Mumbai Court April 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.
Canning Mitra Phoenix Ltd. Vs. M/S. Popular Construction and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Bom67; 1994MhLJ812
ORDER1. On 21st April, 1990, the Plaintiffs filed this suit against the Defendants for declaration that the bank guarantee given by the 2nd Defendants at the instance of the Plaintiffs in favour of the 1st Defendants is null, void and of no legal effect in law and to restrain the 1st Defendants from invoking and/or receiving moneys under the said bank guarantee.2. In or about March, 1988, the Director General of Naval Project (B) (hereinafter referred to as 'DGNP (B)') invited tenders for provisions of workshop building for electroplating and battery repair facility at Naval Dockyard, Bombay. The 1st Defendants were interested in submitting a tender. An agreement dated 3rd August, 1988 was arrived at between the Plaintiffs and the 1st Defendants. By the said agreement, the 1st Defendants agreed to give to the Plaintiffs sub-contract for the work of electroplating equipment if the DGNP(B) awarded the main contract to the 1st Defendants. The Plaintiffs also agreed to furnish and did furn...
Satyapal Uttamchand Chowdhary Vs. Rukayyabai Huseinbhai Bandukwala and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Bom203
1. This is a suit for a declaration that the sale of property described in Exh. A appended to the plaint in favour of defendant No. 2 brought about by defendant No. 1 is void and reliefs incidental to the declaration.2. Plaintiff on 20-10-1961 acquired the suit land together with some structures thereon from one Krupal Khetsay. The price agreed to be paid to the vendor was Rupees 40,000/- and plaintiff raised a loan of Rupees 22,000/- from defendant No. 1 to make the purchase -- the balance coming from his own sources. To ensure repayment of the sum borrowed from defendant No. 1 together withinterest agreed to be paid thereupon, plaintiff passed Exh. S-1 which is a registered mortgage deed. In the document, plaintiff undertook to repay the mortgage debt along with interest on or before 20th day of October, 1962. In the event of the mortgagor defaulting in the payment of the principal sum of interest amounting to at least Rs. 500/-, the mortgagee was authorised to bring the property to ...
Air India Vs. United Labour Unions and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)BomCR422; (1992)94BOMLR238; (1995)IIILLJ443Bom
K. Sukumaran, J. 1. Air India has come up in appeal against the verdict of Variava J., adverse to it. It has arisen in respect of the implementation of a Notification under the Contract Labour Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The Act, a piece of social legislation, provided, in great detail, for the regulation of Contract Labour under Section 10, it proceeded further; and empowered the Government to have even the prohibition of contract labour in the contingencies and subject to the conditions set out in that behalf, in the Act. The Central Government issued such a Notification on 9.9.1976, prohibiting 'employment of contract labour on and from 10th March 1977, for sweeping, cleaning, dusting and washing of buildings owned or occupied by establishments in respect of which the appropriate Government under the said Act is the Central Government'. Air India had initially accepted the Central Government as its appropriate Government. Air India sent in the application and got i...
Mrs. M. Vs. Mr. A.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-1992
Reported in: I(1993)DMC384
ORDERSaldanha, J.1. There exists a class of litigation where the rule of the Judge requires to he redefined for it is exempted of his in these situations to temper the approach to that of a father and not on impassioned adjudicator of law points alone. Matrimonial litigation has a ring of pathos about it, where relationship have soured, young people have been estranged and unfortunate children are being battled over. True it is that when such cases come before the courts, the decision has to be governed by legal principles, but theapproach of the Court must be a benevolent understanding and helpful one, and if there is one field in which the time factor is crucial, [this is it. We prefix our Judgment with these observations because it has been the recurrent complaint in this and several other matters that if a more helpful attitude had been forthcoming from the presiding officer, the case could have been concluded at the trial Court in for less time.2. The appellant before us, the orig...
Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. Ota Kandla Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)BomCR381; (1992)94BOMLR257
N.D. Vyas, J.1. By the present notice of motion, the defendants are praying that the decree passed on 6th July, 1990 be set aside. The question which arises for consideration is :'Whether a decree passed under Order VII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for want of written statement can be set aside by resorting to an application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure?' 2. The relevant facts giving rise to the present notice of motion are as follows :The plaintiffs filed the present suit in May 1984 for recovery of Rs. 82, 592.64 with interest from the defendants. On 26th June, 1985, directions were given in the suit, inter alia, directing the defendants to file their written statement within four weeks. As written statement was not filed within the period stipulated and even thereafter, the plaintiffs took out a notice of motion being Notice of Motion No. 2212 of 1988 praying for judgment for want of written statement in August 1988 and the same was served on the...
Sow Saralabai Arjun Bajaj and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-1992
Reported in: 1993(3)BomCR706
B.N. Deshmukh, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith.2. In this petition the election programme published by the respondent No. 2 for holding election of respondent No. 3 - Jalna Peoples' Co-operative Bank Limited is challenged by the petitioners on the ground that, there is no reservation made in favour of women as per amended provisions of section 73BBB of the Maharashtra Co-operative Socieities Act. According to the petitioners, therefore, the election programme is illegal and is in contravention of the provisions of section 73BBB of the Act.3. At the time of the hearing of the petition, two applications were filed for adding respondents to the petition. We have granted these two civil applications for intervention only and heard the counsel appearing in these civil applications.4. It is not disputed that, the provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act are amended with effect from 31st of December, 1991 and section 73BBB is added to the provisions of the Co-operative Socieities A...
JatIn (Alias Rajesh) Khanna Vs. First Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-24-1992
Reported in: (1993)45ITD448(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 22-3-1985 passed by the CIT (Appeals)-II, Bombay. Briefly, the facts in this case are that the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B on 31-3-1984, which has been challenged by the assessee to be barred by limitation. The relevant details of events relating to the submission of return and the final completion of assessment are as under:(i) Return due - 31-07-1980(ii) Form No. 6 seeking extension filed - 31-07-1980(iii) Extension allowed up to - 30-09-1980(iv) Form No. 6 filed again - 31-10-1980(v) Extension refused - 03-11-1980(vi) Notice under section 139(2) issued - 10-12-1980(vii) Form No. 6 filed again - 06-01-1981(viii) Extension refused - 09-01-1981(ix) Return filed - 19-06-1981(x) Revised return filed the purpose of assessment - 9-03-1983(xi) Draft order issued by assessee on - 30-03-1984(xii) Final Order of the 2. In grounds of appeal Nos. 1 to 9 the assessee has...
Jehangir P. Vazifdar Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-24-1992
Reported in: (1992)42ITD67(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee, by status an individual challenging the exigibility of a sum of Rs. 32,21,741 received by him as additional compensation and another sum of Rs. 21,03,687 being interest thereon in the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1989-90.2. We have heard the learned representatives of both the sides at length.3. On facts, certain agricultural lands belonging to the assessee and located at Igadpuri was acquired by notification dated 19-6-1981 and 25-9-1981. In all an amount of Rs. 2,60,299.90 was awarded by way of compensation by the Special Land Acquisition Officer vide order dated 26th May, 1982. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal whereupon the learned Joint District Judge, Nasik awarded, vide its order of 21st April, 1988, enhanced compensation of Rs. 32,21,741.80 together with 9% interest which words out to Rs. 53,25,428.12 payable to him as per the District Court's order. The assessee made compliance of this direction and wi...
Dr. Kiran Prabhakar Singbai Vs. State of Goa and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-23-1992
Reported in: 1993(2)BomCR660
E.S. Da Silva, J.1. By this writ petition the petitioner challenges firstly the refusal on the part of respondent No. 2 to call the petitioner for interview to the post of Assistant Professor in Operative Dentistry in the Goa Dental College and Hospital and subsequently by way of amendment the jurisdiction of the said respondent No. 2 to hold interviews and give its consultation on the matter of selection to the post of Assistant Professor in the aforesaid Dental College. The petitioner has passed Bachelor of Dental Surgery (B.D.S.) Examination held by the University of Bombay in November, 1979 and also the Examination in Master of Dental Surgery (M.D.S.) in Conservative Dentistry (Operative Dentistry) Branch held by the University of Bombay in October, 1984. He is also registered as a Dentist with the Maharashtra State Dental Council under the provisions of the Dentists Act, 1948 with effect from February 21, 1980. The petitioner worked as Clinical Assistant at Nair Hospital Dental co...
Ratti Palonji Kapadia and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-23-1992
Reported in: (1992)94BOMLR697
Sujata Manohar, J.1. Appeals Nos. 1141 of I 991 and 1152 of 1991 are in respect or Writ Petitions Nos. 3215 of 1991 and 3511 of 1991 respectively. These writ petitions have been admitted but no interim orders have been granted. These appeals are from the order refusing to grant any interim reliefs. By consent of parties the original writ petitions are also placed for hearing along with the group of Petitions Nos. 433 of 1987 and others. The respondents waive service in respect of these two petitions.2. All these petitions pertain to 48 plots of land situated at Mount Mary, Bandra Band Stand, Bombay. The respondent i.e. the State of Maharashtra is the owner of these plots of land. The State has executed long term leases in respect of these plots of land in favour of private parties from 1907 onwards. The petitioners in these writ petitions are the present lessees of these 48 plots of land from the State Government. They have challenged in these writ petitions a decision of the State Gov...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »