Mumbai Court September 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.
Vijay Nilkanth Gokhale Vs. K.K. Uppal, Chairman Bombay Port Trust and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1990
Reported in: 1991(1)BomCR101
S.M. Daud, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution takes exception to an order dismissing the petitioner from the service of the 2nd respondent, hereinafter referred to as the 'BPT'.2. The BPT is a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal with all powers subject to the provision of the Major Port Trust Act, 1963. At the relevant time the 1st respondent was the Chairman of the BPT. Petitioner joined the employment of the BPT in the year 1966. In the year 1978, he was promoted to the post of Deputy Manager (junior) in the scale of Rs. 1700-55-1920-60-2100. His total emoluments at the relevant time came to Rs. 2500/-. An auction was held by the BPT on 19th February, 1979 in respect of goods comprised in what was labelled as lot no. B/1929. In the said auction one Subhash Chander bid for the lot Subhash Chander bid for the lot quoting Rs. 3100/- as the price. The bid was provisionally accepted and Subhash Chander deposited Rs. 1050/- as earnest money. T...
Bhagirathi Vishandatt Makholia Vs. Kemp and Co. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1990
Reported in: 1991(1)BomCR43
S.M. Daud, J.1. This petition takes exception to an order of dismissal from service made against an employee of the 1st respondent and confirmed as valid by the 2nd respondent.2. The 1st respondent hereinafter also referred to as the employer, is a company dealing in retailing of drugs and pharmaceuticals. The petitioner joined the 1st respondents employment on 16th July, 1970. In course of time she was promoted as a Personel Assistant and posted at the employer's head office at Prabhadevi, Worli, in or about December 1971. P.T. Talwar came to head the Personal Department in July 1976. P.L. Yevalekar was appointed as a Trainee in the Employer's concern. Talwar found some defects in the working of the petitioner and in due course she came to be charge sheeted., Briefly, the charges against here were that being in control of the records of the personnel, she had been manipulating the record with regard to herself. As a result of this manipulation, the record showed her to have different ...
Damu Dhondi Dhekane Vs. Parvatibai Hindurao Jagtap
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1990
Reported in: 1991(2)BomCR627; 1991(1)MhLj72
Ashok Agarwal, J.1. The present petition arises out of proceedings initiated by the respondent original applicant landlady under section 32P of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The land in dispute originally bore Survey No. 97/1A/5. It was later formed into Galt No. 366. The land is situate at village Lohare, Taluka Wai, District Satara. It admeasures 35 gunthas out of which 28 gunthas are under cultivation and five gunthas are Pot Kharaba . The said land was originally owned by one Rama. He died leaving behind him two sons and two daughters. The eldest was Tukaram who was blind. Second was a daughter Vithabai. Third was a son Nathu who during his lifetime was insane. The fourth was a daughter Parvatibai who is the original applicant. Tukaram died on 27th April, 1976. Vithabai died on 18th December, 1977 and Nathu on 11th September, 1980. Tukaram during his life time on 11th March, 1976 executed a registered Will in favour of the applicant bequeathing various proper...
M/S. J.K. Enterprise Vs. Prithviraj Ratanchand Mehta and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Bom162; 1991(1)BomCR480; (1990)92BOMLR572
1. The short point raised in the present Civil Revision Application is regarding the correctness or otherwise of the order dated 30th January 1989 granting conditional leave to defendant No. 1 in summary Suit No. 1785 of 1988. The said Summary Suit No. 1785 of 1988 was instituted by the first respondent plaintiff in the City Civil Court, Bombay, claiming a sum of Rs. 45, 410/- due under three bills as under:--(1) Bill No. 101, dated 09-01-85 = Rs. 19,482.00.(2) Bill No. 105, dated 16-01-85 = Rs. 09,702.00.(3) Bill No. 108, dated 18-01-85 = Rs. 09,714.00.The contention of the plaintiff is that the goods were delivered for processing on date earlier than the date mentioned on the bill as the date of the receipt of the goods by the defendant No. 1. The plaintiff himself had sent the first notice on 16th April 1985, followed by the second notice sent through his Advocate, on 5th September 1985. Unfortunately, it appears that there was no response from the first defendant to either of th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sigma Paints Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1990
Reported in: [1991]188ITR6(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1.This is an application by the Department under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The question sought to be referred as a question of law is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the secret commission amounting to Rs. 1,41,346 paid by the assessee was an allowable deduction within the meaning of section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The proceedings relate to the assessment year 1979-80. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has held that the secret commission involved herein is allowable under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, following the Tribunal's Special Bench decision in the case of First ITO v. French Dyes and Chemicals (I.) (P.) Ltd. in Income-tax Act Appeals Nos. 182 to 194 and others (Bom) of 1982 dated July 31, 1984. Shri Patel, learned counsel for the respondent assessee, has invited our attention to the fact that the assessee had appeared as an intervener before th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. ScIndia Investment Pvt., Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1990
Reported in: [1991]190ITR128(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. This is an application by the Department under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The questions sought to be raised are :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was -(a) justified in taking the view that the authorities relied upon by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in his order under section 154 are not of any assistance to the Revenue and having regard to the clear language in section 154(7), the impugned order passed under section 154 is without jurisdiction and thus setting aside the rectification order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ?(b) justified in holding that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had re-examined the question on facts which is not contemplated under section 154 and thus accepting the assessee's contention on merits ?'2. The proceedings relate to the assessment year 1973-74. The question involved is regarding computation of deduction under ...
Corn Products Co. India Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1990
Reported in: 1991(51)ELT330(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. Petitioner No. 1 is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act and manufactures diverse products including baking powder in their factory situated at Thane. The manufacture of baking powder is liable to payment of excise duty under Tariff Item No. 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The Central Government in exercise of powers under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 published exemption notification dated March 1, 1975 providing that goods of description specified in the schedule and falling under Item No. 68 of the First Schedule to the Act are exempted from payment of whole of duty of excise leviable thereon. The first entry in the schedule reads as under :-'All kinds of food products and food preparations, including (i) meat and meat products; (ii) dairy products; (iii) fruit and vegetable products; (iv) fish and sea foods; (v) Bakery products; and (vi) grain mill produ...
Gujarat Metal Rolling Mills Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1990
Reported in: 1991(52)ELT193(Bom)
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution takes exception to the demand contained in Exhibits B&C; to the petition compilation.2. The 2nd respondent, hereinafter referred to as 'MMTC', is a Government of India undertaking and has been designated as a canalising agency for carrying out a policy outlined in the Import and Export Policy for the year 1982-83 under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. Import of one of the items which had to be canalised though the 2nd respondent was Aluminium Ingots. Petitioner No. 1 required the said Ingots as an Actual User for the manufacture of utensils. It applied for and obtained an allotment as set out in the delivery note at Exh. A. The quantity allocable to the 1st petitioner was 56.385 metric tonne for a price of Rs. 18,679/- per metric tonne. A clause appearing in the sale note reads thus :-'For quantities indicated in clauses 2(b) and (c) above, price will be notified latter. The buyers shall accept the price to be notified ...
Laxmi Board and Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1990
Reported in: 1991(51)ELT329(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. The controversy in this petition stands concluded by two decisions of this Court in B. K. Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. U.O.I. : 1984(18)ELT701(Bom) and in Central India Spg., Wvg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. U.O.I. 1987 (30) E.L.T. 217. In view of these two decisions, both the counsel state that the present petition is liable to be dismissed.2. Mr. Thakkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that as regards demand notice dated October 16, 1980, by which the Superintendent of Central Excise, Kalyan demanded a sum of Rs. 4,37,318.22, the order passed by the Asstt. Collector confirming the demand cannot be sustained. The learned counsel urged that the demand notice dated October 16, 1980 was issued in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and the duty demanded was short levy for period commencing from May 1, 1980 to September 30, 1980. It was urged that Rule 10 was repealed on November 17, 1980 and was substituted by Se...
H.S. Khan and Sons and anr. Vs. Homi J. Mukadam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1990
Reported in: 1991(2)BomCR61; (1991)93BOMLR254
Sujata Manohar, J.1. The appellants are the original plaintiffs. The 2nd appellant is a partner of the first appellant firm. The respondent who is the original defendant, owns an immovable property at Bandra, Bombay, being a plot of land bearing No. 59, Final Plot No. 15, situate at Bandra, admeasuring 943.12 sq. metres, together with buildings and structures standing thereon. The respondent is in occupation of the first floor of building standing on this plot. There are four rooms on the first floor. One of these rooms is in the occupation of one Jehangir Contractor, a relative of the respondent, who claims to be a tenant of the respondent. One Pochee, who is also a relative of the respondent, is a tenant in respect of three rooms on the ground-floor. It seems that the respondent was desirous of selling this property. Pochee's son-in-law, one Sharad Doshi introduced the respondent to the 2nd appellant. On 23rd September, 1978 the 2nd appellant visited the respondent at his house and s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »