Mumbai Court November 1993 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.
Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of Ind ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1993
Reported in: 1994(54)LC57(Bombay)
S.P. Kurdukar, J.1. By this Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners seek to challenge the Order dt. 12.7.1982 passed by the Asstt. Collector of Customs (issued on 29.7.1982) and on Appeal confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide its Order dt. 6th November, 1982, rejecting the claim of the Petitioners for refund of customs duty paid in excess due to arithmetical error.2. At the outset, it may be stated that the Respondents have not filed any return in the present petition. According to the Petitioners, the goods were imported under Import Licences OGL/3/80 in April 1981. The said goods under OGL were allowed for actual user only. Copy of invoice (Ex. 2) is annexed to the affidavit of Shri Ramesh Girija Kulal dt. 7th September, 1992. It is further averred by the Petitioner in the said affidavit that at no stage these goods are sold to outsiders and the Petitioner No. 1 has not passed the incidence of duty to consumer. It was further stated that the...
Enkay Texo Food Industries Ltd. Vs. Consite Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1993
Reported in: 1995(1)BomCR76; (1994)96BOMLR673; 1994(1)MhLj514
M.L. Pendse, J.1. Both appeals admitted. Paper books dispensed with. Counsel for respondents in each of the appeal waive service. By consent, both appeals taken on board and called out for hearing. 2. Enkay Texo Food Industries Ltd. in September, 1991 floated tender for mechanical works comprising supply, erection and commissioning of self-supporting chimney, fuel oil, storage tank, etc. The tender submitted by Consite Engineering Company Private Limited was accepted and on December 16, 1991 letter of intent was issued, after a detailed purchase order was issued on December 3, 1991. This dispute arose in respect of performance of the contract and Consite Engineering Company Private Limited instituted two suits being Suits No. 1607 and 1662 of 1992 in this court to claim damages and to restrain Enkay Texo Food Industries Limited from enforcing Bank guarantee. On April 29, 1992 the parties filed consent decretal order of reference and referred all claims, disputes and differences in the ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kiran and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1993
Reported in: [1996]217ITR326(Bom)
D.R. Dhanuka J.1. By this application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made at the instance of the Revenue, the Commissioner of Income-tax seeks direction of this court to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the following three questions to this court : '(1) whether the Tribunal was right in law in cancelling penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act holding that the Department had failed to discharge its onus to prove concealed income on the basis of revised returns furnished by the assessee? (2) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) was to be levied in reference to the admitted concealed income in the revised return even though the concealed income was detected during search and settled with the Department after original return of income had been filed? (3) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in inferring that levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealed income is not to be cons...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Beena K. Jain
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1993
Reported in: [1996]217ITR363(Bom)
Mrs. Sujata Manohar, J. 1. The assessee, who is the respondent before us, had sold office premises on July 23, 1987, which resulted in long-term capital gains of Rs. 24,05,050. Prior to the sale she had entered into an agreement for purchase of a residential flat which agreement was dated September 4, 1985. The agreement was for purchase of a flat for a total consideration of Rs. 12,26,751 On the date of the agreement of sale, the assessee paid a sum of Rs. 1,35,000 as earnest money. This agreement was registered on October 27, 1985. The construction of the flat was finally completed in July, 1988. The assessee paid the consideration amount of Rs. 10,44,375 plus Rs. 47,376 on July 29, 1988, and she was put in possession of the said flat on July 30, 1988. The assessee claimed the benefit of exemption under section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961. She has accordingly been granted by the Tribunal exemption of Rs. 11,04,423 under section 54F of the Income-tax Act. The Department has made t...
The Commanding Officer, Inhs and anr. and Gopinathan Etc. Etc. Vs. Y.C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1993
Reported in: (1994)96BOMLR651; (1995)IILLJ891Bom
S.P. Kundukar, J. 1. This group of 9 writ petitions filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the contempt petition filed by one of the respondents, can be disposed of by this common judgment since they arise out of a common judgment passed by the Minimum Wages Court at Bombay, on the applications filed by the respondents in all these petitions. The petitioners challenge legality and correctness of the impugned order dated August 14, 1987. 2. The Respondents in all these writ petitions filed applications under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, praying that the petitioners be directed to pay them difference in the minimum wages and the wages actually paid to them. According to the respondents, the provisions of Minimum Wages Act apply to them and they are entitled to wages as prescribed underthe Minimum Wages Act. There does not seem to be any dispute that the petitioners in the writ petitions are in Naval establishment conducting canteen for t...
Anant Tulshiram Bajaj Vs. Chagauram Ishwardas Keshwani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1993
Reported in: 1994(2)BomCR122; (1994)96BOMLR703
B.N. Deshmukh, J.1. This revision is filed by the landlord, who had initiated proceedings for eviction of the respondent-tenant from the suit premises, which consist of 3 rooms on ground floor of Municipal House No. 2-11-90, situated at Mohalla Rangar Galli, Aurangabad.2. The relationship of the landlord and tenant is admitted. The eviction was sought by the landlord on several grounds. Firstly, it was contended that the tenant was always irregular in payment of rent and has fallen in arrears from 15-1-1974 to 14-2-1975. Therefore, it was contended that the tenant is a wilful defaulter. The eviction was also sought on the ground of bona fide requirement and, thirdly, it was also contended that the defendant-tenant has constructed his own house at Sindhi Colony, Jalna Road, Aurangabad, and thus has secured an alternative accommodation.3. The Rent Controller rejected the application for eviction filed by the landlord.4. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal in the District Court at A...
Pratapsingh Mohansingh Pardeshi (Deceased) Through Legal Representativ ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1993
Reported in: 1994(3)BomCR188; (1993)95BOMLR847
N.P. Chapalgaonker, J. 1. Shantabai Mohansingh Pardeshi, landlady, filed a suit bearing number 461/1974 in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Ahmednagar, against Laxmikant and Vasudeo, sons of Ravachand Bhojwani, for the eviction of defendants - tenants from premises described as Bungalow No. 13 situated in Cantonment, Ahmednagar. It was pleaded by the landlady that the original rent agreed between the parties was Rs. 70/- per month. But since the municipal taxes were increased, it was agreed that the rent should be enhanced to Rs. 80/- per month. Tenants were in arrears from 1st April 1971. Tenants paid a sum of Rs. 450/- but rest of the amount has not been paid and they have not handed over the possession back to the landlady. Landlady also requires the premises for her bona fide personal use. A notice was issued by her on 28th July, 1972 terminating the tenancy and requiring the tenants to pay the arrears of the rent and, therefore, the suit. This suit was instituted on 3rd September ...
Pareshbhai Raojibhai Patel Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corpor ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1993
Reported in: 1994ACJ1233
H.H. Kantharia, J.1. The appellant, Pareshbhai Raojibhai Patel, was on 8th June, 1977, travelling by motor car bearing No. GJH 2115 and was going from Mahabaleshwar to Goa. The said car was being driven by respondent No. 3 whereas respondent No. 4 was the owner of the said car. The car was insured with respondent No. 5, United India Fire and General Ins. Co. Ltd., having its branch office at Sunil Chambers, Station Road, Anand, District Kaira in the State of Gujarat. When the car was going from Sawantwadi to Vengurla, a bus bearing No. MHG 8461 belonging to respondent No. 1, the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, came from the opposite direction. The bus was driven by the respondent No. 2, Dhondiram Shivaji Majhalkar, whose name has been deleted by the order of the Additional Registrar dated 8th October, 1985. The accident took place at that time on account of which the appellant lost one eye and suffered 50 per cent permanent disability. He, therefore, made an application c...
Pareshbhai Raojibhai Patel Vs. Maharashtra State R.T.C. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1993
Reported in: 1(1994)ACC409
H.H. Kantharaia, J.1. The appellant, Pareshbhai Raojibhai Patel, was on 8th June, 1977 travelling by motor car bearing No. GJH 2115 and was going from Mahableshwar to Goa. The said car was being driven by respondent No. 3 whereas respondent No. 4 was the owner of the said car. The car was insured with respondent No. 5, United Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd., having its Branch Office at Sunil Chambers, Station Road, Anand, District Kaira in the State of Gujarat. When the car was going from Sawantwadi to Vengurla, a bus bearing No. MHG 8461 belonging to respondent No. 1, the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, came from the opposite direction. The bus was driven by respondent No. 2, Dhondiram Shivaji Majhalkar, whose name has been deleted by the order of the Additional Registrar dated 8th October, 1985. The accident took place at that time on account of which the appellant lost one eye and suffered 50% permanent disability. He, therefore, made an application for compensatio...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Maharbano Sultanabi Rajjakkhan Pathan ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1993
Reported in: 1(1994)ACC366
H.H. Kantharia, J.1. This is the First Appeal by Insurance Company against the judgment and order dated 26th August, 1985 passed by the learned Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dhule, in Motor Accidents Claim Petition No. 35 of 1983.2. The short facts giving rise to the appeal are that deceased Rajjakkhan, aged about 27, who was working as Marketing Manager in Kiran Bidi Karkhana at Dhule and was getting a monthly income of Rs. 1,000/-, met with an accident on 10th January 1983 when he was returning from village Nihalod after attending a marriage ceremony. He was travelling with others in auto rickshaw No. MTS 5361 owned by respondent No. 5, Ratan Motiram Mahajan, and driven by respondent No. 6, Ramesh Baburao Gurao. As a result of he head injuries sustained by him in the accident, he died on 11th January, 1983 at Civil Hospital, Dhule. Therefore, respondent Nos. 1 to 4, being the wife and children of the said Rajjakkhan, filed application for compensation before the Moto...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »