Mumbai Court December 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.
Shree Kutchi Visha Oshwal Mahila Mandal Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-1991
Reported in: [1992(65)FLR72]; (1993)ILLJ77Bom
1. A Public Charitable Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 by name M/s. Shree Kutchi Visha Oshwal Mahila Mandal having its office at 99/101, Keshavji Naik Road, Bombay, is the petitioner. The petition challenges the legality of the order dated July 13, 1978 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Maharashtra & Goa, as also order dated June 7, 1985 passed by the Government of India under Section 19A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). By the aforesaid two orders, the authorities under the Act sought to cover the petitioner's establishment at Bombay under the Act on the ground that the petitioner is employing more than 19 persons. 2. The petitioner contends that it is Public Charitable Trust having a laudable object of charity and mainly uplifting the lot of needy women by offering them employment. Any woman desirous of availing the facilities provided by the trust has to merely ...
Yusuf Ibrahim Pawaskar Vs. Karamchand Narayan Tandon by His Heirs and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-1991
Reported in: 1991(4)BomCR549
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. This writ petition is directed against an order dated 27-8-1981 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes wherein the learned Judges have taken the view that the Revision Application preferred by the present petitioner against an order dated 16-12-1980 of the trial Court was not competent.2. The petitioner had originally filed a suit before the Court of Small Causes contending that he should be declared as a tenant in respect of the disputed premises. Since the petitioner apprehended that his possession would be interferred with, he had applied for an ad interim injunction whereupon the trial Court passed a short order to the effect that apart from the petitioner's bare word, he had not made out any case for the grant of injunction and, therefore, that it was necessary to issue notice to the opposite party. What needs to be taken cognizance of is the fact that the petitioner had specifically pleaded in the application that he apprehended infringemen...
Appa Dhondi Parrkhe and ors. Vs. Shrikant Vithalrao Joshi and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-1991
Reported in: (1992)94BOMLR783
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. This petition raises an interesting and important question of law concerning legal efficacy of 'partition' for purposes of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 where the lands were cultivated by the tenant on 1st April 1957 as a result whereof all the lands are allotted to the minor coparcener in the landlord's joint family so as to affect the right of the tenant to make statutory purchase of the lands in question.2. The impugned partition was purportedly effected by and between Respondent No. 1 - Shrikant Vithalrao Joshi, who was then a minor and his father Shri Vithalrao Joshi. The said impugned partition is supposed to have been effected on 28th November 1956. The Tenancy Aval Karkun, Ajara, held in the impugned proceedings for exemption of the petition lands initiated by Respondent No. 1 under Section 88C of the Act (being the proceedings referred to in later part of the order) that partition deed dated 28th November 1956 could not be recognised for th...
Jamshri Rajitsinghji Spg. and Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-1991
Reported in: (1992)41ITD142(Mum.)
1 to 5. [These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.] 6. The fifth ground raises a very important and interesting issue. The ground is that the CIT(Appeals) erred in not granting deduction of Rs. 31,71,231 being the amount of material import entitlement, the above income not having been received, accrued or arisen should have been excluded from the computation of the total income. This ground was raised before the CIT(Appeals) by way of an additional ground. The appellant, which is a limited company, is a textile mill. It exported part of the goods manufactured by them. They were thus entitled to the benefits of what is known as duty exemption scheme under which certain categories of exporters were entitled to receive raw material free of import duty against export commitment. Under the procedure laid down in this scheme, the exporter could obtain advance licence for the import of raw material duty-free. The imports made against such licences and the exports, wit...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Maganlal Vithaldas Panchmatiya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-1991
Reported in: [1993]199ITR772(Bom)
V.A. Mohta, J.1. These are applications under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Income-tax Act), for directing the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following two questions, said to be law, for the opinion of this court :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in cancelling the Commissioner of Income-tax's order under section 263 (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the income arising from property received on partition by the assessee is assessable as the income of the Hindu undivided family ?' 2. Since the applications arise out of a common order of the Tribunal, though for different assessment years, namely, 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83, and involve common questions of law, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.3. The undisputed factual background is this :4. M/s. Maganl...
Giridharlal Kalyandas Advani Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-1991
Reported in: 1994LC674(Bombay); 1992(58)ELT453(Bom)
ORDERPendse, J.1. The petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 referred to hereafter as 'the petitioners' are certified goldsmiths under Gold (Control) Act, 1968 and carry on their business at 506, Raviwar Peth, Pune. Respondent No. 3, Superintendent of Central Excise, raided the premises of the petitioners on February 23, 1980 and seized ornaments weighing 634.200 grams under panchanama on the assumption that the petitioners had contravened the provisions of Section 55 of the Gold (Control) Act. The petitioners were served with show-cause notice dated August 16, 1980 and the petitioners filed reply on August 25, 1980. After consideration of the reply, the Additional Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Pune, came to the conclusion that the gold under seizure belonged to the customers of the petitioners and is not liable to confiscation. After recording this finding, the Additional Collector observes in his order dated February 22, 1983 that the seized gold ornaments could not be returned to the pe...
Stoplik Services (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)BomCR684
S.M. Jhunjhunuwala, J.1. In the suit for declaration that the contract entered into by and between the plaintiffs and the 1st defendants is valid, subsisting and continues to bind the parties thereto and that under the terms thereof, the 1st defendants are not entitled to unilaterally reduce the quantity agreed to be taken delivery of by the 1st defendants thereunder and for other reliefs prayed for in the plaint filed. The plaintiffs have taken out the present Notice of Motion for an order of injunction to restrain the 1st defendant from invoking the Bank guarantee dated 28th September, 1989 issued by the 2nd defendants and furnished by the plaintiffs to the 1st defendants and also to restrain the 2nd defendants from making payment of any amount thereunder to the 1st defendants, as also for directions to the 1st defendants to place further orders, accept delivery and pay for the gland packings of contracted quantity and quality agreed to be supplied by the plaintiffs under and in acco...
The State of Maharashtra, Through the Food Inspector Vs. Raheman S/O C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-1991
Reported in: 1992(2)BomCR160
B.N. Deshmukh, J.1. This appeal is filed by the State challenging the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kandhar, on 30-12-1980. The respondent-accused, who was running a Kirana shop in Mondha, Loha. According to the prosecution, the respondent-accused, had sold adulterated food article and committed an offence under the provisions of section 2(1)(a) and (c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, in contravention of section 6 of the said Act, punishable under section 16 of the said Act.2. According to the prosecution, P.W. 2 Shivshankar Jalkote was the Food Inspector, who had visited the shop of the accused on 29-1-1979 along with P.W. 4 Premnath Kamble, another Food Inspector, and also in the company of one Patki. After disclosing his identity, he demanded dalchini (Cinamone) from the accused which was kept in the shop for sale. He purchased 300 grams of Dalchini and paid Rs. 12 towards the price and obtained the receipt (Exh. 43) from the ...
Dattaram Tukaram Bordekar, Since Deceased by His Heirs and Legal Repre ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-1991
Reported in: 1992(2)BomCR598
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. An interesting but immensely important dimension concerning proceedings under section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act has been raised in this proceeding which is being summarised below:Whether an applicant, who applies for ejectment of a tenant under section 41 of the Act is required to satisfy the Court that there is some justification in support of the application or whether as hitherto a held by the Courts, possession can be claimed on the simple ground that the lease has been terminated and that the opposite party has failed to restore possession regardless of there being any justification for such termination.2. It would be useful to first set out the salient facts. The petitioner was the tenant in respect of a shop bearing No. 6 in Jaykar House Girgaum, Bombay 400 004. The admitted position is that in 1942, Prabhakar Tiwatane, father of the original tenant sublet shop No. 6 to the petitioner. After the death of his father in a 1952, Prabhakar becam...
Cruz Fernandes and ors. Vs. Gregorina Estefania Sofia Fernandes Alias ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-1991
Reported in: 1991(4)BomCR400
E.S. Da'silva, J.1. This revision is directed against the Order of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao, dated 18th August, 1990, whereby he has answered in the negative the preliminary issue framed in the Special Civil Suit No. 158/88/A as to whether the defendants Nos. 4 and 5 in the suit had proved that the suit was not maintainable without filing inventory proceedings.2. A special civil suit bearing No. 158/88/A was filed by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 against the petitioners as well as the respondents Nos. 3 to 6 praying for a preliminary decree for partition and division in their favour in respect of the suit property 'Matyamada', including the residential house No. 482 situated at Orel-Assolna and allegedly claimed to belong to all of them in co-ownership. The petitioners as defendants Nos. 4 and 5 filed their written statement raising however a preliminary objection that no such suit was lying unless partition of the shares of the respective owners had been done by...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »