Mumbai Court September 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.
Daulat Makanmal Luthria Vs. Solitaire Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1991
Reported in: [1993]76CompCas215(Bom)
K. Sukumaran J.1. The petitioner in Company Petition No. 2-S of 1991 has come up in appeal against the judgment of the learned single judge dated 14-8-1991 by which his petition under sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, for an order of winding up of the company, Messrs. Solitaire Hotels Pvt. Ltd., has been dismissed. 2. The company was incorporated in 1985. The main object was the running of a hotel and allied activities. The capital structure disclosed an authorised share capital of 50,000 equity shares of Rs. 100 each and 5,000 preference shares of Rs. 100 each. Initially conceived as a three-star hotel with 38 rooms, it later underwent a change in conception with extended accommodation of 50 rooms and additional facilities like a swimming pool. At the time of filing of the petition in February, 1991, the construction was complete and the commercial activity was at a take off stage. 3. The petitioner, an estate broker and financier, was attracted to the company some time...
Gabriel Joseph Vs. Feroz Gulam Sarvar Khan and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ458
ORDER1. This petition has been presented by the original complainant in C.R. No. 364 of 1990 registered by the Andheri Police Station and is directed against an order dated 29-8-1990 of anticipatory bail granted to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 herein, by the Additional Sessions Judge. The petition was filed before this Court on 7-11-1990 and for a variety of reasons has not been disposed of until the present point of time. 2. Shri Shamrao G. Samant, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, made a strong grievance to the effect that applications of the present type ought to be taken up and disposed of with utmost expediency as otherwise the entire object of the litigant having moved the High Court gets frustrated. While quoting the history of what has happened in this case, Shri Samant submits that even if any relief is granted in the present petition, it would be of little avail now because it may not be possible to effectively undo damage that has occurred due to the efflux ...
Goa Bottling Company Private Limited Vs. Pradeep Sardesai and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)BomCR297; [1992(65)FLR279]; (1995)IIILLJ280Bom
K. Sukumaran, J1. An award passed by the Industrial Tribunal is complained against both by the management and by the workman. They have come to this Court seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. Writ Petition No. 180 of 1991 is by the management and Writ Petition No. 310 of 1991 is by the workman.2. The dispute was in relation to the termination of services of the workman Pradeep Sardesai. The workman contended that the termination was for a misconduct, but without conducting an enquiry as mandated by law. He claimed reinstatement in service with back wages, right from the date of termination of his services on 16.5.1978. According to the management he was surplus to the requirements of the Company having regard to the attenuated nature of its activities which surfaced even as early as in 1975. According to it, the petitioner was junior most in the category of salesmen. He was being accommodated essentially on humanitarian grounds. When his conduct, however, indicated a d...
Municipal Commissioner and anr. Vs. Empire Estate
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1991
Reported in: 1991(4)BomCR60
D.J. Moharir, J.1. This is an appeal directed against the decision of the Additional Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Bombay, under section 217 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act reducing the rateable value and assessment for tax of the property held by the respondent.2. The respondent Empire Estate is a private limited firm which was constituted in the year 1967 and of which the three partners initially were Mrs. Ellen Keki Modi, Rustom Keki Modi and one minor Miss Maneck Keki Modi was to join the partnership upon her attaining majority. The business of the partnership was exhibition, distribution and production of cinematography films, buying and selling lands and properties as also development thereof. After the partnership was constituted by a registered deed dated 22nd December, 1966, the partnership entered into agreement for purchase of a property 'The Empire Cinema Building' which is the subject matter of the present dispute. A certain trust known as Messrs. Narayanan Inve...
Sahadeo S/O Amrutrao Ingle Vs. Khushal S/O Naresaji Wankhade and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1991
Reported in: 1993(3)BomCR598
M.S. Deshpande, J.1. This second appeal by the original plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Amravati, by which he reversed the decree for possession passed by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiff and dismissed the suit.2. The plaintiff-Sahadeo sought possession of an open site, north-south 33', east-west 22 1/2', situated within the boundaries mentioned in para-1 of the plaint, which was to the south of his house, bearing Gram Panchayat No. 537/A. According to him, the property belonged to one Shankar Ram Ingale who sold it on 28-1-1972 to one Sheshrao. Sheshrao constructed a tiled structure at the cost of Rs. 500/- on it and gave it to the first defendant for his residence, because the first defendant was closely related to him. Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 are the sons of the first defendant. The possession of the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 was, thus, permissive. In 1979, the defendants removed the tile-structure without Sheshrao's permis...
Kishore Kumar Choudhary Vs. Registrar, Marathwada University and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1991
Reported in: (1991)93BOMLR684
H.W. Dhabe, J.1. The petitioner was admitted to the Bachelor of Engineering (for short 'B.E.') Course of the Marathwada University in the Marathwada Technology, Aurangabad, (for short 'M.I.T. College, Aurangabad'). After passing the First Year Examination in B.E. Course, he appeared for the Second year Examination in the said Course in October/November, 1990. In the said Examination he received 26 marks out of 100 in the Mathematics Paper III and was therefore, declared failed in the said subject as the passing marks required were 40. He, however, continued his studies in the Third Year of the B.E. Course in the said College and appeared for the Third Year Examination in April/May, 1991, in which according to the petitioner he had passed, but his result was withheld.2. It is the case of the petitioner that after the receipt of the mark-sheet of the second Year B.E. Examination, the petitioner made an application to the Marathwada University for recounting of his marks on 23.2.1991. How...
Kantabai W/O Bapurao Khapre and anr. Vs. Bapurao S/O Namdeo Khapre and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1991
Reported in: (1991)93BOMLR648
A.A. Halbe, J.1. The important question raised is about the scope of Section 112 of the Evidence Act, which provides for the presumption about the birth of a child during the marriage.2. The said provision clearly reads that-If a person is born during the continuance of a valid marriage between his mother and any man or within 280 days after dissolution of their marriage, the mother remaining unmarried, it would be conclusive to hold that the said person is legitimate son of both these spouses.The only exception that has been carved out in that Section is that this presumption which emerges from Section 112 of the Evidence Act can only be set at naught if it could be shown that the parties to the marriage had no access to each other at any time, the child could have been begotten. This question really dominates the consideration of maintenance payable to the petitioner and her minor daughter, who have been branded as petitioner No. 1 being a woman of easy virtue and the petitioner No. ...
Arvind Kotecha Vs. Mahesh Kumar and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)BomCR439; (1992)94BOMLR836; [1994]79CompCas338(Bom); 1992CriLJ124
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. The jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a criminal proceeding at a pre-trial stage is often exercised and the principles governing the situation in which such power would be justifiably used are embodied in a number of judgments of the Supreme Court, this court and several other High Courts. On this occasion, it may be necessary to classify a class of cases in which the exercise of power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ought to be refrained from. 2. A few relevant facts giving rise to this petition are as follows : A criminal complaint bearing No. 256/S of 1989 came to be filed before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 23rd Court, Esplanade, Bombay, by one Mahesh Kumar Mathur for and on behalf of M/s. Binod Mills Co. Ltd., Ujjain. The complaint alleged the commission of offences under section 120B, 409 read with section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and under section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956. It was primarily alleged in ...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Jagdish B. Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)BomCR405; 1992CriLJ2394
1. An issue of considerable importance has been canvassed on behalf of the original accused in this and the companion appeal which I am summarizing below. (1) Whether in a criminal trial, the consequences of which could result in a heavy jail sentence to an accused the proof of the principal piece of evidence, namely, the Chemical Analyser's Report can be dispensed with by the prosecution which attempts to tender the document through the Investigating Officer without examining the Analysing Authority, and whether in the absence of the Chemical Analyst being presented as a witness the document itself can either be looked at or relied upon by the Court 2. This and the companion appeal have been presented by the State of Maharashtra and challenge the judgments and orders dated 21-10-1983 of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 3rd Court, Esplanade, Bombay, whereunder the original accused in those cases came to be acquitted. It was alleged that on the morning of 16-1-1981 ...
Union of India Vs. Gtc Industries Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-1991
Reported in: 1991(56)ELT733(Bom)
S.M. Jhunjhunuwala, J. 1. This Appeal has been preferred by the Union of India and another against the judgment and order of the Learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 2413 of 1985, by which the Rule has been partly allowed and the Appellants are ordered to refund the sum of Rs. 35,57,094.74 being the amount of excess recovery made from Respondents for the period from 30th November, 1982 to 7th December 1982 together with interest therein at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the judgment i.e. 4th November, 1987 until payment. 2. The 1st Respondents are engaged in the manufacture of cigarettes having the factory situated at Vileparle, Bombay. The 1st Respondents are required to pay excise Duty on excisable articles produced or manufactured by the 1st Respondents as per the rates that prevail under The Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (now referred to as 'the said Act.). In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (Now refe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »