by the ITO vide his order dated 15-2-1973.3. On 4-12-1979, the GTO issued notice under section 16(1) of the Gift-tax Act 1958 to the assessee on the reasoning that he had reasons to believe that the shares were transferred for inadequate consideration and the profit arising therefrom was to be treated as deemed gift under section 4(1) (a) of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Deutsche Bank Vs. S.P. Kala Official Liquidator of Sea Transportation ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1990
Reported in: [1990]67CompCas474(Bom)
1. This is an application under section 446 of the companies Act, 1956, by the Deusche Bank, a banking company incorporated and registered under the laws relating to companies in the Federal Republic of Germany and, inter alia, carrying on business at Nariman Point, Bombay.2. It is the case of the applicant-bank that the company has borrowed from it several amounts of money which, at the present, are to the tune of Rs. 21,07.251,57. plus interest of Rs., 11,66,178,74,. The bank desires to recover the loans which were guaranteed by one Debrata Das, a resident of Bombay, and therefore, was intending to take the necessary legal proceedings against that company and the said guarantor. It happened however, that, in the meanwhile, an order winding up the company was made and Mr. S. P. Kala was appointed liquidator in his capacity of Assistant official Liquidator attached to the Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court. There fore, in view of the provisions of section 446 of the companies Act, leav...
Tag this Judgment!Hiper Karmachari Sanghatana Vs. Hiper and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1990
Reported in: (1991)IILLJ568Bom
1. This writ petition is preferred against the orders passed on January 19, 1988 in Complaint (ULP) No. 492 of 1987. By the first order the learned Member of the Industrial Court, Pune learned the application for condonation of delay. The second order was a consequential order and since delay had not been condoned, the learned Member dismissed the Complaint or observed that it stood automatically dismissed. These orders are questioned in this writ petition.2. The Complaint was filed by the Union on behalf of the workers. The Union/Workers were running from pillar to post complaining about the alleged unfair labour practice of the employer. Complaint (ULP) No. 138 of 1986 was initiated originally complaining of a planned or threatened closure. It was then withdrawn. As soon as the ad-interim injunction was vacated, the employer had closed down the factory. Thereafter the Union/Workers thought it wise to move the Government to make the necessary Reference. Ultimately the Government faile...
Tag this Judgment!Tippanna Ramchandra Jannu Since Decd. by His Heirs Vs. Somnath Dnyanob ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1990
Reported in: 1990(1)BomCR677
M.S. Ratnaparkhi, J.1 A decree passed by Second Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune in Original Special Civil Suit No. 284 of 1971 declaring that the defendant Tippanna Ramchandra Jannu is not entitled to execute the decree passed in Special Civil Suit No. 108 of 1958 and First Appeal No. 471 of 1969 as nullity and further directing that the plaintiff is entitled to retain the possession of the suit house and the defendant cannot seek the execution of the sale deed and possession in pursuance of Special Darkhast No. 80 of 1968.2. The facts giving rise to this litigation may be briefly stated as follows :3. The present plaintiff Somnath is son of Dnyanoba who died on or about 1-9-1942. Sundrabai is the wife of this Dnyanoba and the mother of the plaintiff. Dnyanoba had a brother named Vithoba who died on or about 26th March, 1957. Vithoba and Dnyanoba were the sons of one Balashet Mahapure, a resident of Pune, who died on or about 5-12-1936. The plaintiff had one more brother Datta...
Tag this Judgment!Shriram Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ1631
M.M. Qazi, J.1. The appellant has been convicted of the offence punishable under S. 302 of the IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge, Buldana, for committing the murder of his two grand-daughters and one grand niece on 18th October, 1985 at village Mundaphal, District Buldana.2. This is one of the rare cases where the appellant has been found to have committed murder of his two grand-daughters Kalpna aged 4 years and Kavita aged 2 years, and one grand niece aged 1 1/2 months, apparently for no motive. The incident was reported almost immediately by the daughter of the appellant herself, viz. Shobha (P.W. 3), whose two kids have been does to death. All the relevant details are stated in the first information report (P.W. 21). Offence under section 302 of the IPC. was registered and the investigation started. Shobha (P.W. 3) was married in the year 1985 and was living at Hiwra, taluq Mehkar, District Buldana. She had come to her father's house at Mundaphal for delivery along with her two ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »