Mumbai Court November 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.
Mrs. Poonam Rajendra Murkar Vs. Rajendra Vasant Murkar and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-12-1992
Reported in: (1992)94BOMLR458
Bhimrao N. Naik, J.1. Heard Mr. M.M. Vashi for the Petitioner and Mr. J.M. D'Silva for Respondent No. 1.Rule, returnable forthwith.Mr. D'Silva waives service for Respondent No. 1.Respondent No. 2 being formal party, service dispensed with.The Petitioner in her petition has basically challenged the inaction on the part of the learned Judge in deciding her application dated 17th Dec. 1991 and application annexed at Exhibit 'D' which is undated. By the first application Petitioner made 3-4 prayers; firstly pertaining to interim alimony, secondly with reference to the expenditure for the purpose of attending legal proceedings and thirdly for custody of her minor children. At Exhibit 'D' which is annexed to the petition she prayed that she should be permitted to engage a lawyer.2. It appears that the first prayer in the application dated 17th December, 1991 has already been granted by the learned Judge. But the grievance of the petitioner appears to be that, notwithstanding passing such an ...
N.P. Lotlikar Vs. C.B.i. and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-11-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ2051
1. This criminal appeal, which has been preferred by a Senior Superintendent of Customs, raises certain significant issues with regard to the law relating to corruption trials. Having regard to the fact that the questions were debated with a considerable amount of vigour and that the points canvassed are one of far-reaching consequence to the appellant-accused in this case, and to a large number of similarly situated public servants who are faced with proceedings of this type, it is necessary to deal with those aspects with some amount of elaborateness. The present appellant, who started his career almost half a century back in 1948 under the then Portugese regime, worked with the Customs Department at Bombay from 1954. Sometime towards the end of the year 1985, the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as 'the C.B.I. Authorities') raided his house and seized various amounts of jewellery, documents etc. and thereafter continued with the investigations. The appellant,...
Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-11-1992
Reported in: (1993)113CTR(Bom)381; [1994]208ITR291(Bom)
Smt. Sujata Manohar, J.1. The assessee-company carries on business as construction engineers. It has carried out the work of construction of roads, dams, etc., for the assessment year 1968-69 which is the year under reference. The assessee had claimed development rebate on its plant and machinery used in its business of carrying out construction work at a higher rate of 35 per cent. on the ground that it was engaged in a priority industry. This claim was rejected by the Revenue authorities who held that the assessee was entitled to development rebate of 20 per cent. only. The Tribunal has agreed with this view taken by the Revenue authorities relying on an order of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 1967-68. 2. The assessee had returned long-term capital gains at Rs. 37,676. This figure was accepted by the Income-tax Officer. However, before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner the assessee contended that for working out the capital gains, the market value ...
S.L. Kirloskar Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-11-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)BomCR557; (1993)95BOMLR21; 1993LC175(Bombay); 1993(68)ELT533(Bom); 1993(1)MhLj550
1. The short question which falls for determination in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is whether Directors and Offices of a Public Limited Company can be made liable for levy of penalty under Rule 9(2) and Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Only few facts are required to be stated to appreciate the grievance of the petitioners. The petitioner are Director/Executives of Kirlosker Brothers limited which is Public Limited Company registered under the Companies Act. The Company is engaged in manufacturing activities and, inter alia, manufactures Hermetic Compressors which are liable for payment of excise duty under Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. On January 15, 1986, the Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Pune served show cause notice upon the Company and the petitioners to explain why penalty should not be imposed under Rule 9(2) and Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules. The notice inter alia, recites that the Company had contr...
Transport Corpn. of India Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-11-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)BomCR723; (1993)IILLJ365Bom
1. All these 28 Writ Petitions are directed against (1) Government of Maharashtra Order, Industries Energy and Labour Department, No. ADV 5781/1652/LAB-2 dated August 12, 1981 referring for adjudication of certain disputes under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Industrial Tribunal, Maharashtra, and (2) the Award dated November 12, 1986 passed by the Industrial Tribunal (S. A. Patil) Maharashtra, Bombay in Reference (I.T.) No. 225 of 1981. 2. We are concerned with the road transport industry i.e. business of transport of goods by trucks or lorries. The Government of Maharashtra had already fixed minimum rates of wages for workers engaged in the transport industry (See para 8 of the impugned award). Respondent No. 3 (All India Transport Employees' Association) is a Trade Union, registered under the Trade Unions Act, whose members are some of the workers of some of the units of the road transport industry covered by this writ petition. The third respondent, on behalf of the worker...
Promer Sales Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Manohar Sondhur and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-11-1992
Reported in: (1993)95BOMLR23; (1993)IILLJ997Bom
1. The first respondent-workman (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant') was appointed by the petitioner-Company (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company') with effect from June 1, 1973 as a sales representative initially on temporary basis and was subsequently confirmed. The Company is a trading concern engaged in sale of radios, transistors, T.V. sets etc., and has its branch office at Bombay from where the business was carried on throughout the State of Maharashtra. The complainant filed a complaint of unfair labour practice covered by Item 1(a)(b) and (f) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the MRTU and PULP Act') in the Third Labour Court at Bombay against the company on the grounds that although he was an efficient workman for which he was even given rewards, his services were terminated with effect from March 11, 1978 for no rhyme or reason and thus the company engaged ...
Hindustan Engineering Products Company and anr. Vs. the Municipal Corp ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-11-1992
Reported in: 1993(2)BomCR141; (1993)95BOMLR536
B.P. Saraf, J.1. Petitioner No. 1 is a partnership firm having its registeredoffice at Calcutta and a branch office at Bombay. The petitionersare founders and mechanical engineers and are having a factory atGhatsila (Bihar). In the said factory the petitioners manufacturecast iron pipes and fittings under the brand name 'HEP'. The saidcast iron pipes and fittings are sent by the petitioners to theirBombay Branch Office for sale in the local market. These goods upontheir entry into Greater Bombay are liable to octroi under the BombayMunicipal Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')2. The petitioners had been marketing these pipes and pipefittings in Greater Bombay ever since 1980. From 1980 uptoNovember 1987, pipes and pipe fittings brought by thepetitioners into Bombay were treated by the appropriateauthorities for the purpose of levy of octroi as pipes fallingunder Item 47 of Schedule H appended to the Bombay MunicipalCorporation Act. The rate of octroi leviable under t...
Mrs. Jerbanoo Khurshed Cursetji and ors. Vs. Adi Khurshedji Cursetji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-11-1992
Reported in: 1993(2)BomCR67; (1993)95BOMLR374
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. This is a petition for probate in respect of Will and Codicils of late Dr. Khurshed J. Cursetji.2. On or about 20th October 1983, Mrs. Jerbanoo Khurshed Cursetji alias Jer of Bombay, Mrs. Meher Rusi Dalal, Mr. Hormuzdiar Dinshawji Choksi and Mrs. Dinaz Hormuzdiar Choksi, filed Petition No. 770 of 1983, seeking probate of the last Will and Testament and three Codicils of Dr. Khurshed, J. Cursetji, referred to in the petition. Dr. Khurshed, J. Cursetji alias Dr. Khurshed Jehangirji C. alias Dr. Khurshed Jehangir Jameshedji Cursetji alias Dr. K.J.J. Cursetji alias Dr. Cursetji Khurshed J.J. alias Dr. Khurshed J.J. Cursetji is hereinafter referred to as 'the Testator'. The Testator died at Bombay on or about the 1st day of May 1983. The Testator left him surviving as his only heir and next-of-Kin according to Indian Succession Act applicable to Parsees, the following persons i.e. (1) Mrs. Jerbanoo Khurshed Cursetji, widow (2) Mrs. Meher Rusi Dalal, daughter (3) Mr. Adi K...
Ratanlal Tikaram Goyal Vs. Pratibha Prabhakar Gokhale @ Pratibha Ratan ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-11-1992
Reported in: II(1993)DMC500
V.P. Tipnis, J.1. This is an application for condonation of delay in preferring appeal from the judgment and decree of the Family Court at Pune. The petitioner-husband filed petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act for obtaining a decree of nullity of his marriage with the respondent. The petition was presented to the Family Court at Pune on 24th July, 1989. The petition was fixed for hearing on 19th April, 1990. The petitioner remained absent on the date of hearing and hence, the petition came to be dismissed for default.2. Thereafter, the petitioner made Misc. Application No. 55 of 1990 to the Family Court under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for setting aside the dismissal of the petition. The reason given by the petitioner for setting aside the ex parte decree was that from 9th April, 1990 he was sick. His sickness was of such a degree that he could not move out of his house. Due to the acute disease of jaundice, he was required to remain at home. For thi...
Suba Transport Co. and anr. Vs. Phiroze Sethane Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-11-1992
Reported in: 1993ACJ77
M.L. Dudhat, J.1. The only limited issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the damages claimed by the respondent under the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the M.V. Act' for the sake of brevity) can come within the ambit of the words 'damages to the property owned by the owner'.2. Few facts which are material deciding this first appeal are as under:for Appellant No. 1 in this case is the owner of the vehicle which met with an accident. Petitioner No. 2 is the insurance company. The respondent is a private limited company carrying on the business in P.V.C. material claiming the damages from the present appellants of Rs. 50,000/- on the ground of failure of electric supply to its industrial unit due to the accident.3. On 20th March, 1984 at about 4.45 a.m. Tempo bearing No. MMS 2708 owned by appellant No. 1 dashed against an electric pole due to which the electric pole broke down, which ultimately resulted in failure of electric supply. Since there was total fa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »