Mumbai Court October 1990 Judgments
HussaIn Mithu Mhasvadkar Vs. Bombay Iron and Steel Labour Board and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-31-1990
Reported in: 1991(1)BomCR615; (1991)93BOMLR805; [1991(62)FLR199]; (1992)ILLJ663Bom; 1991(1)MhLj293
1. This petition is directed against the order dated July 18, 1986 passed by Shri M. R. Dhope, Presiding Officer, First Labour Court, Bombay (Respondent No. 2 herein Reference (IDA) No. 175 of 1982 made by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour under Sections 10(1) and 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. The material facts and circumstances leading to the filing of this Petition are as under.3. By an order dated March 10, 1979, the Bombay Iron and Steel Labour Board (Respondent No. 1 herein), a statutory board constituted under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 (Maharashtra Act No. XXX of 1969) (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'the Act'), appointed the Petitioner as an Inspector of the Respondent no. 1 - Board on probation for a period of three months from the date of his reporting for duty. The petitioner was required to perform functions of Inspector as speci...
Tag this Judgment!Laxman Vishnu Bhandari and anr. Vs. Bank of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-31-1990
Reported in: 1991(2)BomCR637; [1991(62)FLR791]
Sujata Manohar, J.1. The 1st petitioner Laxman Vishnu Bhandari, is an employee of the 1st respondent Bank. The 2nd petitioner is the Trade Union of workers employed by the Bank. The 1st petitioner is a member of the 2nd petitioner Union. By a memorandum dated 14th April, 1970 the 1st petitioner was appointed on the staff of the 1st respondent Bank as a clerk at its Akluj Branch temporarily for a period of two months. The appointment was with effect from 20-4-1970. The appointment letter said that his appointment will automatically come to an end on the last day of the period mentioned there unless the name is extended by another memorandum in writing. Accordingly the 1st petitioner worked as a clerk with the 1st respondent bank from 20th April, 1970. He was continued in service in the said post even after the expiry of the period of two months. By an offer dated 12th September, 1970 the petitioner was appointed on the Bank's staff as a clerk cum godown keeper. The appointment was initi...
Tag this Judgment!Twelfth Income-tax Officer Vs. H. B. Dhuru.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-31-1990
Reported in: [1991]39ITD135(Mum)
ORDERGarg, A.M. - This is an appeal by the revenue against the order of the AAC, for the assessment year 1964-65.2. The assessee was a member with one-fifth share in an Association of Persons, known as R. B. Dhuru and others. The assessee and four others were members of a Hindu undivided family, which was partitioned on 10-1-1962. The partitioned property was allotted to the members and was to be held as tenants-in-common by all the five members, subject to a charge of Rs. 73,760 in favour of assessees mother, Smt. Sumatibai. One-third part of the property was sold on 26-9-1963 for a sum of Rs. 2,35,000. Capital gains was made on the sale of this property at Rs. 1,89,492, which was disclosed by the members in their individual returns, though without the working of the exact capital gain. In the case of the assessee, the return was filed on 25-5-1965. The ITO, however, assessed the entire gain in the hands of the AOP. In the assessment of the assessee, which was originally made, the ITO...
Tag this Judgment!inspecting Assistant Vs. Daimler Benz Ag
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-30-1990
Reported in: (1991)36ITD508(Mum.)
1. The appeal by the revenue and the cross objection by the assessee are against the order of the CIT(A), for the assessment year 1983-84.2. The assessee is a non-resident company incorporated in the Federal Republic of Germany, hereinafter referred to as Daimler Benz. It had entered into an agreement on 16-1-1970 with M/s. Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Limited ('Telco') whereby, under Clause 2(a), the former licensed the latter to manufacture direct injection diesel engine, type OM 352 and spare parts thereof. Clause 2(b) widens the scope of the licence to manufacture any other products, namely, new complete models of Daimler-Benz commercial vehicles and/or parts thereof, on terms and conditions mutually agreed upon. Clause 3(a) defines the nature of licence. It provides- 3(a) Daimler-Benz undertake to furnish to Telco all technical information, drawings, designs, manufacturing data, test reports and other information available with Daimler-Benz (except such documents and...
Tag this Judgment!Andheri Bridge View Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd. Vs. Krishnakant Anandrao ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-30-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Bom129; 1991(3)BomCR300; (1991)93BOMLR908
1. This suit is for (a) a decree for ordering the defendants to specifically perform their obligation under the contract by executing conveyance in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit property more particularly described in the Schedule annexed to the plaint with clear and unencumbered title; (aa) alternatively, if it is found that the defendants are unable to convey the suit property with clear and unencumbered title, decree for specific performance plus decree for Rs. 1 crore as compensation for not conveying clear and marketable title; (ab) a decree ordering defendants Nos. 4 to 6 to construct on the suit plot a building consisting of 60 tenements with 36790 sq. ft. built up area as per plan submitted and approved by the Bombay Municipal Corporation; (ac) alternatively, if specific performance of the agreement cannot be granted, a decree against defendants Nos. 4 to 6 ordering them the refund to the plaintiffs the consideration of Rs. 14,24,440/ - together with interest ...
Tag this Judgment!American Refrigerator Company Ltd. Vs. Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corp ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-30-1990
Reported in: 1991(2)BomCR642; (1990)92BOMLR575
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 consis...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Madhaorao Asarkar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-30-1990
Reported in: (1990)92BOMLR643
M.M. Qazi, J.1. It is unfortunate to that in the instant case though the incident had taken place on July 8, 1977 and the complaint was also filed immediately thereafter before the trial Court, the matter has not yet been committed to the Court of session. The present proceeding has arisen out of a private complaint filed by the complainant. The trial Court after recording the statement of the complainant and after examining the witnesses, issued process under Sections 395, 506, 454, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code against accused Nos. 1 and 14 and 16. The other accused, viz, accused Nos. 15, 17, 18 and 19 were discharged since the learned Magistrate did not find sufficient grounds to proceed against them. This order was challenged by the accused by way of revision before the Sessions Judge, Akola, in Criminal Revision No. 25 of 1987. The learned Sessions Judge, dismissed the revision and hence the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure invoki...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. B.G. Ahuja and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-29-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Bom307; 1991(2)BomCR653; (1991)93BOMLR562
ORDERSaldanha, J.1. The petitioner beforeus is a partnership firm, which carries on business as Consultants and Contractors in respect of dams, irrigation projects and other constructional activity. The petitioners were registered with the Public Works Department of the State of Maharashtra as approved contractors in Class B, vide Registration Certificate issued to them dated 19th June 1981. It is an admitted position that the registration was valid until 12th April 1984. As per the regulations then in force the petitioners were given eligibility to offer bids or tenders up to a limit of Rs. 60 lacs in respect of constructional work and/ or irrigation projects in the State of Maharashtra.2. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondents published an advertisement in the Indian Express of Bombay in one of their issues of August 1982 inviting tenders for construction of the lining work in km 73 to 80 of Kukadi Left Bank Canal, Sirur, District Pune on the terms and conditions pres...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnanath Vassu Malwankar and ors. Vs. Leopoldo Hilario Piednde Pere ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-29-1990
Reported in: (1991)93BOMLR289
H. Suresh, J.1. This is a second appeal filed by the heirs and legal representatives of the original defendant as against a decree for possession against which the appeal also came to be dismissed.2. The relevant facts are as follows:The plaintiffs the respondents, are the owners of the suit property. The suit properties having therein the following trees, approximately, 900 islands of bamboos, 20 mango graphs (Grafts), 100 Bindees 40 tamarind and many other forest type trees which would fetch 1000 carts of firewood. The suit property was leased by the predecessors-in-title of the respondents to the defendant by a deed of lease dated January 9, 1944, for a period of three years ending on December 31. 1946. Thereafter every year the lease was renewed orally, but the defendant was required to pay a higher rent. This position continued till about 1967. Thereafter the respondents filed a suit for eviction against the defendant being suit No. 13 of 1968. That suit was decreed by a judgment,...
Tag this Judgment!Sixth Income-tax Officer Vs. Kumar Metal Industries
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-26-1990
Reported in: (1991)36ITD261(Mum.)
1. These two appeals are by the revenue against the order of the CIT(A) for the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82 deleting the penalties levied by the ITO under Section 271(1)(c) at Rs. 33,985 and Rs. 12,804 respectively.2. The facts are that certain additions have been made inassessee's income on account of unexplained cash credits, payment of interest thereon and unaccounted sales of scrap. The details are as under: Cash Credits Interest5. Vijay Ketting Works 7,500 360 900 75,000 5,621 9,500credits in earlier years - 9,100 9,900 75,000 14,721 19,400 No confirmation for these loans was filed by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings, except the confirmation of two parties at SI. Nos. 2 and 4 above. None of them was produced before the ITO for examination. The ITO, therefore, concluded that proof of identity and capacity of the lender and genuineness of the transaction was not proved by the assessee. He, therefore, added the same to the income of the assessee and ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »