Mumbai Court July 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.
Nedlloyd Lines B. V. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1992
Reported in: (1992)43ITD433(Mum.)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT (Appeals)-IV, Bombay and pertains to the assessment year 1984-85.2. The assessee is a non-resident company, engaged in the business of operation of ships. The accounting year of the company relevant to the corresponding assessment year ended on 31-12-1983. The assessment was completed, and the income was assessed in accordance with the prescription laid down under Section 44B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called "the Act").During the relevant period assessee paid "SLOT FEE" amounting to Rs. 22,88,462. It was claimed to be deductible from the total income. The ITO disallowed the claim on the ground that provisions contained in Sections 28 to 43A are not relevant for determining the profits of shipping business of a non-resident company. Section 44B of the Act prescribes a special provision, for computing the income exigible to tax. This special provision overrides the general provision. Deduction as clai...
Sipta Coated Steel Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)BomCR201; 1992(62)ELT485(Bom)
Sujata Manohar, J.1. All these writ petitions have been heard together because all of them challenge the same Public Notice issued by the Collector of Customs, Bombay dated 11th June 1990 and another Public Notice issued by the Collector of Customs, Bombay dated 15th January 1992. 2. The petitioners in all these petitions have imported goods which arrived at the Bombay Port. The petitioners had filed Bills of Entry for warehousing. For warehousing goods outside Bombay, the petitioners have been required to furnish bank guarantees for the amount of duty payable in respect of these goods in the manner set out in these Public Notices (or such of them as were applicable at the relevant time) to cover the period of transit i.e. the period during which the goods were being transferred from the Bombay Port or a warehouse in Bombay to a warehouse outside Bombay. The petitioners have challenged these Public Notices. 3. The petitions fall into two broad categories or groups : Category 1 - Those ...
Rajan M. Nande Vs. Zell Ate Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1992
Reported in: (1993)ILLJ329Bom
1. The petitioner-workman is a qualified mechanical draughtsman from Sir Cusrow Wadia Institute of Technology, Pune-1. He was earlier working with Antifriction Bearings Corporation Limited, Lonavala for about 7 1/2 years on permanent basis. However, he joined the first respondent company (herein-after referred to as 'the company') as it had offered him better terms. Thus, he was appointed as a mechanical draughtsman by the company vide appointment letter dated July 14, 1980 in the first instance in probation for six months subject to extension, if necessary. Thereafter by a letter dated December 28, 1980 the company confirmed him with effect from January 1, 1981 along with five other employees. At that time the petitioner noticed that his monthly salary was reduced by Rs. 10/-. He, therefore, made a grievance about it to his immediate superior. It is the case of the petitioner that instead of rectifying the anomaly created by reducing his monthly salary by Rs. 10/-, the company called ...
Gwalior Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. K.M. Desai, Member, Industrial Co ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1992
Reported in: [1992(65)FLR489]; (1993)ILLJ127Bom
1. By the present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner company has challenged the judgment and order passed by the Industrial Court on October 29, 1986 in a revision application preferred by the 2nd respondent. By the impugned judgment, the Industrial Court reversed the decision arrived at by the Labour Court to the effect that the 2nd respondent was not a 'workman'. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the present petition is preferred by the employer. 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are as under : The 2nd respondent, who was appointed as 'Technician-cum-Designer' in the Knitting Department of the petitioner company in the year 1970, was removed from service by a letter of termination dated April 10, 1981. The 2nd respondent, thereafter, filed a complaint being Complaint (ULP) No. 55 of 1981 under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, alleging that the petiti...
Ramchandra Keruji Deokar Vs. Raghunath Shankar Bichakar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1992
Reported in: 1994(2)BomCR1
N.P. Chapalgaonker, J.1. This Civil Revision Application raises a question whether there is any limitation prescribed for an application by a person retiring from the Armed Force for getting premises vacated from the possession of the tenant under section 13-A1 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, hereinafter, for the sake of brevity, referred to as `the Bombay Rent Act'. Brief facts of the case are as follows.2. The landlord Raghunath Shankar Bichkar filed an application under section 13-A1 of the Bombay Rent Act before the Competent Authority at Nasik in which he contended that he is the landlord of House No. 144, City Survey No. 5978 situated at Sangale Lane in Ahmednagar town and defendant non-applicant Ramchandra Deokar is the tenant in occupation of a portion of the said premises. Rent agreed was Rs. 20/- plus Rs. 5/- as light charges per month. The tenant has not paid any rent since 1st January, 1982 (sic), after 22 years of service he would come...
Chimanlal Gaghubhai Shah Vs. Hargovind Dharmsi (a Partnership Firm)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Bom112; 1992(3)BomCR135
ORDER1. On 5th December 1973, Chimanlal Gaghubhai Shall filed summary suit No. 1241 of 1973 in this Hon'ble Courtagainst M/s. Hargovind Dharmsi, a partnership firm for recovery of a sum of Rs. 41,800/-together with interest on Rs. 40,000/- at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the suit till payment and cost of the suit. On death of original plaintiff, the heirs and legal representatives of the original plaintiff Mrs. Chandrakanta wodow of Mr. Chimanlal Gaghubhai Shah and Mr. Kirtikumar Chimanlal Shah the son of the deceased were substituted as the plaintiffs.2. The plaintiffs filed this summary suit against the defendants invoking O. XXXVII of Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the defendants executed 8 hundies of Rs. 5,000/- each in favour of the plaintiffs for valuable consideration and the said hundies were dishonoured by the firm of M/s. Hargovind Dharmsi, the defendants in the suit.3. At the hearing of summons for Judgment taken out by the plaintiffs in this suit, V...
Bombay Telephone Users' Association and others Vs. Mahanagar Telephone ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Bom194; 1992(3)BomCR139
ORDERMrs. Sujata Manohar, J.1. Wehave already dismissed a similar writ petition filed earlier being Writ Petition No. 1326 of 1992 by our judgment and order dated 15-6-1992. The only additional point urged in these two writ petitions relates to the power of the respondents to make the amendment in question.2. Under Section 4(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, within India, the Central Government shall have the exclusive privilege of establishing, maintaining and working telegraphs. The first proviso says that the Central Government may grant a licence, on such conditions and in consideration of such payments as it thinks fit, to any person toestablish, maintain or work a telegraph within any part of India. Sub-section (2) says that the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, delegate to the telegraph authority all or any of its powers under the first proviso to sub-section (1). We are not concerned with the rest of the provisions of Section 4.3. Under Sectio...
Poddar Tyres Ltd. Vs. Bedrock Sales Corporation Ltd. and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Bom237; 1993(1)BomCR505
ORDER1. This notice of motion has been taken out by the plaintiffs for the following reliefs:--'(a) that, pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, the defendants No. 1, by themselves, their servants and agents, be restrained by an order and injunction of this Hon'ble Court; '(i) from infringing the plaintiffs' registered trade marks (Ex. 'A' to the plaint) and/or passing off the defendant No. 1's business as and for the business of the plaintiffs by the use of the word 'Bedrock' as part of the 1st defendants' corporate name; and (ii) from infringing and/or passing of these 1st defendants' goods as and for the goods of the plaintiffs by the use of the word 'Bedrock' in connection with or in respect of goods manufactured by them; (b) that, pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, the defendants No. 1 by themselves, their servants and agents be ordered and directed to deliver up for destruction all their letter heads, invoices, price lists, cash memos, brochures, adv...
Bai Jerbai Wadia Hospital Vs. Shankar Ram Chandra Mali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1992
Reported in: (1993)ILLJ785Bom
1. By these writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners have challenged an award dated January 29, 1985 passed by the learned Labour Judge presiding over the 1st Labour Court at Bombay, in Reference (IDA) No. 22 of 1985. As the petitions arise from the same award, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The petitioner (in Writ Petition No. 1751 of 1985), Bai Jerbai Wadia Hospital for Children, is a public charitable hospital (hereinafter referred to as 'the said hospital'). The 1st respondent in the said petition, Shankar Ram chandra Mali, was employed by the said hospital from January 1, 1969 as a gardener and at the relevant time he was working as a senior gardener. He shall be hereinafter referred to as 'the Workman'. It was alleged against him that on July 3, 1979 he was on duty from 7.00 a.m. onwards. At about 11.15 a.m. on that day, he was not found at the place of his duty and on search being made by his colleagues ...
Gangapur Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs. Prabhakar Engineers Private ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)BomCR556
M.L. Dudhat, J.1. Heard both the sides. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard both the sides.2. The only point in this writ petition is as to whether both the lower courts were right in granting injunction restraining the petitioner Karkhana from enforcing bank guarantee without demur in the facts and circumstances of this case.3. The respondent in this case filed the dispute under section 91 before Co-operative Court No. 2 at Pune being Dispute No. 278 of 1990. The respondent is a supplier of sugarcane machinery. The petitioner is a co-operative society manufacturing sugar. The respondent entered into a contract with the petitioner for supplying certain machinery and for erection and commission of the said equipment. It is the case of the respondent that as per the aforesaid contract about 70% equipment was supplied and used by the petitioner factory for crushing season 1988-89. The respondent further contended that on some occasion there was delay in supply of equipment but in fact t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »