Mumbai Court March 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.
Yamunabai Anandrao Baste Vs. Sakharam Sukhaji Jadhav
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1990
Reported in: (1990)92BOMLR233
G.H. Guttal, J.1. The question in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is, whether the sale by a landlord of the premises, possession of which was recovered in pursuance of a decree under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947-hereinafter referred to as the Act-constitutes 'reletting' of the premises within the meaning of Section 17(1) of the Act.2. The respondent No. 2 Basantibai who was the plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 239 of 1971 obtained a decree for eviction against the respondent No. 1 on the ground that she needed the premises 'reasonably and bonafide' for occupation by herself. She recovered possession of the premises in pursuance of the decree on March 19, 1975. But, on September 9, 1975, within six months of the recovery of possession, Basantibai sold the premises to the petitioner. The respondent No. 1, the tenant, applied for possession under Section 17(1) of the Act on the ground that the landlo...
Bhanu M. Vakil Vs. Chandra Oshiram Keswani and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2819
ORDER1. Whether the present criminal prosecution u/S. 630 of the Companies Act is liable to be stayed pending the suit for possession u/S. 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent Act is the short question that arises for my determination in the present writ petition.2. The petitioner is the original accused while the respondent No. 1 is the complainant in Criminal Case No. 76 of 1983 pending in the Court of the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court, Esplanade, Bombay. This complaint has been filed u/S. 630 of the Companies Act. The respondent No. 2 is the State of Maharashtra.3. The facts of the present case, as stated in the present petition, are as under :-The premises in dispute is a residential flat being flat No. 1A at Alta View Co-operative Housing Society, situate at 7 Altamount Road, Bombay 400026. This flat was originally owned by one D. D. Solanki who happened to own five flats in that building. By an agreement dated 1st May, 1968 the said D. D. Solanki gave his aforesa...
Sva Udyog Viniyog Limited Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1990
Reported in: 1991(52)ELT212(Bom)
D.N. Mehta, J.1. An interesting question arises in this Writ Petition whether almonds are seeds or dryfruits under the Customs Laws and whether they are covered by a REP (replenishment) licence issued by the Licensing Authorities. The Petitioners have prayed for a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the Petitioners' case and, after looking into the legality thereof, to quash the impugned order dated 26-7-1988 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay.2. The Petitioners imported two consignments of almonds on 6-5-1988 and 23-5-1988 under two licences annexed as Exhibits 'B' and 'C', respectively, to the Petition. In respect of these two consignments, the Petitioners submitted two Bills of Entry for Home Consumption. In these Bills of Entry, the goods were described as 'Seed of Almonds - Non Pareil Quality'.3. On 25-5-1988, the Customs Authorities issued two Show Cause Notices to the Petitioners in respect of the said two consignments, asking the Petitioners to show...
Mboup Talla Vs. L. Hmingliana and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)BomCR517
M.L. Pendse, J.1. The Secretary (Prevention of Detention) to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department and Detaining Authority by order dated February 27, 1989 passed in exercise of powers conferred under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Prevention of lllicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 directed the detention of the petitioner with a view to preventing him from engaging in export from India of Narcotic drugs. The grounds were furnished to the detenu on the same day.The grounds, inter alia, recite that in the night of September 26/27, 1988, the detenu was intercepted by the Customs Intelligence Officers at Sahar Airport when he was attempting to board Ethiopian Airways Flight No. ET. 611. The baggage and person of the detenu was searched and the suit-case was found to have a false lining made of card board and when the same was ripped open, the Custom Officers recovered four plastic bags containing brown coloured powder weighing 36 Kilograms. ...
Collector of Customs Vs. Swastik Woollen Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-1990
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT156Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These are two applications from the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay filed under Section 129D(4) of the Customs Act, 1962, to be disposed of as appeals before the Tribunal, seeking review of the orders passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, both dated 9-3-1985, in the case of the respondents herein.2. The Central Board of Excise & Customs, in exercise of their powers under Section 129D(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, called for the records and examined the orders of the Additional Collector of Customs in both these cases and gave direction that the orders in both these cases should be reviewed. For which purpose the Additional Collector was directed to apply to the Tribunal under Section 129D(4) of the Act.3. The brief facts are, in the case of Swastik Woollen Mills have imported a consignment of 62 bales declared to contain wool waste 12000 Kgs. valued at Rs. 2,82,449/- (CIF) from Taiwan. The goods were described as wool waste in the Invoice and declared as such in...
Kamal V.M. AllaudIn and Etc. Etc. Vs. Raja Shaikh and Etc. Etc.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-1990
Reported in: AIR1990Bom299
ORDER1. These are Matrimonial Petitions and Suits which involve a common question of law, namely, whether these matters stand transferred or should be transferred to the Family Court, Bombay established the Family Courts Act, 1984 (Act No. LXVI of 1984). The Family Court was established in the City of Bombay as from 7th October 1989, and the Act has been brought into force for the purpose of the said court as from that day. Since the question involved is likely to arise in several other Matrimonial Suits or Petitions pending in this court, I thought it convenient to request the counsel appearing in all these matters to address me, in the first instance, on this question, withoutgoing into the merits of each case which willbe done separately.The question that arises for consideration may be formulated thus:--Whether the matrimonial jurisdiction ex-ercisable by this Court (High Court) on its Original Side is not affected by S. 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, and whether consequently th...
Pimpri-chinchwad Municipal Council Vs. Tilakram Gyaniram Agarwal and A ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ243
1. This appeal by the Pimpri Chinchawad Municipal Council is directed against the order of acquittal of accused No. 1 Tilakram Gyaniram Agarwal for commission of an offence under section 53 read with 54 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966.2. The case of the Complainant Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Council was that at Chinchwad, Plot No. 201 belongs to one Anantrao Gavade. An old shop structure admeasuring 14' x 16' was standing thereon. On 18-9-1980, however, it was found by the complainant that construction of a structure admeasuring 14' x 16' and 6.4' in height was being carried on by respondent-accused No. 1 Tilakram Gyaniram Agarwal and on inquiry it was realised that this was without any prior sanction from the Municipal Corporation. It appears that the statement of the respondent-accused No. 1 was also recorded wherein he gave an assurance that he would not proceed with the construction work. On 26-9-1980, the Municipal Corporation sent a Notice to the Responden...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Menaben Vadilal Parekh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-1990
Reported in: [1991]187ITR158(Bom)
Mrs. Sujata v. Manohar, J.1. The question which is referred to us at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding that the share of three annas nine paise in the rupee of the jewellery department of Messrs. Batliboi and Co. P. Ltd., did not accrue to the deceased during his lifetime and as such could not be taxed as income of the deceased, is in law justified ?'2. The facts leading to this reference are as under :V. M. Parekh was an employee in the jewellery department of Messrs. Batliboi and Co. Private Ltd. There was no agreement in writing between V. M. Parekh and his employers in regard to the terms of his employment and remuneration. But it is an accepted position that remuneration was to be paid to V. M. Parekh by the employers at Rs. 150 per month or a share of 3 annas 9 pies in a rupee in the profits of the jewellery department whichever was higher. The accounts of the employer were closed...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Mrs. Aimy N.E. Pandole
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-1990
Reported in: (1991)93CTR(Bom)1; [1991]188ITR575(Bom)
T.D. Sugla J.1. In this wealth-tax reference at the instance of the Department, the Tribunal has referred to this court the following two questions of law :'1. Whether, on a proper construction of clause 12 of the will executed by Lady Serenebai J. Jeejeebhoy, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee's life interest under the trust had no value within the meaning of section 7 of the Wealth-tax Act? 2. Whether the life interest to which the assessee was entitled was an 'annuity' exempt under section 2(e)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act?'2. It is pertinent to mention that the Tribunal in this case followed its earlier order dated April 21, 1964, and July 27, 1964, in the assessee's own case for the assessment years 1959-60 and 1960-61 respectively. It is stated in paragraph 11 of the statement of the case that similar questions were referred to this court by the Tribunal for the assessment years 1959-60 and 1960-61 in R. A. Nos. 728 and 729 of 1964-65. Since, however, neither Sh...
Precision Rubber Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-1990
Reported in: 1990(3)BomCR294; 1991LC705(Bombay); 1990(49)ELT170(Bom)
G.H. Guttal, J.1. The petitioners are manufacturers of rubbers products known as ' aprons' and 'cots', components of textile machinery. The respondent No. 2 and the respondent No. 1 are, respectively, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Thane Division I, and the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay III, who perform the duties under the Central Excise and Salt Act 1944, and the Rule made thereunder. The petitioners impugn the validity of two orders :(i) The Order made by the respondent No. 1 on 7th October, 1985 under section 35-A(2) of the Act whereby he reversed the order of the respondent No. 2 made on 21st May, 1981. The respondent No. 1 held that aprons and cots are excisable under the residuary Tariff item No. 68 of the Act and are not exempt from excise duty under Notification No. 197/67 dated 29th August, 1867 as claimed by the petitioners.(ii) The order of the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal New Delhi, dated 8th August, 1989 in Appeal No. 3116/88 whereb...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »