Mumbai Court March 1992 Judgments

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Pishori Lal

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1993ACJ778

P.S. Patankar, J.1. The appellant is the owner of bus No. MYG 4272 and the respondent is the owner of the oil tanker (hereinafter called 'tanker') bearing No. MHT 2242. On 1.11.1977 the bus was proceeding from Pune to Bombay and the tanker from Bombay to Pune. Near Village Kon, Taluka Banvel, District Raigad, the accident took place between these two vehicles. The tanker suffered extensive damage. Therefore, the respondent made an application before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alibag-Raigad, claiming Rs. 40,126/- as compensation for the damage caused to the tanker.2. The respondent alleged that the driver of the bus was rash and negligent in driving the same and was responsible for the accident. He further contended that the tanker was idle for a long time and, therefore, there was loss of earnings.3. The appellant filed written statement and contended that the driver of the tanker was rash and negligent in driving it. It was denied that the driver of the bus was rash and/or n...

Dhiraj A. Sharma Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. By these four appeals, the assessee has challenged the orders of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the penalties levied under Sections 271(l)(c) and 273(2)(c) in relation to the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89.2. The assessee, an individual, was carrying on business as a jeweller in the name of M/s. Sangeeta Jewellers. The return was filed declaring income at Rs. 1,22,506 on September 14, 1987, for the assessment year 1987-88. For the assessment year 1988-89, the return was filed on July 19, 1988, showing income at Rs. 1,47,410. During the course of the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1988-89, it was noticed by the Income-tax Officer that the assessee had undervalued the closing stock. The Income-tax Officer required the assessee to furnish the basis and details of valuation of closing stock. Compliance was re'quired to be made on September 25, 1989. The assessee, in terms of the letter purporting to be dated September 16, 1989, offered for revaluatio...

Union of India Vs. Metal Distributors Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1993LC343(Bombay); 1992(60)ELT196(Bom)

Mrs. Sujata Manohar, J.1. This is an appeal by the Union of India, the Collector of Customs and Others against a judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 14th September, 1984 under which he has directed the appellants to pay to the respondents a sum of Rs. 9,65,297.22 being interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the sum of Rs. 77,52,145.72 which was an amount withhold by the appellants without the authority of law. The writ petition was filed only for recovery of interest on the said amount of Rs. 77,52,145.72.2. The respondents during the period commencing from 15th October, 1979 to 7th May, 1980 imported 764 MTs. of Alloy Steel Scrap pursuant to various contracts which were entered into between the respondents and the foreign suppliers. In respect of Alloy Steel Scrap so imported the appellants filed 26 bills of entry for clearance of these goods for home consumption. According to the appellants the goods imported by them were covered by Tariff Entry No. 73.03/05 and they were li...

A. Boomuswamy Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1992(3)BomCR265

B.V. Chavan, J.1. Both these writ petitions which arise out of identical facts can be disposed of by this common judgment.2. In Writ petition No. 24/1991 A. Boomuswamy who is the detenu is the petitioner. Writ Petition No. 25/1991 is filed by Muttu Srinivasan who is the other detenu in that case.3. In both the cases the sponsoring authority Collectorate of Customs, Panaji, Goa, forwarded two proposals to the detaining authority for the purpose of detaining the detenus under the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereafter the Act). It is now no longer in dispute that the sponsoring authority forwarded additional material right upto 11th July, 1991 in respect of both the detenus. The detaining authority who is the Chief Minister of State of Goa, holding the portfolio of Home Department (General) applied its mind to the material placed before it and on 13th July, 1991 passed two detention Or...

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Maggar Ghai Dhillon

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1993ACJ1048

P.S. Patankar, J.1. The respondent herein was driving the taxi bearing No. MRS 3566 on 1st April, 1976, at about 5 a.m. The said taxi belongs to his father. He was proceeding from Jacob Circle to Bombay Central. At that time, S.T. bus No. MHQ 7004 came from Bombay Central side and dashed against the taxi causing heavy damage to the taxi and serious personal injuries to the respondent. The respondent, therefore, claimed Rs. 20,000/- by way of compensation for the personal injuries. The respondent alleged that the driver of the S.T. bus was rash and/or negligent in driving the said bus.2. The court below came to the conclusion that the respondent has proved that he has suffered serious injuries and was entitled to get Rs. 25,909/- by way of compensation. However, as the respondent has restricted his claim to Rs. 20,000/-, the said claim came to be granted. The learned Judge also held that the driver of the S.T. bus was rash and negligent in driving the S.T. bus and was responsible for th...

Twincity Glass Private Ltd. Vs. Union of India

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1992(3)BomCR346; (1992)94BOMLR722; 1992(61)ELT440(Bom); 1992(2)MhLj1256

K. Sukumaran, J. 1. 'Is an Additional Collector of Central Excise, a Collector of Central Excise for the purpose of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944', - is the question posed for consideration in the present Writ Petition. 2. The Petitioners, in the course of their dealings, had to encounter the problem to the Excise Department. 3. On the eve of the Republic Day in the year 1989, a consignment of glass tubes which had been taken from the Petitioners' factory was intercepted by the Excise Authorities. According to the department, a physical verification of the consignment disclosed a startling discrepancy between the documents and the actual stock. As against 115 bundles referred to in the documents, the verification revealed 200 bundles of 10 Kgs. each of glass tubes. There was thereafter a physical verification of the entire stock of finished and packed glass tubes kept in the Bonded Store Room (BSR). It was revealed that over and above RG-I book balance, there were 14,427 bundl...

Siemens Ltd. Thane Vs. Gajanan Vithal Konde and Others

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1992(3)BomCR18; (1992)94BOMLR634; (1993)ILLJ635Bom; 1992(2)MhLj1129

1. This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, impugns an order dated May 30, 1991, made by the First Labour Court, Thane, in Application (IDA) No. 119 of 1991 under the provisions of Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The petitioner is a limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, which carries on business of manufacturing electrical engineering goods at Thane. The respondents 1 to 10 are employed in petitioners' factory at Thane. On December 19, 1990, the petitioner gave a Notice of Lock-out, which was effected in respect of the workmen whose names were mentioned in Annexure-I-A. The said Annexure contained a list of about 534 workmen. The reasons for the lock-out were indicated in Annexure-II. The reasons, inter alia, were that, according to the petitioner, the concerned workmen had indulged in continuous agitation from or about April, 1990, and had resorted to several act...

Jagdischandra D. Patel and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1992(3)BomCR344

A.A. Cazi, J.1. This is in respect of property situated at 97, Walkeshwar Road, Bombay 400 006. The three petitioners are tenants in different portions of the buildings. Respondents Nos. 6, 7 and 8 are the landlords owners. Undisputedly the buildings are in a dilapidated condition since 1970. History prior to 11th April, 1986 need not be referred to for the purpose of understanding the dispute in question. On 11th April, 1986 the tenants applied to the third respondents (Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Board) for action under Chapter VIIIA of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976. Under the provisions of the chapter, a co-operative Society formed or proposed to be formed by not less than 70% of the occupiers in a cess building, may request the Board to move the State Government to acquire the land together with the existing building thereon and then to acquire right or interest of the owner for reconstruction of a new building in lieu of the old one at their o...

Arco Roadways Private Limited Vs. Smt. Gawarajabai W/O Gangabisan Sikc ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1994(3)BomCR120

A.A. Desai, J.1. These petitions at the instance of tenants are directed against the permissions granted by the Rent Control Authorities to terminate their tenancy. They arose out of common questions of facts and law. Hence, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The respondents are members of Sikchi family. The family in 1950 constructed five godowns in a locality known as `Mofussil Compound', Ward No. 43, Amravati. It appears that ownership of the godowns has individually been transferred to the respondents. Accordingly, respondent Gawarajabai owns godown bearing Municipal No. 147(B) admeasuring 42' x 37' and godown bearing Municipal No. 288(G) admeasuring 50' x 30'. Respondent Sarlabai owns godown bearing Municipal No. 140(B) admeasuring 50' x 20'. Respondent Sulochanabai owns godown bearing Municipal No. 140(C) admeasuring 54' x 20'. In early 1970, these respondents let out the godowns to petitioners for carrying business of transportation, by ...

Maruti Krishanji Chavan Vs. Harish Chandra Satarkar

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1993ACJ1200

G.D. Kamat, J.1. This revision application is directed against the order, dated 28th January, 1991, whereby the prayer made by the petitioner to exclude the compensation of Rs. 7,500/- paid under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which is now corresponding to Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, under 'no fault liability' from the final award made in favour of the petitioner in the sum of Rs. 40,000/- is rejected.2. The controversy arises in the following manner. Petitioner instituted a claim petition that he was the victim of an accident on 24th April, 1985, when he was travelling in a bus bearing No. GUX 164 owned by the Kadamba Transport Corporation. It is common ground that this bus collided with truck bearing No. GDZ 5140 driven by the first respondent, owned by the second respondent and insured with the third respondent in this petition. The petitioner had made a claim for compensation in the amount of Rs. 50,000/-against not only the present respondents, but ...