Mumbai Court January 1992 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.
Chhaya Vishnu Sadavarte (Smt.) Vs. Indubai Alias Indumati Bhaskar Bhav ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)BomCR666
A.A. Cazi, J.1. By this Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 28th August 1984 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nasik, below Exhibit 16 in Regular Darkhast No. 31 of 1982 by which order the petitioner's application objecting to issue warrant of possession of premises was rejected and also the order dated 10th September 1984 passed by the III Extra Assistant Judge, Nasik in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 15 of 1984 by which order the petitioner's appeal was rejected as not maintainable.2. One Vishnu Eknath Sadavarte was a tenant in respect of shop/go down premises situated at Saraf Bazar, Nasik. On 16th December 1971 his landlords filed Regular Civil Suit No. 32 of 1972 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior-Division. Nasik for evicting him from those premises. During the pendency of the suit, the said Vishnu Eknath Sadavarte died on 10th September 1974. His widow, two sons and one daughter were brought on record as the legal representatives of the deceased. T...
Bapusaheb Raosaheb Desai Vs. Nanasaheb Alias Narayan Shripad Deshpande ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)BomCR1
A.A. Cazi, J.1. The petitioner was the plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 52 of 1974 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gadhinglaj. Respondent No. 1 and one Bhima Dhondi Patil were the two defendants. Bhima Dhondi Patil died during the pendency of the suit on 2nd May, 1983. An application was made on 23rd April, 1984 to the trial Court on behalf of the petitioner bringing the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased on record. The Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gadhinglaj rejected that application by his order dated 12th July, 1984.2. In prosecuting his application dated 23rd April, 1984 the case of the petitioner was that the period of limitation for bringing the heirs on record of the deceased party commenced from the date of the knowledge obtained by the petitioner of the date of death of the deceased party. This contention was negatived by the learned Civil Judge. This writ petition reiterated the same point. However, at the time of hearing of this writ petiti...
Damyanti Kirit Jani Vs. Kirit Lalubhai Jani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-1992
Reported in: II(1992)DMC150
H.H. Kantharia, J.1. The appellant is the wife of the respondent. They were married on May 4, 1980 at a village called Ruvath in Gujarat according to Hindu vedic rites. The marriage was not registered. It appears that they filed M.J. Petition No. 980 of 1988 Under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as amended uptodate (hereinafter referred to as the 'Hindu Marriage Act') in the City Civil Court at Bombay for divorce by mutual consent. The learned Judge of the City Civil Court, by a Roznama dated March 20, 1989, passed a decree pf divorce. The appellant-wife, being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, filed the present appeal on the ground that a fraud was committed on her inasmuch as she was taken from her matrimonial house to the City Civil Court by her respondent-husband saying that they were to shift to a new house regarding which she would be asked certain questions by the Judge and she must answer in the affirmativ...
Shri Anthony Augostinho Florence Fereira Vs. Bank of Baroda and Anothe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-1992
Reported in: [1993]76CompCas148(Bom)
M.L. Dudhat, J.1. The appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vasco-da-Gama dated February 25, 1987, in Special Civil Suit No. 23 of 1984. The appellant in this case is original defendant No. 2. Respondent No. 1, original plaintiff is Bank of Baroda, having its branch office in Goa. Respondent No. 2 is the original defendant No. 1 to whom the plaintiffs had advanced a loan of Rs. 56,000. The present appellant was joined as defendant No. 2 in the said suit as a surety to the aforesaid loan of Rs. 56,000 advanced by the plaintiffs to defendant No. 1. It was contended on behalf of the plaintiff-bank that defendant No. 1 had applied for a loan of Rs. 56,000 some time in the month of March, 1981, as he intended to purchase a Matador pick-up. The said loan was sanctioned by the plaintiff-bank and defendant No. 1 purchased the Matador pick-up on March 12, 1981. As per the terms of the agreement entered into between the plaint...
Cricket Club of India Ltd. and ors. Vs. Esic and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)BomCR615; [1992(65)FLR941]; (1993)ILLJ642Bom; 1992(1)MhLj483
1. The short question that arises for my decision in the present petition is whether the Cricket Club of India is covered by the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter, 'the Act') 2. Section 1(4) of the Act provides that, 'It shall apply, in the first instance, to all factories (including factories belonging to the Government) other than seasonal factories.' The above provision, therefore, makes the Act applicable to factories. 3. Section 2(12) of the Act defines factories in the following terms :- ''factory' means any premises including the precincts thereof - (a) whereon ten or more persons are employed for wages on any day of the preceding twelve months, and in any part of which a manufacturing process is being carried on with the aid of power or is ordinarily so carried on, or (b) whereon twenty or more persons are employed or were employed for wages on any day of the preceding twelve months, and in any part of which a manufacturing process is being carried on without t...
Ramu Shivappa Agalgave and ors. Vs. Imam Kashim Pathan and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)BomCR560
A.A. Cazi, J.1. The trial Court by its order dated 1st December, 1983 refused to frame an issue as to whether the plaintiff's (present petitioners) prove that the suit land is leased to the plaintiff's and defendant No. 6 is a joint family and that they were in possession of the suit land as tenants. It is against this order of refusal to frame that issue, the petitioners (original plaintiff's) have filed the present writ petition.2. It is urged that the plaintiff's made a specific claim in their plaint that they were the tenants in respect of the suit land having taken lease of the same from respondent No. 1 and that this tenancy was prior to 1st April 1957 and that since this claim has been denied by respondent No. 2, the reliefs claimed by the petitioners in that suit cannot be decided without deciding upon this claim made by the petitioners and that therefore the trial Court was bound to frame the above said issue and then refer the same to the Tenancy Court under the provisions of...
Dattatraya J. Shinde Vs. Sau. Sunita D. Shinde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-1992
Reported in: I(1992)DMC541
S.W. Puranik, J.1. The appellant herein is the original respondent in a proceeding under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code presented by respondent-Sunita (Original petitioner) before the trial Court. The trial Court, after recording of evidence, has concluded that the wife-Sunita is entitled to maintenance of Rs. 250/- per month and directed the husband to pay her the same accordingly. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the husband-Dattatraya has preferred this appeal.2. At the time when this appeal was admitted, the appellant-husband had also prayed for stay of recovery proceedings in respect of the maintenance amount awarded. It was contended that the appellant is a washerman and is undergoing financial stringency. He carries on small laundry business in a small town and is, therefore, unable to pay Rs. 250/- per month to the wife. This Court, by order dated 7th February 1991 passed in Civil Application No. 223 of 1991, directed that an amount of Rs. 150/- per month, instead of Rs. 250/...
Bombay Kwality Laminator Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-1992
Reported in: 1992(42)LC283(Bombay)
ORDER1. Rule taken forthwith and heard the counsel on both sides.2. The writ petition seeks orders for clearance of the goods covered by the Bills of Entries, Exhibits I, J and K, imported by the petitioners.3. When the matter came up for hearing on 6.1.1992, after adverting to various aspects, the parties were directed to consider a workable arrangement, having regard to various facts and circumstances.4. The petitioner No. 1 is a concern having a standing of 18 years. It had obtained certificates, about which the Respondents do not have any case of they being forged or otherwise vitiated. There are of course keenly contested positions between the parties, the petitioners contending that the certificates are valid, that they could be acted upon on facts and in law and that the respondents do not have any authority to go behind the tenor and factum of those documents. On the other hand, the respondents want to make out that as a result of further investigation made, other matters surfa...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bombay Pipe Traders
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-1992
Reported in: [1995]213ITR282(Bom)
V.A. Mohta, J.1. In this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the I.T. Act'), at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax of Vidarbha and Marathwada, Nagpur, the following question needs to be answered : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, for levy of penalty, the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) can be relied upon before the Tribunal when the Explanation is neither invoked at the time of levy of penalty nor before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ?' 2. The assessee, Messrs. Bombay Pipe Traders, Nagpur, returned an income of Rs. 54,447 for the assessment year 1971-72. The Income-tax Officer made additions to the tune of Rs. 16,993 on account of defects in the account books. He also made the following four additions on specific grounds : Rs.(i) Inflation of purchases 2,000(ii) Inflation of purchases and deflation of sales 1,037(iii) Inflation of expenses under railway freight 2,034(iv) Unexplained cash credits 2,280Specifically ...
Indian Tool Manufacturers Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-1992
Reported in: 1992(59)ELT379(Bom)
K. Sukumaran, J.1. The petitioners had imported the goods i.e. alloy steel described in Item 4 mentioned in Notification Exhibit A dated 28-2-1982. That notification was repealed on 20-8-1982. In respect of goods imported during the period between 28-2-1982 and 20-8-1982 authorities sought to levy auxiliary duty. The petitioners protested against the same. Interim relief permitting the petitioners to release the goods on furnishing Bank Guarantee was granted. 2. The question involved in this Writ Petition is similar to the one considered by the Full Bench of this Court in Apar Private Limited & Others v. Union of India & Others, : 1985(22)ELT644(Bom) . 3. In the light of the principle laid down therein, the exemption from duty enjoyed by the goods imported by the petitioners during the period of operation of Notification dated 20-2-1982, cannot be disturbed or deprived of by operation of later Notification. The said principle has equal application in relation to auxiliary duty. In that...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »