Mumbai Court October 1990 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.
Brihan Mumbai Nagri Sahakari Bank Association Ltd. Vs. Co-operative Ba ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1990
Reported in: 1991(3)BomCR31; (1993)IIILLJ735Bom; 1991(1)MhLj955
H. Suresh, J.1. The petitioner is an Association of Cooperative Banks. It has about 90 Member-Banks in Greater Bombay area. The Association has been representing its members in all disputes relating to wage scales and other service conditions of the employees of various Co-operative Banks. It is the case of the Association that the 1st Respondent-Union is not prepared to negotiate with it in respect of their charter of demands and is not recognising the Association. Therefore, the Association passed a Resolution dated 12th July 1987, which is as follows:'Resolved that the Executive Committee should finalise the Wage Report as prepared by the Association after considering the views expressed by the representatives of the banks and the report so finalised should be forwarded to employees' Union and to the Commissioner of Labour through the Notice of Change and further action should be proceeded with. It is further resolved that the member-banks should not make individual agreement and sh...
Jitendra R. Deshprabhu and ors. Vs. Executive Magistrate and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1990
Reported in: 1992(1)BomCR233
G.D. Kamat, J.1. In this petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the petitioners are questioning the legality and propriety of the order of the Executive Magistrate, Pernem, dated 1st August, 1990, in Case No. JM/MAG/39/90 and for quashing the proceedings initiated thereunder.2. By the Order dated 1st August, 1990 issued under section 111 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the Executive Magistrate, the petitioners are directed to attend the Court of the Executive Magistrate on the 9th day of August, 1990, to show cause as to why they should not be required to enter into a bond of Rs.10,000/- each and also give sureties each by a bond of like amount under section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code to maintain peace for a term of one year. The same order further directs the petitioner in the meantime to enter into a personal bond and to furnish sureties for the same amount as interim measure that they shall maintain peace. It is needless to say that this order is ...
Diamond Glass Works Private Limited Through Its Managing Director Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1990
Reported in: 1991(3)BomCR232
M.S. Ratnaparkhi, J.1. The order passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Nagpur Improvement Trust, Nagpur in Revenue Case Nos. 270, 271, 272 and 273/A-65 of 1971-72, dated 25-1-1984 rejecting the application of the owners for abandoning the said acquisition and the consequential notice issued on 6-1-1984 directing them to give vacant possession of the properties covered by the acquisition is sought to be challenged. A prohibitory injunction is sought restraining the respondents 1 and 2 and their servants from disturbing the possession of the petitioner Company in respect of Khasra Nos. 58 and 64 to the extent of its area 25, 346 squares feet, situate at Ajani, Wardha Road, Nagpur. A mandate also is sought against the Nagpur Improvement Trust directing them to execute the agreement in favour of the petitioner-company allotting the land admeasuring 25, 346 sq. feet as per the terms and conditions agreed between the respondent No. 1 and the petitioner-company.2. The facts giving r...
V.M. Dujodwala Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1990
Reported in: (1991)36ITD130(Mum.)
1. The assessee's appeal for the assessment year 1981-82 is on a solitary ground that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in not allowing exemption under Section 54 in respect of long-term capital gain on sale of residential flat.2. The assessee is an individual and for the assessment year 1981-82, the relevant previous year ends on Diwali 1980. The assessee was the joint owner of Flat No. 26 in Meghdoot, Marine Drive, Bombay, purchased in 1952 for Rs. 38,000. He sold the said flat for Rs. 4,50,000 as per agreement dated 12-5-80. Possession was given on 15-5-80 to the buyer.The Income-tax Officer computed capital gains for the whole transaction at Rs. 4,12,800 and arrived assessee's share therein at Rs. 2,06,000 which was treated as the income under the head 'Long Term Capital gains' and allowed deduction under Section 80-TT of the IT Act, 1961.The assessee submitted that he has purchased another house property being Flat No. 62, 'Rambha' at Petit Hall, Bombay, vide...
Mrs.Saharabegam Sikandar Shaikh and Another Vs. Abdul Ali Mawaji Tejan ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Bom181; 1991(2)BomCR455
1. The present petition has been filed by the heirs of the original plaintiff landlady seeking to challenge the judgment and decree dated 24th January 1986 of the Court of the IInd Extra Joint District Judge, Pune in Civil Appeal No. 517 of 1984. By the said decree the appeal of the first respondent original defendant tenant was allowed and the judgment and decree dated 28th November 1983 of the Court of the IIIrd Additional Judge, Small Cause Court, Pune in Suit No. 119 of 1980 awarding possession under Section 13(1)(g) and 13(1)(i) of the Bombay Rent Act was set aside and the suit for possession was dismissed.2. The original plaintiff was one Smt. Rukiya Begum Solapurkar who owned Begum Mansion, City Survey No. 50, Sasson Road, Wilson Garden, Pune. She died during the pendency of the appeal leaving behind her the petitioners and the second respondent who are her married daughters as her heirs and legal representatives. They were impleaded in the appeal as respondents being the heirs ...
Ceam Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1990
Reported in: 1990LC586(Bombay); 1991(51)ELT309(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. Petitioner No. 1, a proprietary firm at the time of filing of the petition and during pendency of the petition, was registered as Private Limited Company under the Companies Act. The petitioner Company is a small scale Industry and investment in plant and machinery in the factory situated at Thana was less than Rs. 10 lakhs. The petitioner Company manufactures wireless receiving sets (transistor radios) falling under Tariff Item 33A(2) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. On April 14, 1982 M/s. Peico Electronics & Electricals Ltd. placed an order for manufacture and supply of 3000 transistor radios according to the specifications given. The petitioners manufactured transistors by using their own raw material and labour and sold it to Peico Electronics after affixing the brand name at the agreed prices. The petitioners then filed the classification list and the price list and the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Division VI Bombay II by imp...
Kirloskar Cummins Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1990
Reported in: 1991LC344(Bombay); 1991(51)ELT325(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. Petitioner No. 1 is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and in their factory at Pune Inter alia, manufacture high horse-power engines for use in heavy duty earth moving machinery. These diesel engines are tailor made to the specification of individual customers. Out of the manufacture of engines 90% are sold to the customers, while approximately 10% diesel engines are sold to a company M/s. Cummins Diesel Sales and Services (India) Limited, which is a wholly owned subsidiary company of Petitioner No. 1, and which acts as an authorised distributors of the products manufactured by petitioner No. 1. The price at which the diesel engines are sold, both to the direct customers and to the subsidiary company are commercial price consisting of manufacturing costs and manufacturing costs and manufacturing profits of petitioner No. 1 Company in respect of diesel engines. The petitioners claim that in no circumstances the price charged and recovered from the subsidia...
Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1990
Reported in: 1993LC506(Bombay); 1991(53)ELT294(Bom)
ORDERS.C. Pratap, J.1. This group of petitions challenges the show cause notice dated 19th/22nd January, 1990 issued under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.2. Hearing Counsel on either side and going through the impugned notice we are satisfied that this is not a case warranting interference in our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Indeed, this Court rarely interferes at the show cause notice stage. However, in view of the arguments advanced in extenso by Mr. Taleyarkhan, we have gone through the detailed show cause notice, including the annexures thereto. The notice is based on collection of intelligence as also upon the petitioners' officers' statements recorded in the course of investigation. Questions of fact as also mixed questions of fact and law would arise for determination before the authority hearing the proceedings pursuant to this notice. It is not possible nor open for this Court in its writ jurisdiction to go into the merits and demerits of the fac...
Jayantilal Dharamsi and ors. Vs. Board of Trustees of Port of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1990
Reported in: 1991(2)BomCR283; (1990)92BOMLR596
S.M. Daud, J.1. These petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution take exception to the respondent's (BPT) attempt to exact rent on the basis of a document, hereinafter referred to as the `Kirloskar report'.2. Petitioners are in occupation of plots of land belonging to the BPT and either the plots by themselves or the structures built thereon are being used for commercial or residential purposes. The plots were taken on rent from the BPT in between the years 1940 to 1950. From time to time there have been increases in the rent payable by the petitioners. Affairs of the BPT are regulated by the Major Port Trust Act, 1963 (MPT Act). The BPT's real estate, including structures, covers an area of about 720 hectares. The land owned by the BPT ranges from Colaba to Ravli junction inclusive of PIRPAU, Butcher Island, Titwala and other islands. About 306 hectares of the area are occupied by the lessees of the BPT holding leasehold rights under different tenures.3. The BPT entertained a fee...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›