Mumbai Court April 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.
Employees' State Insurance Corporation and anr. Vs. G.N. Mathur and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-1993
Reported in: 1993(3)BomCR351; (1993)95BOMLR740; (1994)IILLJ138Bom
M.L. Pendse, J.1. A short but interesting question falls for determination in this appeal preferred by Employees' State Insurance Corporation against judgment dated February 7, 1991, delivered by learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1933 of 1986. The facts which give rise to the judgment are as follows : The appellants-Corporation is constituted under the provisions of The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Mills Limited was an establishment' contemplated under the Act and was required to deposit employers' contribution with the Corporation under the provisions of the Act. Respondents Nos. 4 to 10 are Directors of Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Mills, which is respondent No. 11. Respondent No. 11 was taken over by Respondent No. 3 National Textile Corporation after the Ordinance dated October 18, 1983 was promulgated and which was subsequently made into Act known as Textile Undertaking (Taking Over the...
Hiralal S/O Bhagwandas Gupta and ors. Vs. Ulhas S/O Krishnarao Hambard ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-1993
Reported in: 1994(2)BomCR24
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. This petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have impugned the order dated 24th November, 1987, passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur in the revision application No. Ten. A. 130 of 1986. This petition raises question relating to interpretation and applicability of section 60 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958. Section 60 of the said Act reads as under :---'Nothing in sections 38, 39 and 39-A and sections 40 to 44 (both inclusive), 46 to 50 (both inclusive) and section 57 shall apply to lands in the areas within the limits of a municipality constituted under the Central Provinces and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922, and within the limits of the City of Nagpur as constituted under the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948 excluding the areas of the villages specified in Schedule IV :Provided that if any person has acquired any right under the Berar Regulation of Ag...
Suresh S/O Nathuji Bangilwar Vs. Arjun S/O Kanhuji Gonnade
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-1993
Reported in: 1993(3)BomCR468
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has impugned the order dated 16-1-1989 passed by the Additional District Magistrate with appellate powers under Clause 21 of the Rent Control Order, 1949 in R. C. Appeal No. 270/A/71 (2)/87-88 and order dated 10th May 1989 passed by the same authority in review application preferred by the petitioner.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner at some length. The only question which arises for consideration of this Court is as to whether the appellate authority and the review authority was justified in taking the view that the petitioner was habitual defaulter and permission should be granted to the respondent to terminate the tenancy of the petitioner in respect of the premises in question as contemplated under Clause 13 (3) (ii) of the Rent Control Order, 1949. The Rent Controller had rejected the application of the respondent for grant of such permission. The a...
State of Maharashtra and anr. Vs. Aniruddha Shriram Ganorkar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-1993
Reported in: (1993)95BOMLR602
H.D. Patel, J.1. The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 21st June, 1990 delivered by the Third Additional District Judge, Shri R. K. Khandarkar, Amravati in Land Acquisition Case No. 19 of 1987.2. The Field Survey No. 9 admeasuring 4 hectares and 20 ares of Mouza Mhasla, Pragane Nandgaon Peth, Taluka and District Amravati belonging to the respondents was acquired along with other land by the State Government for the purpose of establishing the Amravati University Campus. The Section 4 notification under Land Acquisition Act was published on 5-12-1983. This was followed by section 6 notification which came to be published on 28 -2-1984. The possession of the land was obtained on 16-8-1984 by invoking emergency clause. By an Award made on 27-3-1986, the Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 40.000/- per acre or Rs. 1,00,000/- per hectare. Not satisfied with the quantum awarded, the respondents moved the Collector for making a refer...
Chandrakant Ratilal Mehta and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-1993
Reported in: 1993(3)BomCR99; 1993CriLJ2863
1. Exceptional as it may seem, this set of appeals concerns the familiar situation of an approach being made to a Minister that the law should be transgressed, the reward offered being a large sum of money. That the offer and the temptation to indulge in a corrupt practice emanates from the beneficiary of such dubious schemes, with the public official falling a prey to the incentive that is held out is the general pattern and it is equally common place to find an ever-willing response from the party in power. It is indeed unusual and in fact very rare to find a person of integrity who not only resists the attractiveness of the bribe but has the moral and physical courage to bring the culprits to book. This case represents the out of the ordinary and deals with an outstanding Home Minister of the Maharashtra Government who displayed exceptional integrity and courage and went through the exercise of having the entire gang which included a senior lawyer, trapped; and then withstood the ri...
Asgarali Haji Abdulali Vs. C.M. Betgeri and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-1993
Reported in: 1993(3)BomCR216; [1993]203ITR328(Bom)
Dr. B.P. Saraf, J. 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated February 17, 1993, passed by the appropriate authority under sub-section (1) of section 269UD of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (for short, 'the Act'). By the said order, the appropriate authority has ordered the purchaser of the immovable property in question by the Central Government in exercise of the powers under section 269UD of the Act. 2. The agreement of sale in the instant case was made by the petitioner on December 20, 1991, and statement in Form No. 37-I along with the said agreement was filed before the appropriate authority on December 31, 1991. The agreement related to the transfer of shop No. 2A, Machinery House, 11A, Burjorji Bharucha Marg, Bombay-23, along with five shares of Rs. 50 each bearing distinctive Nos. 91 to 95 under share certificate No. 20 issued by Machinery Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. As per the statement, the apparent consideration for transfer of the said immova...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Premier Automobiles Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1993
Reported in: (1993)114CTR(Bom)30; [1994]206ITR1(Bom)
Dr. B.P. Saraf, J.1. This is a cross reference at the instance of the Revenue and the assessee and relates to three assessment years, viz., 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73. Under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred one question at the instance of the assessee and two questions at the instance of the Revenue. Consequent to the reference of the second question at the instance of Revenue, which is renumbered for the sake of convenience as question No. 3, the assessee wanted a further question to be referred and the same was also referred by the Tribunal and it is numbered as question No. 4. The questions so referred by the Tribunal are set out below : At the instance of the assessee : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee-company could lawfully claim the development rebate in priority to depreciation allowance prescribed under section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, while computing its total income for ...
Bapurao Ragho DeThe Vs. Ganpati Vithu Rohankar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1993
Reported in: 1994(2)BomCR409
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has impugned order dated 19th November, 1981 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Wani in Revenue Case No. 2/40/1980-81 of Village Mangrud and order dated 30th November, 1983 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati in revisional proceedings arising therefrom numbered as Case No. 7/F.C.R/81-82 of Mangrud. 2. This petition raises interesting questions of law concerning interpretation and applicability of some of the provisions contained in Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947.3. The admitted facts required to be noticed for disposal of this petition are briefly summarised as under :--(a) The respondent No. 1, Ganpati Vithu Rohankar was owner of field bearing Survey No. 42/1 of village Mangrud, admeasuring about 2 acres of land (0-81 R) more particularly described in the impugned order dated 19th November, 1981 copy whereof is a...
Jyoti Wire Industries Private Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1993
Reported in: 1993(49)LC60(Bombay)
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks to challenge the Order dated 11th February, 1983, passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Division K-III, Bombay, by which the show cause notice dated 20th November, 1978, came to be confirmed.2. The facts giving rise to this Writ Petition are as follows:(a) The petitioner-company, inter alia, manufactures bare copper wire finer than 14 SWG (standard wire gauge) and bare aluminium wire finer than 10 SWG (hereinafter referred to, for the sake of brevity, as 'the said products'). The said products are not used as an electric conductor without insulation.(b) In April, 4962, Tariff Item No. 33-B was inserted in Central Excise Tariff and excise duly was levied on electric wires and cables.(c) By Trade Notice No. 114/MP/62 dated 4lh July, 1962, it was clarified that bare copper wire of more than 14 gauge arc hardly ever used as electric conductors without insulation and no duty sho...
Satish M. Naik Vs. N.P. Murgali and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-1993
Reported in: 1993(3)BomCR630; [1994(68)FLR504]; (1994)ILLJ959Bom
ORDERAshok Agarwal, J. 1. Petitioner is an ex-employee of the second respondent-company. He has been dismissed from service by an order passed by the second respondent. The said order was carried by the petitioner to the First Labour Court. The petitioner claimed reinstatement with full back wages. The reference was dismissed by the Presiding Officer of the First Labour Court, the first respondent herein. The order of dismissal passed by the second respondent and the judgment and order of the first respondent are impugned in the present petition.2. The petitioner on July 2, 1976 joined the services of the second respondent as a Junior Clerk. During the tenure of his service the Bank of Baroda was merged with the second respondent. The second respondent was issuing debentures and shares of its company to erstwhilemembers of the Bank of Baroda. 3. During the relevant period, the petitioner was attached to the Share Department. He was entrusted with the duties of making payments of intere...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›