Mumbai Court February 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.
Executive Engineer, Unjani Canal, Div. No. 6 and anr. Vs. Tukaram Pand ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-1991
Reported in: 1991ACJ1077; 1991(2)BomCR98; [1991(63)FLR843]; (1995)IIILLJ878Bom; 1991(1)MhLj783
A.A. Desai, J.1. This appeal at the behest of State raises a question as to whether a personnel engaged under the Employment Guarantee Scheme in the event of disability suffered during the course of the employment, is entitled to claim compensation as per the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (the Act of 1923).2. The respondent Tukaram was provided work under the Scheme. On 3rd of June 1982 while on duty he met with an accident and ultimately lost his four fingers of the left hand. He approached the Commissioner under Section 19 of the Act of 1923. By the impugned award the Commissioner has awarded compensation of Rs. 12,600. While challenging the award Mr. Patil, the learned Government Pleader for the State, urged that in view of Section 16 of the Maharashtra Employment Act, 1977 (the Act of 1977) the respondent is not entitled to claim such compensation under the provisions of the Act of 1923. Mr. Patil pointed out that Section 16 has overriding effect, which reads t...
Godrej Soaps Ltd. and anr. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Bombay and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-1991
Reported in: 1991(3)BomCR447
S.M. Daud, J.1. Do Alpha Olefin (AO) and Alpha Olefin Sulphonate (AOS) used in the manufacture of detergents qualify as 'other substances used in washing clothes, floors and utensils' occurring in Entry 18, Schedule H of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act-hereinafter referred to as the 'BMC Act'2. Petitioner No. 1-a Company- is in the business of manufacture of detergents. A raw material used in the said manufacture is AOS and this is created by neutralising and sulphonate the chemical AO. The resultant substance is known as sodium alpha olefin Sulphonate. Mixed with organic and inorganic builders, it is used to manufacture detergent products taken recourse to in cleaning operations. Petitioner disputes the respondents' (BMC) treating the import of AO and AOS as leviable to octroi under Entry 18 of Schedule H which reads thus :---'Potash, ritha, soda, alum, saline substances, shikekai, washing soda, caustic soda, refined salt-petre, phenyl, and substances used in washing clothes, flo...
Executive Engineer Ujani Canal Division Vs. Tukaram Panduran Dedhe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-1991
Reported in: II(1992)ACC249
A.A. Desai, J. 1. This appeal at the behest of State raises a question as to whether a personnel engaged under the Employment Guarantee Scheme in the event of disability suffered during the course of the employment is entitled to claim compensation as per the provisions of the Workment's Compensation Act, 1923 (the Act of 1923).2. The respondent Tukaram was provided work under the Scheme. On 3rd of June 1982 while on duty he met with an accident and ultimately lost his four fingers of the left hand. He approached the Commissioner under Section 19 of the Act of 1923. By the impugned award the Commissioner has awarded compensation of Rs. 12,600/-. While challenging the award Mr. Patil, the learned Government Pleader for the State, urged that in view of Section 16 of the Maharashtra Employment Guarantee Act, 1977 (the act of 1977) the respondent is not entitled to claim such compensation under the provisions of the Act of 1923. Mr. Patil pointed out that Section 16 has overriding 'effect,...
Ahmedabad Electricity Co.Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1991
Reported in: (1991)95CTR(Bom)56; [1991]190ITR413(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred to this court the following two questions of law under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : '(1) Whether the method of determining the 'actual cost' of an asset as prescribed by section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was applicable in respect of assets acquired prior to the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1962-63 in the assessments for the years after April 1, 1962 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in not allowing the assessee leave to raise in its own appeals additional grounds and in the departmental appeals cross-objections regarding the deductibility of the sums transferred to contingency reserve and tariff and dividend control reserve 2. The assessee is a company engaged in the generation and distribution of electricity. The proceedings relate to the assessment years 1962-63 to 1972-73 (both inclusive). Counsel are agreed that the first q...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Tara Sarup
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1991
Reported in: 1991(3)BomCR460; [1991]188ITR783(Bom)
T.D. Sugla J.1. This is a departmental reference relating to the assessment of the assessee, an individual, for the assessment year 1963-64. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred to this court the following question of law under section 256(1) of the Income-tax, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee's claim for allowance of development rebate on additions to the plant and machinery made during the previous year in the business styled as Amar Tara Industries and Indian Cork Mills can be rejected on the ground that the businesses which were the proprietary concerns of the assessee were, with effect from March 1, 1963, within the previous year, converted into partnership concerns of which the assessee was one of the partners?' 2. The assessee was carrying on business under the name and style of Indian Cork Mills, Textile Overseas Corporation and Amar Tara Industries as sole proprietress. The previous year ended on March 31, 1963. Some ti...
Vaijayantabai W/O Keru Gangarde and anr. Vs. Keru Anant Gangarde, Sinc ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)BomCR336; (1991)93BOMLR1004; II(1991)DMC548
V.V. Kamat, J.1. The disastrous consequences of the age old anxiety for the birth of a male child that are suffered by the appellant No. 1 in this appeal are writ large on the face of the present proceedings.2. The question that is posed by this appeal is whether the appellant No. 1 can base her claim for maintenance under section 18(2)(d) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, inspite of the fact that her marriage is not legal in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. This claim has been denied by the trial court, leaving her to approach this court by this appeal.3. On January 8, 1975, the appellant No.1 - Vaijayantabai for herself and on behalf of the appellant No. 2, her daughter Taibai, filed in forma pauperis Special Civil Suit No. 130 of 1975 in the court of the Second Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar for maintenance, arrears thereof, the marriage expenses and the cost of the suit.4. Practically all the facts which form the basis ...
Joginder Singh, Through His Constituted Attorney Vs. Telecom Divisiona ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1991
Reported in: 1993(1)BomCR102
H.W. Dhabe, J.1. Parties by Counsel. Rule. Heard forthwith.2. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that there is excessive billing on his telephone which for nonpayment of the excessive bill is illegally disconnected by the Telephone Department.3. The facts are that the petitioner is having telephone No. 2775 (Vasco). The grievance of the petitioner is that he has received excessive bill on his telephone for the following periods :from 1-02-1990 to 31-03-1990 --- Rs. 6,796.90from 1-04-1990 to 31-05-1990 --- Rs. 6,429.00from 1-10-1990 to 31-12-1990 --- Rs. 16,465.00from 1-12-1990 to 31-01-1991 --- Rs. 3,733.004. According to him for the period from 1-2-1990 to 31-3-1990 the bill was split up into two bills of Rs. 527/- + Rs. 6269/-, out of which he has paid Rs. 527/-. To his complaint in regard to the excess bill for the above period, the Telephone Department informed him by its letter dated 26-6-1990 that his complaint was thoroughly examined and it was found that h...
Shri FakkihussaIn Fakkihasan Qureshi Vs. Shri L. Hmingliana, Secretary ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1991
Reported in: 1995(1)BomCR114
S.W. Puranik, J.1. The petitioner is the uncle of the detenu Sayad Shakeel Ahmed who has been detained by an order dated 2nd July, 1990 passed by the 1st respondent to this petition under section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988.2. The petitioner challenges the order of detention of the detenu on various grounds. However, we feel that this petition can be disposed of on the very first submission that the order suffers from the vice of non-application of mind.3. In the order of detention, Annexure 'A' to the petition, in paragraph 2, the detaining authority has recorded his satisfaction that it is necessary to pass the said order for detaining Sayed Shakeel Ahmed of Johanesburg, South Africa, with a view to preventing him from engaging in export from India of Narcotic drugs.4. The grounds of detention, Annexure 'B' to the petition, show that the contraband material which was seized from the detenu was a batch of mandrax ta...
Rewachand Ladharam Ramchandani Vs. Naraindas B. Kanuga and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Bom434; 1991(3)BomCR572
1. Mr. Nain states that Defendants do not wish to raise or press Issues based on the Money Lenders Act.Other Issues raised and marked settled. 2. Mr. Mody tenders a voucher dated 25th March 1975. He submits that the Defendants have in the Written Statement admitted that the voucher was signed by the 1st Defendant on behalf of 2nd Defendant. He points out that the Defendants have admitted that a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was received. Mr. Mody submits that the docu-ment.speaks for itself. mR. Mody submits that the burden of proving that the voucher was signed in blank is on the Defendants. In support of his submission Mr. Mody relies upon : AIR1931All159 and an unreported judgment of this Court dated 14th April 1975 in Suit No. 277 of 1969. Mr. Mody submits that the Plaintiff is entitled to merely tender this voucher. 3. Mr. Nain objects on two grounds. Firstly he submits that the burden of proving Issues Nos. 1, 2 and 4 is on the Plaintiff. He submits that if the Plaintiff has to prove any I...
Chowgule Real Estate and Construction Company Vs. Commissioner of Inco ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1991
Reported in: [1991]189ITR625(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. The questions referred to this court by the Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as questions of law read thus : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim of the assessee to allow a sum of Rs. 1,442, as development rebate allowance under section 33 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has been rightly rejected for the assessment year 1964-65 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim of the assessee to allow a sum of Rs. 582 as development rebate allowance under section 33 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has been rightly rejected for the assessment year 1966-67 ?' 2. The assessment years involved are assessment years 1964-65 and 1966-67. Counsel are agreed that, in view of the amendment of section 34(3)(a) by the Finance Act, 1990, with retrospective effect from April 1, 1962, the legal position is clearly in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Accordingly, the Tribunal's order cann...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »