Mumbai Court March 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.
Arun Gopal Rao Pohare Vs. E.S.i.C. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1993
Reported in: (1994)IILLJ75Bom
W.M. Sambre, J. 1. Learned Counsel for the applicant contended that against the recovery proceedings he approached the E.S.I. Tribunal wherein the Tribunal has taken cognizance and granted stay of recovery. Non-applicant No. 1 has filed a criminal complaint against the applicant which was taken cognizance of by the learned Magistrate and process has been ordered to be issued. It is contended that unless and until the dispute pending before the E.S.I. Tribunal is decided the applicant cannot be prosecuted before the learned Magistrate. In case he succeeds before the E.S.I. Tribunal then the order of issuance of process will be a nullity. 2. Mr. Samel, learned Counsel for non-applicant No. 1, contended that the Corporation is having the avenue to approach the Magisterial Court for the reasons that limitation to file a complaint is only six months and, therefore, non-applicant No. 1 was required to file the said complaint, approaching the Magistrate is not barred even though the matter is...
Mahadeorao Gulabrao Bhuibar and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Thr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1993
Reported in: 1996(2)BomCR96; (1993)95BOMLR513
H.W. Dhabe, J.1. Parties by Counsel, Rule. Heard forthwith.2. The instant writ petition can be disposed of on the basis of the preliminary objection regarding its maintainability raised on behalf of the respondents 2 and 3. Principally the preliminary objection is that none of the respondents 2 and 3 is holding a 'Public Office' and therefore, a writ of quo-warranto or any other appropriate writ, order, and/or direction in the nature of quo-warranto should be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to remove them from the offices held by them in Shree Shivaji Education Society, Amravati.3. The basic facts relevant to the consideration of the above preliminary objection are that Shree Shivaji Education Society, Amravati is a Society registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The said Society was established long back on 2nd December 1932 by Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh for making the educational facilities available to the people in the Vidarbha reg...
Gandhi Electrical Engg. Co. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1993
Reported in: 1993(2)BomCR572; (1993)95BOMLR371; [1994]205ITR265(Bom)
Sujata Manohar, J.1. The Assessee is a partnership firm. The Assessee firm originally consisted of two partners (1) Mahendrakumar J. Gandhi and (2) Harshadkumar J. Gandhi. A minor brother Nikhilkumar J. Gandhi was admitted to the benefit of the partnership. This was under the partnership deed of 1-5-1959. Thereafter a fresh partnership deed was executed on 5-11-1964. Under this partnership deed Mahendrakumar J. Gandhi became a partner as the Karta of his H.U.F. comprising of himself, his wife and his two minor sons and one minor daughter. The other partners of the firm were Harshadkumar Jayantilal Gandhi and Nikhilkumar Jayantilal Gandhi, who had by then attained majority. Under the partnership deed the three minor children of Mahendrakumar were admitted to the benefit of partnership. The respective share of the partners were --Mahendrakumar Jayantilal Gandhi (HUF) -- 30% Harshadkumar Jayantilal Gandhi -- 20% Nikhilkumar Jayantilal Gandhi -- 20%and each of the three minor children of M...
Eknath Prabhu Naidu (Deceased) through L.R's. Vs. Biru Ram Narayandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1993
Reported in: (1993)95BOMLR300
Bhimrao N. Naik, J.1. This is a petition filed by the landlord challenging the dismissal of the suit for possession.2. Few facts which are relevant for the purpose of this petition are that deceased Eknath Prabhu Naidu was the landlord of the suit premises of which the respondent was the tenant. On 6th January, 1976 petitioner served notice of demand and the tenancy of the respondent was terminated by the landlord. It was a composite notice both of termination as well as notice of demand. The arrears claimed were at the rate of Rs. 12 per month from 1st February, 1974, The possession was also claimed on the ground of bona fide requirements. The notice was received on 9th January, 1976. Thereafter since the possession was not delivered the suit was filed for possession before the IInd Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune, being Civil Suit No. 368 of 1978. It appears that prior to the filing of the suit respondent tenant also filed Misc. Application No. 709 of 1975 under Section 11...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›