Mumbai Court November 1991 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.
Yashwant Pandharinath Bagal Vs. Waman Raghunath Inamdar and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1991
Reported in: 1991(4)BomCR579
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner tenant has impugned order dated 31st March, 1981 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune (respondent No. 2 herein), in Revision Case No. MRT-NS-III.2/80 (TNC-B-103/80) and has sought restoration of the appellate order dated 30th January, 1980 passed by the Assistant Collector, Phaltan Division, Phaltan, District Satara, in Tenancy Appeal No. 25 of 1978, which order was set aside by the Tribunal (respondent No. 2 herein) in revision.2. The crucial facts which are required to be stated for disposal of this petition are summarised as under :---(a) The petitioner was the tenant of agricultural lands bearing Survey Nos. 319/46 and 355/2 since long and the said tenancy was subsisting on 1st April, 1957, i.e. the titler's day. The said lands are situate at Village Khatav, Taluka Khatav, District Satara.(b) On 1st April, 1957, the respondent No. 1 landlord was a minor. The statutor...
Maria Monica D'Souza Vs. MartIn Santan Dias
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1991
Reported in: II(1994)DMC650
I.G. Shah, J.1. The petitioner is a wife of the Respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 16th January, 1985, at St. Theresa's Church, Bandra, (West) Bombay according to Roman Catholic religious rites. The Petitioner claims that at the time of the said marriage, who was not aware of that the Respondent was already married to one Liberata. Later on, it was disclosed that he was married to Liberata in 1984 and that said marriage was subsisting when her marriage with the Respondent took place in 1985. She, therefore, claims that her marriage with the Respondent is a nullity in view of the fact that the Respondent's former wife was living at the time of her marriage with him and that the said first marriage was subsisting on the day of her marriage with the Respondent. The wife has also produced extract of certificate of her marriage with the Respondent and also a certified copy of an Agreement of Marriage between Liberata and the Respondent.2. The Respondent though is duly served, d...
inspecting Assistant Commissioner Vs. Piem Hotels Limited. (Also Piem ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1991
Reported in: II(1995)ACC212; (1993)45TTJ(Mumbai)510
ORDERN. R. PRABHU, A. M. :There are two appeals by the Department relating to the asst. yrs. 1982-83 and 1983-84. There is also a cross-objection by the assessee relating to the asst. yr. 1983-84.2. We will take the departmental appeal for 1983-84 first for disposal. The first ground of appeal is that the CIT(A) erred in holding that the provision of S. 40C and not those of S. 40A(5) are applicable in the case of employee directors.3. We have heard the parties to the dispute and in our opinion the order passed by the CIT(A) cannot be assailed. The findings of the CIT(A) can find support from the Special Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case reported in 3 SOT 40. This ground is, therefore, rejected.4. The next ground of appeal is that the CIT(A) erred in holding that the perquisite value of chauffeur driven car should be adopted on the basis of the Rule under IT Rules for the purpose of computing disallowance under S. 40A(5) as against the value worked out by the IAC on the basis o...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. R. Mahadevan Iyer
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ1008
ORDER1. This is a criminal application presented by the State of Maharashtra at the instance of Inspector of Police, C.B.I., A.C.B. CDW, Bombay. The respondent to this application is Mr. R. Mahadevan Iyer, who is the original accused in a set of prosecutions pending before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 3rd Court, Esplanade, Bombay. These prosecutions are numbered as Criminal Cases Nos. 630/P of 1979 to Criminal Case No. 636/P of 1979 and Criminal Cases Nos. 9/P, 10/P and 11/P of 1982. 2. The incidents giving rise to these prosecutions pertained to the year 1976-77. After the investigations were carried out, the charge-sheets were filed in the years 1979 and 1982 and the proceedings have been pending before the Court since that point of time. One of the cases has been filed before the Court of Session at Greater Bombay, which I shall deal with separately. It is alleged that the respondent-accused was doing business as a clearing agent and that he committed certai...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Nirajkumar Bajaj (Huf)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1991
Reported in: [1992]196ITR380(Bom)
V.A. Mehta, J.1. These are applications under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the W.T. Act'), filed by the Commissioner of wealth-tax Vidarbha, Nagpur, requiring the tribunal to refer to this Court the following two questions, said to be of law : '(1) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax to be deducted while working out the valuation of the assessee's interest in partnership concerns/AOPs ?' 2. Since points involved are common and applications under section 27(1) were disposed of by a common order by the Tribunal, these applications are heard together and are being disposed of by this order. Point No. 1 : This pertains to the valuation of quoted equity shares of limited companies. Various assessees are individual/Hindu undivided family and the material assessment years are 1985-86 to 1987-88. The assessees filed the returns under the Wealth-tax Act showing ...
Ramchandra Kashinath Belsare Vs. Vasant Kashinath Belsare and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1991
Reported in: 1992(2)BomCR486
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. An interesting or rather novel interpretation to the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 57 of the Code of Civil Procedure was canvassed in this proceeding. The dispute centres around the short question as to whether or not an order of attachment in relation to property continues up to the period of limitation or whether, that order, if it is not vacated by order of a Court continues indefinitely and consequently confers on the decree holder the right to execute the decree at a subsequent point of time. A few dates are material for this purpose.2. Pursuant to the filing of Civil Suit NO. 397 of 1959, which was a partnership dispute for dissolution and accounts, the trial Court passed a final decree on 31.7.1964 which was signed by the Judge on the same date. It needs to be mentioned that the stamp paper was not furnished for, as long as, four years, and that consequently, the decree was drawn up only some time in the year 1968. In the year 1973, the decree holder who is t...
Laxmanrao Anantrao Satardekar Vs. Bapu S. Powar by Heirs and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1991
Reported in: (1991)93BOMLR691
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. This petition raises interesting questions of law relating to interpretation and application of Sections 15, 29(1), 32(1) and 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The principal question of law relating to the purported surrender of tenancy is already decided by the Full Bench judgment of our High Court delivered in this very matter on 25th January, 1988 reported in 1988 Mh. L.J. 359. In view of the ratio of the said judgment, the purported surrender of tenancy by the tenant/s concerned shall have to be treated as non est. It would follow therefrom that the petitioner-tenant became the statutory purchaser of the agricultural lands in question on tillers' day i.e. with effect from 1st April, 1957 under Section 32(1) of the Act. There is no serious dispute about the relevant facts having bearing on the subject-matter of this petition. It is unfortunate that this petition has. remained pending in this Court for a period of more than 13 years even ...
Hafizullah Khan Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1991
Reported in: [1992(65)FLR716]; (1995)IIILLJ458Bom
H.H. Kantharia, J.1. The petitioner was working as a Conductor with the respondent, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, through its Divisional Controller for Akola Division, Akola, effective from December 7, 1965. He was dismissed from service with effect from April 8, 1982 on the allegations of certain misconduct. He had filed a departmental appeal which was pending. In the meanwhile, he filed a complaint in the nature of unfair labour practice under Item I of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'MRTU & PULP Act') in the Labour Court at Akola. The respondent Corporation had not filed even written statement resisting the said complaint. When the unfair labour practice complaint was pending adjudication before the Labour Court, the petitioner was given to understand that his departmental appeal was being taken up for hearing and, therefore, he sought permission of the Lab...
Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. Vs. Indals (Agencies) Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1991
Reported in: 1991(4)BomCR373
S.M. Jhunjhunuwala, J.1. In the suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from using the trade mark 'Indals', 'INDAL' or any other deceptively similar name to the registered trade mark 'INDAL' of the plaintiff and from passing off the goods of the defendant as for those of the plaintiff, as also from using the word 'Inland' or deceptively similar name as part of its corporate name and for other reliefs as prayed for in the plaint filed, the plaintiff has taken out the present Notice of Motion for temporary injunction in terms of permanent injunction as prayed for therein.2. The plaintiff is manufacturer of aluminium paste and power and aluminium products and various chemical products. The trade mark 'INDAL' has been registered in the name of the plaintiff in Class 1 under Nos. 266620 and 266626 as of the 29th day of August, 1970 in respect of Alumina and alumina hydrator and carbon electrode paste, all being chemical substances for use in industry under Trade and Merchand...
Rajendra Dinanath Patil Vs. Usman Sajjan Patel and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Bom164; 1991(4)BomCR294; 1993(1)MhLj201
1. This revision by defendant No. 4 takes exception to the finding recorded by a Judge of the City Civil Court vis-a-vis the preliminary issue relating to pecuniary jurisdiction.2. Respondent No. 1 the plaintiff has claimed possession of site measuring 23' x 13' described in para 1 of the plaint, injunctions prohibitory and mandatory as at prayer clauses (e) and (f) and a decretal direction for ascertainment of pendente lite and future mane profits at Rs. 1000/- per month. The valuation clause being para 19 of the plaint recites that the subject-matter of the suit is valued at Rs. 10,500/- being 100 times the monthly rent i.e. Rs. 105/- per month payable by plaintiff to the Bombay Municipal Corporation (defendant No. 3). Defendant No. 4 questioned the valuation contending that plaintiff had to value the suit site according to its market price and that if it was so valued, the City Civil Court where the suit had been instituted, would have no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit.3. Th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »