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.
Smt. Vimla Devi G. Maheshwari Vs. S. K. Laul and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1993
Reported in: (1993)112CTR(Bom)42
SMT. SUJATA MANOHAR, J. :The petitioner has challenged an order dt. 18th February, 1993 being a de novo order under s. 269UD of the IT Act, 1961 under which for reasons recorded in that order, respondents 1 and 2 exercised their power to purchase the petitioners property being Flat No. 1, on the first floor of Avanti Building Off Netaji Subhash Road Bombay-400 002.2. The petitioner entered into an agreement dt. 1st of August, 1987, with the 3rd respondent under which the petitioner had agreed to sell the above flat to the 3rd respondent for a sum of Rs. 23 lakhs. This was the subject-matter of an earlier order of purchase under s. 269UD dt. 23rd September, 1987. This order was challenged in WP No. 3290 of 1987. The petition was admitted and a stay of the order of 23rd September, 1987 was granted in terms of the Minutes dt. 7th October, 1987. The writ of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of C. B. Gautam vs. Union of India reported in (1992) 199 ITR 530. The High Court direct...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kanchanlal Vadilal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1993
Reported in: (1994)116CTR(Bom)140; [1993]203ITR218(Bom)
Dr. B.P. Saraf J. 1. By this reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at the direction of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question of law for opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the interest arising to the assessee's wife and minor child is assessable in the hands of the assessee under section 64(iii) and 64(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?' 2. This reference relates to ten assessment years and arises from two common orders of the Tribunal disposing of ten appeals of the assessee relating to his assessments for the years 1959-60 to 1969-70 excluding, however, assessment year 1962-63. One of the common orders relates to five assessment years from 1959-60 to 1964-65 and it is dated September 25, 1970. The other common order dated September 29, 1970, relates to five assessment years, viz., 1965-66 to 1969-70. 3. The assessee is Shri Kanchanlal Vadi...
Secretary to Govt. of Maharashtra, Public Health Dept and ors. Vs. Dev ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1993
Reported in: (1993)IILLJ624Bom
ORDER1. The impugned order passed by the Labour Court on April 8, 1992 and the impugned revisional order passed by the Industrial Court on November 26, 1992, are substantially just, reasonable and fair. No case for intervention is made out under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Respondent No. 1 was appointed as a Compounder by the petition with effect from March 19, 1991. The services of respondent No. 1 were orally terminated on December 27, 1991 without complying with the provision of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court recorded a prima facie finding of fact to the effect that respondent No. 1 had put in 240 days continuous service and the impugned termination was in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner failed to produce the Muster Register and other relevant documents at the time of hearing of application of respondent No. 1 for interim relief. The petitioner relied upon appointment orders issued...
Bakul M. Kapadia Vs. Bank of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1993
Reported in: [1997]88CompCas515(Bom)
Smt. Sujata Manohar J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the learned single judge dated February 8, 1993, in Notice of Motion No. 2781 of 1992, taken out in Suit No. 2218 of 1983. By this order, the learned single judge has extended the proposed date of sale by the Court receiver by further four weeks when the fifth defendant applied for an interim order. In view of this order, as nothing further survived, the notice of motion was disposed of with no order as to costs. Being aggrieved by this order of learned single judge, the original fifth defendant has preferred the present appeal. 2. The notice of motion which is taken out on December 15, 1992, by the appellant, is for the following prayers : '(a) this court do direct the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay, not to put up for sale, the immovable properties of the first defendant company till - (i) the investigation into the quantum of and responsibility for the damage done to the immovable properties of first defendant company ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Parke Davis (i) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1993
Reported in: [1994]205ITR303(Bom)
1. This reference arises under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, (Surtax Act) in respect of the assessment years 1971-72, 1974-75 and 1975-76. 2. The questions referred to us by the Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with section 18 of the Surtax Act, 1964, for the assessment year 1971-72 are as under : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Internal Audit Objection can be held to constitute 'information' and whether the reassessment proceedings under section 8(b) of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, are valid in law (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the balance to the credit of the general reserve account as on December 1, 1969, was required to be reduced by the sum of Rs. 52,50,000 being the interim dividends for the accounting year ending on November 30, 1969, declared by the board of directors on January 14, 1970, and May 5, 1970, and p...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Phiroze H. Patch and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1993
Reported in: [1994]205ITR377(Bom)
Mrs. Sujata Manohar, J.1. This reference pertain to five assessees, whose cases have been decided by the Tribunal by a common judgment. The reference pertains to the assessment year 1973-74. The question which is referred to us under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the benefit of section 54 of the Income-tax Act, were to be given to the assessee ?' 2. The five assessees along with the other person were the owners of a property knows as 'Adville'. This property consisted of a bungalow with some vacant land appurtenant to it. This property was of the co-ownership of the assessees plus one other person. Two of the assessees had each a 1/6th share in the property and the other there assessees had a 1/9th share each. The sixth co-owner, who is not before us, held the remaining 1/3rd share. The entire property was in the actual occupation of six co-owners during the...
Best Worker's Union Vs. N.A. Kadam, President, Industrial Court and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1993
Reported in: (1993)IILLJ887Bom
1. The petitioner is a representative and approved Union for Transport Industry. The Respondent No. 3 is a Registered undertaking engaging in the Transport Industry. The Respondent No. 3 runs 'BEST Undertaking' and carries on Transport business. 2. On December 26, 1983, the Respondent No. 3 made an application to the Labour Court, being Application (LCB) No. 709 of 1983, for a declaration that the strike or stoppage of work resorted to by the employees of the undertaking or Respondent No. 3 herein represented by the Petitioner Union on October 4, 1983, was illegal strike under the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. The Respondent No. made the said application under Sections 97(1)(b) and 97(A) read with section 78(1)(A)(c) and Section 79 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. It was averred in the said application that the employees of the 3rd Respondent Undertaking had indulged in illegal strike or stoppage of work on October, 4 1983, on instigation of the ...
The Municipal Corporation of Gr. Bom. and ors. Vs. Madhav Shankar Pend ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1993
Reported in: 1994(1)BomCR119
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay against judgment and order dated 14th February, 1991/22nd March, 1991 in Writ Petition No. 3119 of 1988 by which the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the original petitioner and quashed the order of dismissal dated 14th September, 1988 and further directed the Corporation to hold a fresh enquiry and pass fresh orders in accordance with law as laid down by the impugned judgment.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly, are as follows:(a) On 1st January, 1981, the original petitioner was employed by the Corporation as a junior auditor and accounts assistant. He was posted at 'D' Ward. In April, 1981, the original petitioner was assigned to pension section of 'D' Ward of the Bombay Municipal Corporation.(b) In November, 1983, the original petitioner was asked to attend to the duties of casual pay master. He was required to work under one A.M. Bhatt, Senior Officer. H...
The General Secretary Vs. Mrs. N.A. Kadam and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1993
Reported in: 1993(3)BomCR506
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. The petitioner is a representative and approved Union for Transport Industry. The respondent No. 3 is a registered Undertaking engaged in the transport industry. The respondent No. 3 runs 'B.E.S.T. Undertaking' and carries on transport business.2. On 26th December, 1983, the respondent No. 3 made an application to the Labour Court, being Application (L.C.B.) No. 709 of 1983, for a declaration that the strike or stoppage of work resorted to by the employees of the undertaking of respondent No. 3 herein represented by the petitioner Union on 4th October, 1983, was illegal strike under the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. The respondent No. 3 made the said application under sections 97(1)(b) and 97(A) read with section 78(1)(A)(C) and section 79 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. It was averred in the said application that the employees of the 3rd respondent Undertaking had indulged in illegal strike or stoppage of work on the 4th Octo...
Omprakash Tulsiram Aggarwal and ors. Vs. the Board of Trustees of the ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1993
Reported in: 1993(2)BomCR596
M.K. Mukherjee, C.J.1. At all material times Tulsidas Devidayal Property Trust, of which the appellants are the trustees, was the lessee in respect of six plots of land in Mazgaon Reclamation Estate belonging to the Bombay Port Trust (B.P.T. for short), the respondent herein. All the leases, under which the plots were being held, were for a period of 99 years, which expired on 10th December 1978. Before the expiry of the leases, the appellants asked for their renewal in terms of the renewal clause thereof which reads as under :'Provided always and it is hereby declared that the said lessor his successors or assigns shall at or before the expiration of the term granted by these presents at the request and at the costs of the said Lessees their successors or assigns grant a new or renewed lease of the said lands presses mill buildings, hereditaments and premises hereby demised or any portion of the same to the lessees, their successors and assigns subject to the same conditions contained...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »