Mumbai Court March 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.
Dharmaraj S/O Jaikumar Joharapurkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)BomCR132
K. Sukumaran, J.1. The petitioner made an application for running a Saw-mill, way back in 1981. The authorities took the view that he had not complied with all the conditions requisite for installation of the saw-mill unit. The application was accordingly rejected. The rejection of permission was appealed against. The appeal was also unsuccessful. The final order was passed in the year 1985.2. The respondents have given detailed reasons in support of their views. The respondents have taken a definite and firm stand in para 3 of the return, the extract of which is :'It is submitted that it is a policy of the State Government to discourage more establishment of the new Saw Mills as the situation with regard to the forest protection is a greatest concern of all. The forest area has already been reduced.'In a situation where chloroform carbon has eroded not only the immediate environment about but even beyond, and when the existence of humanity itself is in grave peril, the necessity for e...
Dadu Rau Yelavade (Deceased by His Heirs and L.Rs.) Vs. Himmat Rasul P ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)BomCR601; (1992)94BOMLR685
S. Ranganathan, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Bombay High Court dismissing a petition filed by 'Dadu Rau Yelavade' (now represented by his legal representatives) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. One Anant Gopal Prabhu ('Prabhu', for short) was the owner of 2 acres 25 gunthas of land bearing Survey No. 54 in village Ingali in Hatakanangale Taluka of Kolhapur district. The lands were under the cultivation of one Rau, who was the father of the petitioner before the High Court. The landlord instituted proceedings under Section 31 read with Section 29 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter called 'the Act') against the tenant Rau. During the pendency of these proceedings, Rau died and his tenancy rights were inherited by his four sons; Dadu (predecessor of the present appellants), Mahadu, Ganpati and Shripati. These proceedings came to an end eventually by an order dated 24.5.1961, on which date the petition under Section 29 read...
Maharashtra State Co-operative Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1992
Reported in: (1992)41ITD491(Mum.)
1. These appeals by the assessee are directed against the consolidated order of the Commissioner dated 30-3-1988 passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in relation to the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85.2. After having noticed the assessment orders, the Commissioner formed a prima facie opinion to the effect that while computing the total income of the assessee the Income-tax Officer had wrongly allowed deduction under Section 80P of the Income-tax Act in respect of its dividend income. He thereupon initiated proceedings under Section 263 of the Act and, after having heard the assessee, passed the impugned order and directed the Income-tax Officer to make a fresh assessment withdrawing the deduction under Section 80P in respect of the dividend derived by the assessee from its investments with persons other than Co-operative Societies.3. The assessee is a Co-operative Society established under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. As its very ...
Hindustan Ciba Geighy Ltd. Vs. Seshasayee Industries Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)BomCR198; (1992)94BOMLR345
S.M. Jhunjhunwala, J.1. This Summons for Judgment has been taken out in the suit filed to recover from the defendants the sum of Rs. 2,85,238/- with further interest on the principal amount of Rs. 2,28,880/- at the rate of 18% per annum from date of filing of the suit till payment and costs of the suit.2. By three contracts in writing evidenced by the defendant's Orders dated 9th July, 1988 and 6th January, 1989 as accepted by plaintiffs by their Orders of Acceptance dated 19th December, 1988, 20th February, 1989 and 23rd May, 1989 read with plaintiffs' invoices bearing Nos. E-3900, dated 24th December, 1988. E-4757 dated 18th March, 1989 and E-0676 dated 26th May, 1989, the Plaintiffs sold and delivered Araldite and Hardener (hereafter referred as 'the said goods') to the defendants for an aggregate value of Rs. 2,37,816/- on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. The said goods were duly received by the defendants without raising any objection as to the quality, quantity and pri...
Director of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs. Framjee Cawasjee Institute.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1992
Reported in: (1993)109CTR(Bom)463
SMT. SUJATA MANOHAR, J. :1. This is an application under s. 256(2) of the IT Act. The Department requires the following question to be raised by the Tribunal and referred to us for determination :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law directing the ITO to take depreciation into account in computing the income from depreciable assets when in fact the full capital expenditure had been allowed in the year of acquisition of these assets ?'2. The assessee is a trust. Its income is derived from depreciable assets. The assessee took into account depreciation on those assets in computing the income of the Trust. The ITO held that depreciation could not be taken into account because full capital expenditure has been allowed in the year of acquisition of the assets. The assessee went in appeal before the AAC who rejected the Appeal. The Tribunal has however, allowed the Appeal. The Tribunal has explained the position by stating that when the IT...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mather and Platt (i.) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1992
Reported in: [1993]204ITR757(Bom)
Mrs. Sujata Manohar J. 1. The facts which are relevant to this application made under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Department, are as follows : 2. Under an order of this court dated February 20, 1979, the scheme of amalgamation of the assessee-company with Messrs. Mather and Platt, U.K., was sanctioned at the instance of the transferee-company with effect from July 1, 1978. Similarly, the Calcutta High Court, by its order dated January 18, 1979, sanctioned the scheme of amalgamation at the instance of the transferor-company. Under the scheme of amalgamation, the U.K. company transferred its entire business and undertaking in India to the assessee-company with effect from July 1, 1978, for a consideration of Rs. 1,77,78,784 to be paid in the shape of equity shares of the assessee company of the value of Rs. 89,50,000 and Rs. 87,68,784 credit for an interest free loan by the U.K. company, the loan being repayable in two installments subject to the ap...
Rasiklal Vs. Govind Pandurang Anantwar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Bom34; 1996(1)BomCR444
ORDER1. Landlord Govind Pandurang Anantwar initialed rent control proceedings seeking permission to terminate the tenancy of the tenant Rasiklal Kiranawala, amongst other, on the ground of bona fide need. The landlord then on 30-6-1976 filed a civil suit claiming injunction against the tenant from carrying out any construction, alteration inthe tenanted premises. The trial Court granted the temporary injunction. During the pendency of the suit, the parties settled their dispute and adjusted their rival claim. Compromise decree on 16-11-1978 was accordingly drawn. The terms of compromise amongst others are -- that the tenant from 27-2-1979 to continue in the tenanted premises on enhanced rent as indicated, for a period of 10 years. After expiry, the tenant to vacate and deliver the possession to the landlord. In case of breach, the tenant to pay Rs. 5,000/- by way of damages to the landlord.2. The tenant since failed to vacate, the landlord started execution of the compromise decree for...
AmiruddIn and Other Vs. Mukhtar Jafarbhai Maulana Hasanali Saheb Chimt ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1992
Reported in: 1992CriLJ3898
Dhabe, J.1. These four Contempt Appeals which arise out of the common judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court rendered on 9th April, 1991 in two contempt petitions registered as Contempt Petition No. 53 of 1991 and 54 of 1991 can be conveniently disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience unless the context otherwise requires, the petitioners in these contempt petitioners who are respondents in these appeals are commonly referred to as the 'contempt petitioners' and the two contemners in these contempt petitions who are committed for contempt and sentenced to pay a fine by the learned single Judge and who have preferred these four contempt appeal because there are two contempt petitions against each of them are commonly referred to as 'contemners' in this common judgment. 2. The litigation out of which the instant contempt appeals arise has a chequered history. Parties to the principal litigation belong to Shia Ismailia Yayabai Dawoodi Bohra community (f...
Ashok Vishnu Kate and ors. Vs. M.R. Bhope and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)BomCR352; (1992)94BOMLR185; (1993)IIILLJ304Bom
Pendse, J. 1. The question which falls for determination in this appeal is whether the Labour Court can entertain complaint of an employee under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to 'as the Act') before the employer had discharged or dismissed the employee. The question requires critical evaluation as the issue arises in large number of complaints pending before the Labour Courts. The facts which gave rise to filing of the appeal are required to be briefly stated to appreciate the circumstances in which the issue arises. 2. Appellant No. 1 is employed by Respondent No. 2 Company and the appellant is a member of the Maharashtra General Kamgar Union. The Company served charge-sheet upon Appellant No. 1 to show cause why the appellant should not be dismissed from employment for certain misconduct. Appellant No. 1 instituted Complaint (ULP) No. 90 of 1989 before the Presiding Office...
Jayram Karsan Tank Vs. Deputy Regional Director, Esi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1992
Reported in: 1996(1)BomCR126; (1992)94BOMLR488; (1993)IIILLJ146Bom
B.U. Wahane, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the Judgment and order of the Employees' Insurance Court at Nagpur dated 16th December 1981 in Insurance Case No. 3 of 1980, alleging that the learned trial Court wholly misconceived the law while deciding the application filed by the appellant/applicant under Section 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948.2. The appellant/applicant filed an application under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') challenging Order No. INS/III(3)/23/1498/91/'SF'/80-3019 dated 21st/22nd May 1980, covering the period from December 1977 to March 1980, and directing to deposit Rs. 6,405/-, and Order No. 23-1498-91- 'SF' 5075 dated 28th July 1978, directing to pay Rs. 314.70, as bad and illegal and to quash the same and further to stop the recovery proceedings initiated by the respondent before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur.3. According to the appellant M/s. Jayram Karsan Ta...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »