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.
Mrs. Janaki R. Shetty Vs. the Collector of Bombay and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1993
Reported in: 1993(3)BomCR648
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. The petitioner carries on business in the name and style of M/s. Hotel Sunraj situate at Bandra, Bombay, as Sole Proprietress thereof. The said restaurant is situate at a distance of about 65.54 Sq. metres from St. Elaisis School and the Church.2. On or about 7th August 1987, the petitioner made an application to the Collector of Bombay, Prohibition and Excise Department for issue of a licence popularly known as `Permit Room Licence' (i.e. F.L. III Licence) under Rule 45 of the Bombay Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953 for sale of foreign liquor etc. at the above referred restaurant. The Deputy Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise by name of Shri Ghodke visited the restaurant and made his report to the Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise. On 9th December 1987, the Government of Maharashtra informed the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise that the Permit Room Licence known as FL-III Licence be granted to the petitioner on the conditions set out therein. Condition ...
Kurian Babu Vs. Reserve Bank of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1993
Reported in: (1993)95BOMLR350
Sujata Manohar, J.1. This is an application for review of an order passed by us (Myself & Deshmukh, JJ.), dated 3-2-1992 dismissing the writ petition. The petitioner appeared in person before us for the hearing of the petition and he appears in person today also. The grounds of review, on the face of it, do not justify any review of the order. The grievance made by the petitioner in the application to the effect that he did not get a chance to reply to the affidavit filed by the respondents or, as he puts it, 'to refute the falsehood and other allegations made in the above affidavit' are incorrect. In fact, we heard him at length before dismissing the Writ Petition and we have heard him at length today (more than 45 minutes) only because he is a party in person. We have also not taken into account for the purpose of the present order, the question of maintainability of the Review Petition because the petitioner is a party in person. We have also once again examined the merits of the pe...
Ramesh Kumar Jhamb and Another Vs. Official Assignee, High Court, Bomb ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-1993
Reported in: AIR1993Bom374; 1993(3)BomCR461
ORDERPendse, J. 1. This is an appeal preferred to challenge Order dated September 4, 1990, passed by learned Insolvency Judge on report dated March 15, 1989, made by the Official Assignee in Insolvency Petition No. 80 of 1984. By the impugned Order, the learned Judge declared that the appellants are not lawful and bona fide tenants/occupants of ownership flat bearing No. 9 in Block B situated at Triveni Co-operative Housing Society Limited, 32nd Road, Bandra, Bombay, and which flat belonged to respondent No. 4-Insolvent. The Order further authorises the Official Assignee to secure vacant possession of the fiat from the occupants and, if necessary, with police assistance, and by breaking open the locks and thereafter to sell the Insolvent's right, title and interest in the flat by public auction. The appellants were also directed to pay to the Official Assignee, damages from November 20, 1984, till handing over vacant possession at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month. The learned Judge also...
Godrej Soaps Limited, Bombay and Another Vs. Municipal Corporation of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-1993
Reported in: AIR1993Bom378; 1994(1)BomCR307
ORDERKapadia, J. 1. Both the above Appeals arise from common judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge dated 20thFebruary, 1991 (reported in : 1991(3)BomCR447 ) dismissing the above two Writ Petitions against which the present Appeals have been filed. 2. The common question of law which arises in the above two Appeals is as to whether the raw materials Alpha Olefin Suffocate and Alpha Olefin, imported by the appellants, fell within Item 18 of Schedule H to the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. 3. In order to answer the above question, the following facts, briefly, are required to be stated. (a) Appellants manufacture at their factory at Vikhroli, Greater Bombay, detergents for which the raw material used is a chemical known as Alpha Olefin Suffocate (hereinafter referred to, for the sake of brievity, as 'AOS') as also Alpha Olefin) (hereinafter referred to, for the sake of brievity, as 'AO'). The process of manufacturing the detergents is as follows: (i) The AOS, whic...
Allana Sons (Private) Ltd. Vs. Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate B ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-1993
Reported in: 1993(3)BomCR17; [1994]80CompCas274(Bom); 1993(2)MhLj1085
S.W. Puranik, J.1. These three appeals arise out of the order of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board (FERA Board or Appellant Board), first respondent, dated April 23, 1992, holding, inter alia, the appellants guilty of contravention of section 18(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA), imposing penalty upon them and ordering its recovery. The appellant in First Appeal No. 599 of 1982 is the company which is a trading house carrying on the business of export of fruits amongst other businesses. The appellants is First Appeal No. 600 of 1982 and 601 of 1982 are the directors of the said company. These three appeals can be disposed of by a common judgment as the same arise out of a common judgment of the FERA Board dated April 23, 1982. 2. In order to appreciate the proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Board, it would be necessary to enumerate the facts in brief. In December, 1975, the company, Allana Sons (Private) Ltd. received an o...
Sunil Kantilal Shah Vs. D.B.S. Sohal and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-1993
Reported in: 1993CriLJ3873
H.H. Kantharia, J.1. The petitioner herein is the brother of one Atul Kantilal Shah (hereinafter referred to as 'the detenu') has challenged in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the detention order dated 27th April, 1992 passed under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act by the Secretary (Prevention Detention) to the Government of Maharashtra. Home Department and Detaining Authority with a view to preventing the detenu from engaging in concealing and keeping smuggled goods. 2. There are various contentions raised in the petition challenging the detention order. However, Mr. Muzumdar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, urged only one point on which the petition should succeed and, therefore, there is no need of dealing with the other points. The submission of the learned Counsel is that the detenu had by a letter dated 7-10-1992 made a representation to the State Government which letter was received by the Superintendent of Nasik Road Central Prison on 10-10-1992...
Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-1993
Reported in: (1993)112CTR(Bom)68; [1994]205ITR339(Bom)
Smt. Sujata Manohar, J.1. This reference arises out of reference applications filed both by the assessee as well as by the Department arising out of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated February 20, 1976. The order pertains to the assessment year 1968-69. After the order of the Tribunal, the assessee moved two miscellaneous applications while the Department moved one miscellaneous application. These were disposed of by the Tribunal by a consolidated order dated July 15, 1979. The questions which are referred to us arise from the order of the Tribunal disposing of the assessee's appeal as also the order of the Tribunal in the miscellaneous application. 2. The following questions are referred to us, one at the instance of the assessee and two at the instance of the Revenue : (A) Assessee's Reference Application : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing to reduce the cost of plant and machinery by a sum of Rs. 2...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. S.K. Agarwal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-1993
Reported in: [1994]208ITR668(Bom)
U.T. Shah, J. 1. As the Revenue was aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal cancelling the penalty imposed under s. 271(1)(c) IT Act, 1961 (the Act) as well as rejection of the application made by it under s. 256(1) of the Act, the Revenue filed an application under s. 256(2) of the Act before this Court. Vide their judgment/order dt. 15th December, 1976, in IT Ref. No. 116 of 1976, this Court directed the Tribunal to draw a Statement of the Case and refer the following question for its opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the fact that the presumption arising under the Expln. to s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act 1961, arose against the assessee, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty imposed upon the assessee for the asst. yr. 1968-69 ?' 2. The assessee is an individual and is a partner in two firms M/s. Agarwal Fabrications and M/s. K. C. Agarwal & Sons. The assessment year is 1968-69 and the relevant previous year is the ca...
Plastika Industries Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-1993
Reported in: 1993(42)ECC147; 1993LC168(Bombay); 1994(70)ELT221(Bom)
V.A. Mohta, J.1. In this batch of petitions, a common question is involved and hence their disposal by this judgment. Question is whether the administrative decision dated 1-4-1991 cancelling the Bills of Entry (which were noted on holidays as per public notice dated 19-3-1991) is valid 2. By a public notice dated 28-12-1990 issued by the Customs House, it was notified that certain sections dealing with clearance of imported cargo would function in the normal way also on Saturdays. By a second public notice dated 15-3-1991, few more holidays were also declared as normal working days. By a third public notice dated 19-3-1991 it was notified that nothing of the Bills of Entry would be carried out by the Import Department even on those days. On the basis of the above three public notices, several importers, like the Petitioners, presented Bills of Entry for noting under Section 46 of the Customs Act and got noted those Bills for Warehousing and home consumption even on those declared work...
Dyaneshwari Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and anr. Vs. Maharashtra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-1993
Reported in: 1994(1)BomCR143
B.P. Saraf, J.1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner Dyaneshwari Co-operative Housing Society Limited on behalf of its 40 members who are allotees of tenements in a building situated at Sewri-Wadala, Bombay and known as D-2, Dyaneshwar Nagar. The tenements were allotted to the members of the petitioner society by the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority. The grievances of the petitioners are set out in para 3 of the writ petition which reads as follows :(a) The price fixation of the Housing Board tenements occupied by the allottees. The said price has no relation with the actual cost of construction and the respondents have forced this price upon the residents by going back on its promise.(b) The refusal of the respondents to carry out even essential repairs and to provide basic amenities for the tenements despite repeated requests, and the extremely dilapidated state of the said tenements.2. Before dealing with these grievances, it may be expedient to mention ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »