Mumbai Court January 1992 Judgments
A. Vs. H.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Bom70; (1992)94BOMLR154
ORDERN. D. Vyas, J. 1. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant wife from the judgment and order of the Family Court, Pune, granting divorce to the respondent husband. This appeal raises an important question, viz., whether a petitioner in support of his case can rely on allegations made by a respondent in her written statement, for the first time the same being made after the filing of a petition. 2. The trial Court has granted the respondent husband's petition for divorce on the ground that the appellant had treated respondent with cruelty. Further, the trial court has held that there was no ground for refusing the decree in view of the fact that the marriage was completely broken down. Mrs. Katdare, learned counsel for the appellant, has assailed the impugned decision on the ground that respondent had failed to prove his case and, therefore, the judgment of the trial Court should be set aside. Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent, has supported the impugned judgment. Be...
Tag this Judgment!Someshwar Sahakari Sakhar Limited and Etc. Vs. Shrinivas Patil and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1992
Reported in: AIR1992Bom457; 1992(1)BomCR590; 1992(1)MhLj883
ORDER1. This petition raises two questions of law in view of the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents as to the maintainability of this petition and it has, therefore, become necessary to deal with the said two questions at the admission stage itself. The said two questions of law are :--(i) whether the preparation of the list of voters for elections to the Managing Committee of a specified Society in accordance with the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act 1960 and the Maharashtra Specified Co-operative Societies Elections to Committees Rules 1971 is an intermediate stage in the process of election; and(ii) if the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, whether this Court should interfere in a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and hold up the election process or whether it should leave the parties to raise the necessary dispute by way of a substantive election petition as provided for under S. 144T of the Maharash...
Tag this Judgment!Jeevan Babu Desai Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1992
Reported in: 1994(2)BomCR325; (1992)94BOMLR125; 1992CriLJ2996
Daud, J. 1. This appeal takes exception to the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case is that the deceased Ratan was wedded to the appellant Jeevan about 10 to 15 years prior to July 1987. The couple were in the employ of P.W. 2 Raju Patil who was doing dairy business in the name and style of Kapila Dairy Farm at Mundhava, Pune. Patil owns a big herd of buffaloes and the business being on a somewhat large-scale, requires a retinue of servants. Ratan and Jeevan were part of the staff and were given accommodation at the farm, their quarter being Room No. 2. Relations between Jeevan and Ratan were strained and not cordial. Jeevan was addicted to drinking and possibly drugs also. He had a suspicious nature and was always short of money. The natural peevishness used to be given expression at all times irrespective of the place and situation. On 12-7-1987, the couple had been to a m...
Tag this Judgment!Sharadchandra S/O. Biharilal Paliwal Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1992
Reported in: 1994(4)BomCR633; (1992)94BOMLR735
B.U. Wahane, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30th December, 1980 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhandara in a Land Acquisition Case No. 2 of 1977 dismissing the reference made under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and confirming the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, B & IP No. VIII, Bhandara in a Land Acquisition Case No. 130/A.65/76-77 of village Sihora on 26-3-1977. It is not disputed that the land admeasuring 1.50 acres of the appellant has been acquired from Khasara No. 304 of village Sihora. Khasara No. 304 was 27.75 acres in area. Out of this 27.75 acres of land, 1.50 acres of land is acquired and the field is divided in two parts. One part is of 2 acres and another is of 24 acres. The land is acquired for Bagh and Iteadoh Project No. 8. A notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 was published on 19th Feb., 1976 in Government Gazette. During the land acquisition proceedings, the appli...
Tag this Judgment!Shaikh Abdul Gani Moula Baksha Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1992
Reported in: 1994(4)BomCR625
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. The appellant in this case has appealed against his conviction and the sentence imposed on him for the offence punishable under section 17 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Briefly stated, it is alleged that the appellant who is doing the business of cycle repairs was apprehended at Pimpri Chowk in front of Roxy Hotel, Pimpri, District Pune at about 1.45 p.m. and it is further alleged that 10 small paper packets containing gard powder were seized from his front shirt pocket. The packets collectively weighed 1.450 gms. and the appellant was placed under arrest for the reason that the analysis of the powder indicated that it was brown sugar or heroin. The appellant was thereafter charge-sheeted. The authorities forwarded the paper packets which had been seized under a panchanama and thereafter properly sealed, to the Chemical Analyser. The C.A. report at page 43 of the paper book indicates that on analysis, the contents of the 10 packets wer...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chanda Diesels
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1992
Reported in: [1995]216ITR639(Bom)
V.A. Mohta, J.1. This is a reference at the behest of the Revenue to answer the following question : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee was entitled for deduction under section 80HH of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessee, Chanda Diesels, a partnership firm, had claimed in the return of income for the assessment year 1978-79 deductions under (i) section 32A, (ii) section 80HH of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the I.T. Act'). Both the deductions were disallowed by the Income-tax Officer as well as the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal, however, allowed the deduction on both the counts and at the instance of the Revenue made this reference only in respect of deduction allowed under section 80HH. 3. One Kabra Brothers, a partnership firm, was carrying on the business of selling diesel engines at Chanda (backward area) in the trade name of Chanda Diesels up to September 30, 1976. The b...
Tag this Judgment!Himayat Ali S/O. Ashraf Ali Jaidi Vs. Murari S/O. Purushottam Tapaswi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1992
Reported in: 1994(2)BomCR82
A.D. Mane, J.1. This civil revision application is filed by the original defendant-tenant against the judgment and decree dated April 11, 1986, passed by the lower Appellate Court reversing the judgment and decree passed in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent.2. The material facts are these :The respondent-landlord filed Small Cause Suit No. 165 of 1983 against the petitioner for the recovery of sum of Rs. 1,050/- being the arrears of rent for six months from December, 1982 to May, 1983 at the rate of Rs. 175/- per month. The petitioner disputed the said claim, inter alia, stating that the respondent was not entitled to claim more that the agreed rent of Rs. 150/- per month. It has been submitted by the petitioner that the agreed rent of Rs. 150/- which was fixed at the time when the premises were let out was increased to Rs. 160/- from January 1980 and to Rs. 175/- from December, 1980. The petitioner, therefore, submitted that the respondent was not entitled to increase the rent un...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Saraf Bandhu Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1992
Reported in: [1995]216ITR833(Bom)
ORDER--Applicability of doctrine--Original order goes in appeal and the appeal is decided.HELD :Original order ceases to exist, since it merges within the appellate order, hence not revisable. --CIT v. P. Muncherji & Co. (1987) 167 ITR 671 (Bom), Ritz Ltd. v. Union of India (1990) 184 ITR 599 (Bom), CIT v. International Computers Indian . (1991) 187 ITR 580 (Bom), Tel Utpadak Kendra v. Dy. CST (1981) 48 STC 248 (SC) and Khandelwal Ferro Alloys Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (1991) 80 STC 42 (Bom) followed.Application :Also to current assessment years.Income Tax Act 1961 s.263 ...
Tag this Judgment!Meena Anilkumar Walambe (Smt.) Vs. Anilkumar Govind Walambe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1992
Reported in: 1992(1)BomCR514; (1992)94BOMLR88
A.A. Cazi, J.1. This civil revision application is directed against the order dated 25th April, 1991 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane, holding that the Court at Thane had jurisdiction to try the Marriage Petition No. 304 of 1988. 2. The facts, necessary to consider the question that arise for decision, are as follows: The petitioner (original respondent) and the respondent (original petitioner) were married on 16th December, 1973 at Pune. A son Manish was born to them on 1st December, 1974 They resided sometime at Chembur and sometime at Thane. The husband's (respondent's) Parents are staying at Thane. In 1978, both the parties with their son went to U.S.A. On 29th November, 1988 the wife was sent back to India and she stayed with her brother at Nashik. On 13th December, 1988 the respondent came to India and filed Marriage Petition No. 304 of 1988 against the wife for divorce of the ground of cruelty. He filed this petition in the District Court at Thane.3. The p...
Tag this Judgment!Rajan Ajitkumar Sarkar Alias Rajan Bangali Vs. Shri S. Ramamurthi, Com ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1992
Reported in: 1994(2)BomCR332
S.P. Kardukar, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of habeas corpus is filed by the petitioner-detenu challenging the legality and correctness of the detention order dated 6th May, 1991, issued under section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 by the 1st respondent, the detaining authority.2. The impugned order came to be served upon the detenu on 21 June, 1991.3. Number of contentions were taken up in the writ petition. But, however, Mr. Tripathi, learned Counsel appearing in support of this petition, pressed into service the contentions relating to the delay on the part of the Union of India in disposing of the representation of the petitioner detenu. In our opinion also, if the said contention is upheld, it is not necessary to consider the other contentions.4. According to the petitioner, he sent his representation to the Union of India on 16th October, 1991. It is common premise that the concerned authority of the Union of India rec...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »