Mumbai Court June 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.
Keshav Jaru Salian Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-1990
Reported in: 1991(54)ELT55(Bom)
Kurdukar J.1. This habeas corpus petition is filed by Keshav Jaru Salian, who claims to be the father of one Bhaskar Keshav Salian, the detenu. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality and validity as also correctness of the detention order dated 22nd February 1990 issued by the 4th Respondent in exercise of powers under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (No. 52 of 1974). The impugned order was served upon the detenu on 19th March 1990.2. The contention raised by Mr. Karmali, learned counsel appearing in support of this writ petition, although does not require us to state the facts in detail, but suffice it to state that despite the seriousness of the seizure of substantial quantity of contraband gold on 22nd May 1989, the detaining authority took nearly 9 months to issue the impugned order of detention. The incident in question took place on 21st Ma...
H.R. Johnson (India) Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1990
Reported in: (1990)35ITD141(Mum.)
1. These are two appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86 against the orders of the CIT (Appeals). As the issues are common; hence both the appeals are disposed of by a consolidated order.2. The first and second grounds in both the appeals are common, regarding the disallowance of the claim of the assessee under sections 80-I and 80HH of the Act. The assessee had established a new factory at Dewas, manufacturing the same items, i.e., glazed tiles which it was manufacturing in its original factory at Bombay. The assessee claimed that it was established to claim the benefits of backward area.Consequently, the assessee had claimed deductions under sections 80-I and 80HH. The production is alleged to have commenced on 8-10-1981. The claim for the first time for deductions Under Section 80-I and 80HH was made for the assessment year 1982-83. The then IAC after detailed scrutiny of all the documents placed before him had concluded that the deduction under t...
Lakhichand Punamchand Marwadi, Deceased by His Heirs - Sou. Pramilabi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Bom207; 1990(3)BomCR511; 1991(1)MhLj34
1. In my opinion, the point which arises for decision in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has already been decided by the Division Bench of this Court, consisting of Dharmadhikari and Chaudhari, JJ. Dharmadhikari, J, delivered the concerned judgment in Writ Petition No. 1464 of 1981, Prabhulal Chhogalal Mandore v. Bastiram Himatram Bhutada, on 11th of September, 1989. The facts leading to this petition, however, have got to be stated.2. The respondent as a landlord filed a suit, being Regular Civil Suit No. 221 of 1971, against two brothers, hereinafter referred to as 'defendants Nos. 1 and 2'. The suit was filed on two grounds, namely, that defendant No. 1, who was the original tenant, had illegally sublet the suit premises consisting of four rooms to defendant No. 2 and further that defendant No. 1 was guilty of arrears of rent, deserving a decree of eviction under Section 12(3) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, hereinaf...
Apte Amalgamations Limited Vs. Hamidali Nasirali of Bombay and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1990
Reported in: 1990(3)BomCR368
S.M. Daud, J.1 This is defendant 2's appeal taking exception to an interim injunction restraining the said defendant and defendant 1 from interfering with plaintiff's alleged possession and enjoyment of land and structure said to measure 1372 sq. yards forming part of C.T.S. 366 near Shiv Mandir, Swastik Park Compound, behind C.S.T. Road, Chembur, Bombay-71.2. The 1st respondent, hereinafter to be referred to as the plaintiff, filed a suit against the appellant and the 2nd respondent contending that at all material times, he was in exclusive use, occupation and possession of the suit land together with two sheds of different dimensions standing thereon. Plaintiff was in possession of the land along with these sheds since the year 1962 onwards. He traces his possession through Jawahar Mandir Mandal of which he claims to have been a member since prior to the year 1962. In 1983 it became necessary to effect repairs to one of the sheds and for this purpose plaintiff moved the Bombay Munici...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Jitendra K. Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-1990
Reported in: [1990]186ITR633(Bom)
T.D. Sugla J.1. When the reference was called for hearing, Shri Jetley, learned counsel for the Department, pointed out that the Department had made an attempt to serve the respondent-assessee by registered post on April 26, 1990. However, the envelope had come back unserved with the remark 'not known'. He requested for time to make another attempt to serve the assessee. It is pertinent to mention that this is a reference of the year 1976. Fourteen years have already passed. If the Department has not been able to serve the notice on the assessee so far, there is no point in granting the Department further time now to serve the assessee. In the circumstances, the reference is returned unanswered. No order as to costs....
Harbanslal B. Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-1990
Reported in: [1990]186ITR652(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. In this reference at the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal has referred to this court only one question of law under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The question reads thus :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to deduct the payment of his share made by him for repairs cess under Section 27(4) of the Bombay Buildings Repairs and Reconstruction Board Act of 1969 before arriving at the annual letting value of the three properties in question for the assessment year 1970-71 ?'2. The assessee is an individual and the proceedings relate to his assessment for the assessment year 1970-71. The assessment was completed on January 31, 1973, in which the assessee's net wealth was computed at Rs. 10,38,660. The wealth, inter alia, comprised certain immovable properties which were mainly let out. Their market value was estimated by applying a multiple to the net income computed for income-tax purposes. However, there...
Trustees of Seth Hemant Bhagubhai Trust Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-1990
Reported in: [1991]190ITR494(Bom)
Mrs. Sujata v. Manohar J.1. This is a reference under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, relating to the assessment years 1958-59 to 1965-66.2. On Bhagubhai Mafatlal settled some of his properties on trust under a deed of trust dated April 6, 1944. One of the beneficiaries under this deed of trust was his son, Hemant. Under the deed of trust, the trustees were, inter alia, required to apply the net income of the accumulated trust fund for the support, maintenance, education and advancement of Hemant in such manner as to enable Hemant to live, as far as possible, with the same comforts, and to enjoy life in the same manner as he had been accustomed to, in the lifetime of the settlor. The trustees, under the deed of trust, are given absolute discretion to pay the whole or any part of the income of the trust fund to Hemant during his lifetime or for any period or periods during his lifetime. The Trust also provides that all monies shall be applied by the trustees in their absolute...
Sheshrao Bhaduji Hatwar Vs. P.O., First Labour Court and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-1990
Reported in: (1992)ILLJ672Bom
V.A. Mohta, J.1. The First Labour Court, Nagpur, by Award dated October 10, 1985, quashed as untenable the following reference made to it under Section 10(1)(c) read with Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (I.D. Act) by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Nagpur :'Shri S. B. Hatwar, who had been terminated from the employment of M/s. Saluja Kirana Stores, Rationing Dukan, Untkhana Chowk, Nagpur, should be reinstated with payment of back wages and continuity of service, with effect from August 8, 1982.'Aggrieved thereby, the present petition has been filed by the workman.2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the language of the dispute and the undisputed background under which it was referred for adjudication, it seems very clear to us that the impugned Award cannot be sustained since it is based on too hypertechnical and a pedantic view of the matter and sacrifices substance for the form, an approach impermissible in labour jurisprudence....
Jiwan Nath Razdan Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Bom196; 1990(3)BomCR306
ORDER1. On or about Nov. 15, 1965, the petitioner was posted as Settlement Officer-cum-Deputy Custodian of Evacuees Property in the office of the Regional Settlement Commissioner at Bombay. Respondent No. 4 was an employee of Glaxo Laboratories India Limited at Bombay andwas transferred to Delhi in the year 1965. One K. K. Kapoor who is the brother-in-law of respondent No. 4 negotiated with the petitioner on behalf of respondent No. 4 and the petitioner was put in possession of a residential flat bearing No. 9.67/650 situate at M.I.G. Colony, Gandhi Nagar, Bandra (East) Bombay (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit premises') on a monthly compensation of Rs. 250/-. The said flat was taken on hire-purchase basis by respondent No. 4 from the Maharashtra Housing Board and the period of hire-purchase was to expire on 31-7-1979. According to the petitioner, he had made all the payments of the Maharashtra Housing Board towards the hire-purchase agreement whereas it is the case of respondent N...
KamruddIn JamaluddIn Pathan Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ826
Shah, J.1. The appellant-accused, who has been convicted for the offence punishable u/S. 21 read with S. 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs. one lakh and in default further rigorous imprisonment for three years in Sessions Case No. 340 of 1986 had preferred this appeal.2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows :Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone II, organized a Gard Raid Squad, consisting of S. I. Mistry of Tardeo Police Station, S. I. Rane, P.W. 3, from D.B. Marg Police Station and six constables from different Police Stations including Police Constable Pandharinath of Dadasahib Bhadkamkar Marg Police Station on 5th December, 1985. The Squad left Nagpadas Police Station at about 7 p.m. for Gard raids in the specified area within the jurisdiction of Nagpadas Police Station and in the said raid they noticed the accused moving in a suspicious manner and that he...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »