Mumbai Court April 1990 Judgments

Banque Indosnez Vs. Pawan and Company

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [1992]74CompCas416(Bom)

H. Suresh, J.1. The plaintiffs have filed this suit to recover a sum of Rs. 83,575.59 together with interest at the rate of 18 per cent. per annum from the date of the bill of exchange, namely, September 30, 1989.2. The plaintiff's case is that the defendants are the acceptors of a hundi dated March 12, 1987, payable within 90 days from the date of acceptance of the said hundi. There is also a notice dated September 11, 1989, addressed to the defendants calling upon them to pay the amount. The defendants have not replied to the said notice. Hence, the present suit.3. The defendants have filed their affidavit-in-reply to the summons for judgment. There are a number of contentions. Firstly, they contend that the plaintiffs cannot claim interest at the rate of 18 per cent. per annum and their contentions is that, under the law, the plaintiffs could have claimed interest only at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum as the bill of exchange does not specify any rate of interest. The second cont...

Dattatraya Babaji Golatkar Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1990CriLJ2081

Pendse, J.1. The Joint Secretary to the Government of India by order dated August 14, 1989 passed in exercise of powers conferred by S. 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 directed detention of the petitioner with a view to preventing him from engaging in transporting smuggled goods. The order of detention along with the grounds of detention was served on the detenu on August 19, 1989 while the detenu was in judicial custody.The grounds of detention, inter alia, recite that on the basis of information the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence intercepted truck No. GRX 5075 on Bombay-Panvel Highway on July 12, 1989 early in the morning. One Sharifkhan, driver and the detenu were the occupants of the truck. The truck was escorted by an ambassador car which was occupied by Khaja Ahmed Hussein and Javed Shaikh Mohammed alias Usman Hippi alias Sardar. Both the vehicles were escorted to the D.R.I. office at Colaba and we...

State of Maharashtra Vs. Arvinda Vithu Maral

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1990(3)BomCR424; 1990CriLJ2432

1. The State has come in appeal against the order of acquittal of the present respondent in Regular Criminal Case No. 2 of 1981 on the file of J.M.F.C., Malvan, in respect of the offence punishable under Section 7(1) and 7(v) read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this appeal as under :-The present respondent was prosecuted by the Food Inspector, who is the Complainant, on an allegation that on 8-3-1979 when the Food Inspector gave a visit to Malvan at about 8.15 a.m., he found the accused carrying a milk kettle on a cycle and then on learning from the accused that he was having buffalo milk for sale, the Food Inspector after disclosing his identity and intention of drawing the sample of milk purchased 660 ml. of buffalo milk from the respondent for the purposes of analysis. The Food Inspector gave intimation to the accused in Form V and also paid Rs. 1.32 p. being the cost of the sample as milk price and obtaine...

Akhil Bharatiya Grahak Panchayat and Another Vs. Chairman, Life Insura ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

G.G. Loney, President: (1) Akhil Bharatiya Grahak Panchayat (All India Consumer Panchayat), Sangli, in short, Panchayat, and one Mr. Ilahi Attar jointly filed this complaint against the Opponent Life Insurance Corporation of India, for short, the Corporation, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice under the provisions of Sub-sections (a) (g) (e) and (r) of Section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant Mr. nahi has claimed an amount of Rs. 3,67,000/- as compensation from the Corporation on account of his suffering due to deficiency in service at the instance of Corporation. (2) The grievances levelled by the complainant Panchayat against the Corporation are general in nature and are as under: (i) unilateral, abnormal and detrimental changes made in the Surrender Value of the Policies; (ii) incorrect calculations of bonus; (iii) discrimination between two sets of customer in the matter of calculation of bonus and premium etc. (iv) odious attitude and c...

Mehta Gems Vs. Union of India

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1991(56)ELT13(Bom)

ORDER1. Rule in both petitions made returnable forthwith by consent.2. Shri Rege and Shri Shringarpure, the learned Counsel waive service.3. Write Petition No. 1114 of 1990 is actually a sequel to the order recorded to the Writ Petition No. 781 of 1990 and therefore both are being disposed of by common order since the fate of one petition would govern the fate of other petition.5. For obvious reasons the petitions can be finally disposed of at this stage itself. All the necessary affidavit have already been filed on behalf of the respondents who have nothing more to add and in fact nothing more could be added on the merits. Three features practically come on the surface in a prominent manner justifying the allowing of both the petitions and which makes any further discussion thoroughly unnecessary.6. The first is that Para 161 of the Policy in question which corresponds to Para 166 of the earlier Policy does not give a power of review to the second and third respondents to review their...

Ratnakar Gajanan Godambe Vs. Ratnaprabha Co-operative Housing Society ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1990(3)BomCR364; (1990)92BOMLR317

S.K. Desai, J.On 19th February, 1990 by a short but reasoned judgment1. Directed summary dismissal of Writ Petition No. 748 of 1990. Counsel appearing for respective parties had taken me through the decision of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and another v. Shyam Co-operative Housing Society and others, : AIR1989SC295 as well as the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in O.N. Bhatnagar v. Smt. Rukibai Narsindas and others, : [1982]3SCR681 . After going through the relevant passages from the said judgment and applying them, I came to the conclusion that the petitioner's case was untenable, and summarily dismissed the said writ petition. At the time of dismissing the writ petition I had indicated in paragraph 3 of the judgment that if similar questions were under consideration by the Supreme Court and if a fresh decision is available which supports the case of the petitioner, then the petitioner was given liberty to apply for review of the said judgment.2. On ...

The State of Maharashtra Vs. Mrs. PaulIn P. Picardo

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1990(2)BomCR668; 1991CriLJ239; 1990(1)MhLj693

1. The State has come in appeal to challenge the order of acquittal of the present respondent in Appeal No. 371 of 1980 on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bombay.2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this appeal are as under.The present respondent was prosecuted on the allegation that from 8-8-1977 to 2-11-1977 in the Central Poly-clinic opposite Central Cinema Girgaum, Bombay she had added to her name the title 'Dr.' without having the degree, diploma, licence or certificate or any other like award and she was practising as a Physio-Therapist and also in nature-cure and thereby she had committed offence punishable under section 36 of the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961. On the strength of the evidence produced before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 18th Court, Girgaum, Bombay, he convicted the present respondent of the said offence under section 36(2) of the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961 and sentenced her to pay a fine of Rs. 201/- in...

Anubhav Family Trust Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1990)34ITD303(Mum.)

1. This is an appeal against the order of the CIT Under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act relating to the assessment year 1984-85.2. The relevant facts may briefly be stated. The appellant Anubhav Family Trust is a trust which was created by one Renudevi Aggarwal on 13-5-80 by settling a sum of Rs. 20,000 for the benefit of her nieces and nephews. S/Shri Narendra Pal Gupta and Anil Kumar Aggarwal were appointed as trustees under the aforesaid trust. The first assessment of the trust was completed for the assessment year 1981-82 on a total income of Rs. 16,64,441. The shares of the four beneficiaries were indicated in the order of assessment and taxed in the hands of the beneficiaries. For the assessment year 1982-83 the assessment was completed on a total income of Rs. 3,71,956. The appellant filed an appeal against this order and the total income determined by the ITO was converted into a loss of Rs. 2,22,812. This was because the CIT(A) by his order dated 2-1-87 gave substantial rel...

Manpinder Singh Vs. L. Hmingliana, Secy. (Prev. Detn.), Home Deptt.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1991(54)ELT57(Bom)

Pendse, J.1. Secretary (Preventive Detention) to the Government of Maharashtra and detaining Authority by Order dated November 30, 1989 passed in exercise of powers conferred under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 directed detention of the petitioner with a view to prevent him from smuggling goods. The order of detention along with the grounds of detention was served on the petitioner only on January 12, 1990.The Grounds of detention, inter alia, recite that on March 2, 1989 when the detenu and his father arrived at Sahar Airport from Hong Kong, the Customs Officer intercepted them. The detenu and his father had declared goods to a tune of Rs. 4,150/- only. The Customs Officer searched the detenu and his father and recovered 6 foreign marked gold bars of 10 tolas each and one small gold bar of 20 Gms. from the detenu and his father. The gold seized weighed 1,575.8 Gms. and was valued at Rs. 5,35,772/-. The...

Bombay University and College Teacher's Union Vs. State of Maharashtra ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1990(2)BomCR324

G.H. Guttal, J.1. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Bombay University and College Teachers' Union impugns the constitutional validity of sub-rule (2) of Rule 42 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules-the Rules for short made under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1978 hereinafter referred to as the Act.2. The petitioners have stated in the petition that their Organisation is wedded to protect the interest of junior and senior college teachers and that the impugned Rule affects teachers all over Maharashtra. They also make a grievance that Rule 42 makes it impossible for the members of the petitioners-Union to contest election to any public body without seeking permission from the Management and that all elections to Corporation, Zilla Parishad, and Gram Panchayat etc. are due to be held in the very near future. They apprehend that powers under the said Rule...