Mumbai Court April 1993 Judgments
YasmIn Properties (P.) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-1993
Reported in: (1993)46ITD331(Mum.)
1. These two appeals are by the assessee against the orders of the CIT(A) for the assessment year 1987-88 - the first in quantum and the other against penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. For the sake of convenience, both the appeals are being disposed of by this common order.2. The assessee was a beneficiary in a private trust, known as "Lokhandwala Developers", created by Abdulla F. Furniturewala on 4-1-1982 with a corpus of Rs. 1,000. The assessee was 10 per cent beneficiary in the income as well as the corpus of the trust. On 21-7-1986, the assessee assigned/sold its beneficial interest for a sum of Rs. 15 lac to M/s. Lokhandwala Builders (P.) Ltd. The other beneficiaries also transferred their shares to them and, thereafter, the trust was dissolved on 31-7-1986. The amount received by the assessee was credited straightaway to the profit and loss appropriation account and thereafter it was transferred to general reserve. The Assessing Officer brought...
Tag this Judgment!Mithailal and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-1993
Reported in: 1994(2)BomCR720; 1993CriLJ3580
B.U. Wahane, J.1. Yatra Naryantu, Pujyate, Tatra Ramante Devatah. This is one facet of our Indian society towards the women while the other is that Dhola, Gavar, Shudra, Pashu, Nari yah sub Tadan ke Adhikari. The true translations whereof are - (i) Wherever woman are highly respected, society prospers and moves forward, fast with stability and (ii) The drum, the rustic, the Shudra, the animal and the woman are all entitled to receive beating. Besides this Indian philosophy regarding the woman folk, we speak of modernisation and humanitarianism, but barbarism and in humanitarianism is still experienced, day in and day out. In this case we have to deal with an episode of a young married woman who died of starvation in the cattle shed of her in-laws' house. 2. The original accused preferred this appeal against their conviction for the offence punishable under Sections 342 and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara on 13-5-19...
Tag this Judgment!Lorcom (Protectives) Ltd. Vs. Lata Dangare and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-1993
Reported in: (1993)ILLJ1025Bom
1. Heard Mr. Babu Marlapalle for the Petitioner and Mr. M. R. Reddy, Advocate for Resp. No. 1. Mr. Marlapalle seeks permission to delete the name of Resp. No. 2. Permission granted. 2. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. The Respondent No. 1 was an employee of the Petitioner and after holding a domestic enquiry, she came to be dismissed from service under an order dated December 28, 1990. An appeal preferred to the Managing Director of the Petitioner-Company, as per the Standing Orders came to be dismissed on January 28, 1991. Thereafter, Complaint No. 77 of 1991 was filed by her before the Labour Court at Aurangabad. An application for interim relief was made in that matter and under the orders dated June 29, 1991, the said application was allowed and the present-Petitioner was directed to reinstate the complainant in service till the disposal of the complaint. The Revision Petition U.L.P. No. 31/91 preferred in the Hon'ble Court at Aurangabad came to be dismissed finally on August 2, ...
Tag this Judgment!Transport Corporation of India Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporat ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-1993
Reported in: (1999)IIILLJ194Bom
U.T. Shah, J.1. In this petition the petitioners are challenging the order passed under Section 45-A of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (The Act) by the Deputy Regional Director calling upon the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. 2,09,914/- being the contribution for the period from May, 1981 to July, 1985 alongwith interest amounting to Rs. 50,379.2. The petitioners are a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Mahatma Gandhi Road, Secunderabad - 500 003, Andhra Pradesh and Regional Office at Transport House, 128/B, Poona Street, Bombay 400 009, as well as various other branches all over India and in the State of Maharashtra, The Respondent No. 1 is the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (the Corporation) and the Respondent No. 2 is the Deputy Regional Director (DRD) appointed under the Act.3. Vide his letter dated July 29, 1986, the Regional Director of the Corporation, Maharashtra State enquired of the petitioners as to why the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Ramkisan Onkarmal Agrawal Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Bom87; (1993)95BOMLR323; 1994(1)MhLj369
ORDERH. W. Dhabe, J. 1. The petitioner who was the President of Municipal Council, Achalpur, district Amravati has challenged in this writ petition the order of the Collector, Amravati dated 16-12-1992 informing him that the resignation tendered by him of his office as President of the aforesaid Municipal Council, Achalpur has been accepted from 16-12-1992 and consequently the request to withdraw the same cannot be acceded to.2. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner was elected as President of the Municipal Council Achalpur, district Amravati on 15-12-1992. He addressed a letter to the Collector, Amravati, by which he tendered resignation of the post of the President of the Municipal Council, Achalpur, to be effective from 16-12-1992. He thus requested him to accept his said letter of resignation dated 15-12-1992. The said letter of resignation dated 15-12-1992, although addressed to the Collector, was actually handed over to the Additional Collector, Amravati, by the petitioner at...
Tag this Judgment!Sudhakar Mahadeorao Kawale Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-1993
Reported in: 1994CriLJ735
H.W. Dhabe, J.1. In answer to notice to Show Cause in this Contempt Petition, the Land Acquisition Officer/Contemnor has sought to justify his action of not complying with our orders regarding the payment of enhanced compensation to the petitioner on the ground that since the Petitioner had chosen to apply for a reference under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ('Act') and since the reference was actually made in his Land Acquisition case in the Civil Court, which awarded him enhanced compensation, he was not entitled to enhanced compensation under S. 28A of the said Act on the basis of the enhanced compensation awarded in some other reference in similar cases decided on 17-4-1990. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has disputed the interpretation sought to be placed by the learned counsel for the State upon the right to enhanced compensation granted under S. 28-A of the Act and has urged that even though a reference is made to the Ci...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Corporation of Gr. Bombay Vs. Associated Engineers
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-1993
Reported in: 1994(1)BomCR341
S.M. Jhunjhunuwala, J.1. By this petition, the petitioners seek to set aside and/or remit the Award dated 31st May, 1990 which has been filed in this Court and numbered as Award No. 74 of 1990.2. Briefly stated, the facts are as under :(i) The petitioners are a body corporate incorporated pursuant to the provisions of The Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (for short, referred to as `the said Act'). The respondents are a partnership firm inter alia carrying on business as Engineers and Civil Contractors. Sometime in the year 1984, the petitioners invited tenders for pile foundation of the proposed Administrative Building and Drill Tower for being constructed in place of then existing building at Byculla Fire Brigade Station, Bombay (hereinafter for short referred as `the said work'). General Conditions for Civil Contracts of the petitioners (hereinafter for short referred to as `GCC') formed part of the tender documents in respect of the said work. Clauses 96 and 97 of the said GCC...
Tag this Judgment!S.J. Pande Vs. P.K. Balakrishnan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-1993
Reported in: 1993(3)BomCR134; (1993)95BOMLR736
R.M. Sahai, J.1. Can a statutory tenant create a licence? If the answer is in affirmative then can such licensee claim immunity from eviction in execution proceedings in view of Section 15A of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 57 of 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act)? These are questions which arise for consideration in this consideration in this appeal directed against the judgment and order of the Bombay High Court.2. What happened was that the landlord determined the tenancy of the contractual tenant in October 1966 and filed a suit for his eviction in 1967 which was decreed ex-parte on 5th October 1973. In execution of the decree the licensee obstructed and claimed to be protected licensee under Section 15A of the Act. The objection was rejected by the executing and the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court found that even though the first licence was, created in 1966 before determination of the tenancy for a period of six years but the second licen...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish Balwantrao Abhyankar and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and O ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Bom141; (1993)95BOMLR337; 1993(1)MhLj958
ORDERH. D. Patel, J. 1. A common question arose in the aforesaid four Letters Patent Appeals about their maintainability under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent (Bombay) before the Division Bench consisting of H. W. Dhabe and A. A. Desai, JJ. By judgment delivered on 6-2-1989, one of the Judges of the Division Bench, namely, Dhabe, J. expressed his opinion by giving reasons that all the four appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent are maintainable. The other Judge, that is, Desai, J., however, gave his opinion on 26-11-1992 in the following words : 'Having regard to the view as then taken in the case of Jaitunbi, I hold that the appeals are not maintainable. I, therefore, dismiss the same.'It becomes necessary to point out that the case of Jaitunbi wd/o Mohammed Ismail v. Smt. Halimabi w/o Yusuf Baig Letters Patent Appeal No. 14 of 1983 with other connected appeals was heard and decided by the Division Bench consisting of Quazi and Desai, JJ. on 21-8-1988. In that case my brother D...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Meena Gopalkrishna Mudiliyar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-1993
Reported in: 1993(3)BomCR584; 1993CriLJ3634; 1993(2)MhLj1416
Mukherjee, C.J.1. The subject matter of challenge in the instant appeal is the judgment and order dated September 17, 1991 passed by the learned Special Judge, Greater Bombay, convicting the appellant under Section 8(c) read with Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and sentencing her to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year more.2. According to the prosecution case, on March 2, 1987 at or about 9.15 p.m. while Suresh Sawant (P.W. 3), a Sub-Inspector of Police attached to M.R.A. Marg Police Station, along with Police Head Constable Baburao Jadhav (P.W. 2) and other staff was on patrol duty they received an information and to work out the same they along with two panchas including Leela Ganesh (P.W. 1) went to a place opposite to the Dental College on P. D'Mello Road, Bombay. There they found the appellant standing near...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »