Mumbai Court March 1992 Judgments

Suresh Sopan Kadam and ors. Vs. Jagannath Genu Kadam and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1992(2)BomCR619

A.A. Cazi, J.1. Rule. Returnable forthwith.2. Mr. Anturkar waives service on behalf of the respondents.3. Heard.4. This writ petition is directed against the orders of the two Lower Courts, one being the Trial Court and other being Appellate Court, rejecting the petitioners' application for interim injunction restraining the respondents from preventing the petitioners from using a particular right of way.5. The facts are as follows: Different petitioners are owners of different lands bearing Gat Nos. 702, 703, 704, 706, 707, 708, 709, 719, 721, 722 and 723 situate at Village Mahalung, Taluka Malshiras, District Solapur. The respondents are owners of lands bearing Gat Nos. 711 and 674. The position of the various lands and disputed way can best be understood by referring to the plan which is at page 58 of the paper book which is a Xerox copy of the plan that was drawn up by the Commissioner who was appointed by the Trial Court to visit the site and draw up the plan. I have now marked by...

William Rodrigues Vs. Goa University Through Its Registrar

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1993(2)BomCR158

E.S. Da Silva, J.1. The petitioner was a student of M.A. in Philosophy of Goa University and he appeared for M.A. (Part II) Philosophy Examination conducted by Goa University in the month of June, 1991. The results of this examination were declared somewhere in August 1991. The petitioner was declared successful in all subjects except in one which is the subject Head of Passing of Contemporary Western Philosophy in which he secured 31 out of 100 marks falling short of 9 marks to be declared successful. Hence the petitioner failed in this subject on account of this shortage of 9 marks only. The subject (Head of Passing) of Contemporary Western Philosophy is a core subject which means a compulsory subject and is divided into two components being one Internal and the other External. The Internal Component consists of two tests each carrying 20 marks in a total of 40 marks. The External Components consists of one test carrying 60 marks. The petitioner secured 27 out of 40 marks in the Inte...

R.M. Enterprises, Mittal Vs. First Income-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. When these appeals earlier came up for hearing before a Division Bench, the learned Members were of the opinion that these appeals " are fit and proper appeals which should be heard by a Special Bench consisting of more than three members ", as one of the orders of the Tribunal cited before them in the case of ITO v. Hydle Construction (P.) Ltd. [1983] 6 ITD 575 (Delhi) (SB) required reconsideration, in view of certain decisions of the Hon'ble High Courts referred to by the parties. They, therefore, placed these appeals before the President of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, with a request to constitute a larger Bench and had proposed the following question : "Whether the terms ' article ' or ' thing' used in Sections 80HH, 80-I and 80J of the Act are synonymous with the word ' goods' used in the definition of ' industrial company' in the Finance Act and whether the High Court decision referred to above would equally apply in both the cases?" 2. This is how these appeals have co...

income-tax Officer Vs. Ramkrishna Bajaj

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1992)41ITD161(Mum.)

1. The assessee and his learned counsel had requested the President of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for constituting a Special Bench to dispose of his appeal as according to them, in the case of Jamnalal Sons Ltd. (ITA No. 150 (Nag) of 1986, dated June 16, 1988), [1989] 29 ITD 164 (Bom), the Tribunal has not considered in proper perspective the facts obtaining in that case vis-a-vis the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Siddharthbhai [1985] 156 ITR 509.Further, the Tribunal had not considered certain orders in other cases which supported the stand taken by the assessee in that case. The assessee, therefore, had an apprehension that a Division Bench of the Tribunal would not be inclined to differ from the said order of the Tribunal even though certain other orders of the Tribunal which are in his favour would be placed before the Division Bench.2. When the matter was placed before the Division Bench, the Members constituting the Bench made the following en...

Dhankumar Thakordas Javeri and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Great ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1992(3)BomCR59

A.A. Cazi, J.1. This writ petition is directed against three permissions/licenses (Exs. 'T-1', 'T-2', and 'T-3') issued by respondent Nos. 1 to 6 and 9 and 9-A to run the eating house 'Revival' which is on the upper floors of a building at Chowpatty Seaface, Bombay 400 007. 2. Respondent Nos. 7,8 and 8-A are owners of 'Revival'. The petitioners are the owners or occupants of various premises in the neighbourhood of 'Revival'. A grievance had been made about liquor being served or proposed to be served in 'Revival', but now it is clarified by the Advocate on behalf of respondent Nos. 3, 4, 4-A, 6 and 9 that the permission under the Prohibited Act has not been granted and, therefore, this question does not arise. Exhibit 'T-1' is the permission issued under section 394 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act by the concerned authorities of the Bombay Municipal Corporation for running an eating house, Exhibit 'T-2' is the receipt issued under the Shops and Establishments Act, and Exhibit ...

Madhukar Sunderlal Sheth and Others Vs. S.K. Laul and Others

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [1992]198ITR594(Bom)

Mrs. Sujata Manohar J.1. This writ petition challenges the letters addressed by the Income-tax Department to the petitioners at exhibits 'C', 'E' and 'G' under which the Department has said that, on going through the agreement of sale, it is found that the sale is subject to the approval of the Charity Commissioner and the Reserve Bank. Without such an approval, the sale cannot take place and hence Form No. 37-I, which is filed, is treated as invalid. The agreement of sale in respect of the immovable property in question is between a public trust which is registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, and the purchasers who are the petitioners. Under section 36 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, no sale of any immovable property belonging to a public trust registered under the Act' shall be valid without the previous sanction of the Charity Commissioner'. 2. Section 269UC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, provides that no transfer of immovable property of value exceeding Rs. 5 lakhs sha...

Elegant Industries (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1992)42ITD48(Mum.)

1. This appeal by the assessee challenges the order of the learned CIT (A) dated 9-6-1987 for the assessment year 1983-84.2. The first issue raised in this appeal relates to the disallowance of short-term capital loss of Rs. 2,40,517 allegedy incurred by the assessee on the sale of land and factory building at Nasik. The assessee had purchased a plot of land at MIDC, Nasik for a sum of Rs. 73,975. It had further incurred an expenditure of Rs. 2,47,000 on the construction of a building thereon. Further expenditure was incurred on conveyance, architect's fee, etc. for setting up of a project for manufacturing plastic auto ancillary items. The total expenditure came to Rs. 4,90,517. It was claimed that before the said project could be completed, it was sold for a lump sum of Rs. 2,50,000 on 15-3-1987. The assessee, therefore, claimed that it had suffered a short-term capital loss of Rs. 2,40,517. It was claimed by the assessee before the Income-tax Officer that the assessee had placed an...

Maharashtra State Financial Corporation Vs. Swift Industries and Anoth ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1994(2)BomCR585; [1994]80CompCas311(Bom)

N.D. Vyas, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and order dated March 13, 1987 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Pune, on the 'emergent application' taken out by the respondents in Miscellaneous Application No. 496 of 1983 filed by the applicants. 2. The appellants are a financial corporation established under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. The respondents, who are the original respondents in the said miscellaneous application, had borrowed certain amounts from the appellants. The loan transaction is governed by the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). 3. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows : On July 17, 1976, the appellants sanctioned a term loan of Rs. 39,000 to the respondents. On January 11, 1977, loan documents including a letter of hypothecation, also providing for schedule for repayment of the said amount, were executed. On January 11, 1977, and on August 7, 1977, the loan a...

Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, D ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: II(1993)ACC143; 1992(3)BomCR220; (1992)94BOMLR916

K. Sukumaran, J.1. The first respondent in the Letters patent Appeal was a driver of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'the MSRTC'). The vehicle was involved in an accident on 17-7-1984. The respondent was charge-sheeted. He was found guilty of a major misconduct of a negligence in the discharge of his duties. Accordingly he was dismissed from service.2. A dispute was raised in the matter. The authorities- the Labour Court and the Revisional authority-held that the charge had been established and that the punishment of dismissal was not unduly harsh.3. These concurrent findings were challenged under Article 227 of the Constitution. The learned Single Judge, by the judgement dated 5-12-1991 allowed the Writ Petition and directed the appellant-Driver to be reinstated in service with 50% of the back wages.4. The MSRTC has come up in appeal.5. In the enquiry evidence, including that of some of the passengers in the bus, had been adduced. The evidence established t...

Palmira W/O Cruz Fernandes Vs. Cruz Fernandes

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1992(3)BomCR281; (1992)94BOMLR581

V.A. Mohta, J.1. Between the father and the mother to whom custody of minor child of tender age should be given is the usual but delicate question to be determined in this appeal.2. Cruz Fernandes, the Respondent-husband, was married to palmira, the Appellant-wife on 2nd of February, 1986. They belong to Christian religion and were married as per Christian rites. Child Ian is the offspring of that marriage, born on 6th November, 1986. Marriage, unfortunately, was caught in rough weather. Even since 11th December, 1990, the husband and wife are living separately.3. Palmira filed a petition under section 25 of the Guardians & Wards Act, 1890 (the Act) for custody of Ian on 7th February, 1991 before the Family Court, Bombay. By order dated 9th July, 1991 the Family Court granted to her only the access to the child but not the custody. She has appealed.4. Basic facts are :Palmira is a Commerce Graduate serving in Punjab National Bank, receiving pay packet of Rs. 3,000/- per month after all...