Mumbai Court October 1994 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.
Amarchand Fulchand Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1994
Reported in: 1995(77)ELT539(Bom)
M.L. Pendse, J.1. The petitioners are partnership firms and sole proprietary concerns carrying on business as importers and exports of pearls. The petitioners import raw pearls, which are then polished and strung and finished pearls are exported. Prior to June, 1985, consignments of imported pearls were delivered at Bombay through air freight/cargo and were cleared by the Customs Authorities through the Jewellery Section of the Air-cargo Complex at Sahar Airport. On receipt of intimation, the consignee used to present relevant documents to the Customs Authorities and the consignment was appraised and if found to be in order, the same was released by the Customs Authorities. The consignee was required to pay handling charges fixed by the Customs Authorities for such clearance and these charges were irrespective of weight and dimension of the package. Prior to February 1985, the said system was also followed in respect of consignment of pearls meant for export. The consignor was required...
Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Commissioner and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1994
Reported in: (1996)IIILLJ554Bom
Pendse, J. 1. In Pursuance of an advertisement issued by Respondent No. 1, the Petitioner applied for post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Production) and was appointed with effect from September 1, 1980. The Respondent No. 1 had framed Regulations known as Oil and Natural Gas Commission (Recruitment and Promotion) Regulations. 1974. The promotion to the post of Executive Engineer was from the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer. The posts of Assistant Executive Engineers were filled in either by promotion or by direct recruitment. The 1974 Regulations prescribe that the post of Executive Engineer was a non-selection and those Assistant Executive Engineers who were holding degree in Chemical/Mechanical/Petroleum Mining Engineering or equivalent and having two years experience were eligible for consideration of promotion. The experience of three years was required for Assistant Executive Engineers who were merely Diploma holders and four years in respect of Assistant Executive Engine...
Hawabai Wd/O Late Suleman Haji Vs. Abdul Sattar Suleman Haji Ahmed Oom ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1994
Reported in: 1995(2)BomCR551
R.G. Vaidyanatha, J.1. This is a First Appeal filed by the plaintiff against the Judgment and Decree dated 21-7-1994 in Suit No. 2653 of 1989, on the file of City Civil Court, Bombay.2. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent raised a preliminary objection that the Appeal is not maintainable. I have heard both the Counsel on the question of maintainability of the Appeal.3. The Appellant-plaintiff filed the suit in the trial Court under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act for possession of the suit property on the allegation that the defendants dispossessed her from the suit property within 6 months prior to the date of the suit.The defendants contested the suit by filing written statement.After trial the learned trial Court dismissed the suit. The trial Court recorded a finding that the plaintiff failed to prove her possession and then dispossession within 6 months prior to the date of the suit.Being aggrieved with the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff has come up with thi...
Croydon Chemical Works (P.) Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1994
Reported in: (1994)51ITD659(Mum.)
1. The only question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether any disallowance can be made under Section 37(3A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of the expenditure on advertisement.2. This is a recalled matter. The appeal was originally decided on 18th December, 1992. The assessee had raised two contentions in respect of disallowance on expenditure on Physician information Pamphlets and distribution of samples etc., namely (i) that the expenditure itself was not an expenditure on advertisement, publicity or sales promotion; (if) no disallowance could be made legally under Section 37(3A). The Tribunal decided the first contention of the assessee but the other contention of the assessee left undecided. On the Misc. Application filed by the assessee, the Tribunal has recalled the matter to consider the alternative contention of the assessee vide its order dated 20th July, 1993.3. The parties have been heard on this issue. The contention of the appellant is that no d...
Banu Wife of KutubuddIn Sulemanji Vimanwala and anr. Vs. KutubuddIn Su ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1994
Reported in: 1995(2)BomCR110
R.G. Vaidyanatha, J.1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for a declaration and for certain other reliefs. The defendant has contested the suit by filing Written Statement. Issues have been framed. The evidence was recorded on commission. The plaintiff examined herself and closed her case. The defendant has examined himself and one witness and closed his case. I have heard lengthy arguments addressed on behalf of the plaintiffs and defendant.2. The plaintiffs case is as follows :The 1st plaintiff is the wife of the defendant. The 2nd plaintiff is the son of the 1st plaintiff and the defendant. The parties belong to Dawoodi Bohara Sect of Muslim Shiya Community. The marriage between the 1st plaintiff and the defendant was performed on 19th January, 1980 at Godhra. The second plaintiff was born on 13th November, 1981. Though in the beginning the matrimonial relationship of the 1st plaintiff with the defendant was cordial, it is alleged that subsequently strained feeling started betwee...
Shri Narcinva Yeshwant Saldanha and ors. Vs. the State of Goa, by Its ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1994
Reported in: 1995(4)BomCR133
M.S. Vaidya, J.1. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. Heard Mr. Rebello for the petitioners, Mr. Coelho Pereira, Advocate General, for the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Diniz for the respondent No. 3.2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking against the respondent Government an order or a direction quashing and setting aside the Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (vide Exhibit 'A' annexed to the petition) which was issued on 5-1-1993 as also the declaration under section 6 (Exhibit 'C') made consequent thereto. A provisional injunction was also sought restraining the respondents from taking possession of the land of the petitioners pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit. No interim relief was granted in the petition and, ultimately, the Government has produced on record Certificate, Exhibit 'B', (page 111) showing that the possession of the land in question was taken by the Government on 22nd Augu...
Banu and anr. Vs. KutubuddIn Sulemanji Vimanwala
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1994
Reported in: II(1995)DMC390
R.G. Vaidyanatha, J.1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for a declaration and for certain other reliefs. The defendant has contested the suit by filing written statement. Issues have been framed. The evidence was recorded on Commission. The plaintiff examined, herself and closed her case. The defendant has examined himself and one witness and closed his case. I have heard lengthy arguments addressed on behalf of the plaintiffs and defendant.2. The plaintiffs case are as follows :The 1st plaintiff is the wife of the defendant. The 2nd plaintiff is the son of the 1st plain tiff and the defendant. The parties belong to Dawoodi Bohara Sect of Muslim Shiya Community. The marriage between the 1st plaintiff and the defendant was performed on 19th January, 1980 at Godhra. The second plaintiff was born on 13th November,1981. Though in the beginning the matrimonial relationship of the 1st plaintiff with the defendant was cordial, it is alleged that subsequently strained feeling started betw...
Nathu S/O Bakaram Nimkar and ors. Vs. Yamunabai @ Gunabai Wd/O Bakaram ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1994
Reported in: (1995)97BOMLR132
R.M. Lodha, J.1. This Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') has been filed by the present appellant dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 23.10.1981 passed by Assistant Judge, Nagpur in Civil Appeal No. 130/80, Nathu and 2 others u. Yamunabai and another, whereby he confirmed the judgment and decree passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Katol on 5.4,1980 in Civil Suit No. 87/74, Yamunabai and another v. Nathu and 2 others. The Civil Judge, Junior Division, Katol, by its judgment and preliminary decree dated 5.4. i960 decreed the respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiffs') suit for partition of the property described in Schedule C attached with the plaint against the appellants (hereinafter referred to as 'defendants') and the said Court declared that plaintiff No. 1,. defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 are entitled to 3/ 10th share each, while plaintiff No. 2 and defendant No. 3 are entitled to 21 /20th share each i...
iol Limited Vs. S.C. Prasad and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1994
Reported in: 1995(2)BomCR452; (1995)124CTR(Bom)64; [1996]217ITR52(Bom); 1995(1)MhLj346
M.L. Pendse, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Shri Sethna and Shri Kalyaniwala waive service on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 4 and 5, respectively. By consent, petition taken on board and called out for hearing. Heard counsel. 2. By this petition under article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners are challenging the legality of order dated June 17, 1994, passed by the appropriate authority in exercise of the powers conferred under section 269UD of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The facts which gave rise to the passing of the order are required to be briefly stated to appreciate the grievance of the petitioners. 3. The petitioners are the owners of property bearing city survey Nos. 168 and 168/1 to 168/76 situated at L. B. S. Marg, Ghatkopar (West), Bombay. The petitioners agreed by an agreement dated March, 10, 1994, to transfer development rights in respect of part of the property to respondent No. 5. The earnest money agreed to be paid under the agreement was Rs. 1,15,00,000 and the...
Cemendia Company Ltd. Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1994
Reported in: 1995(2)BomCR419; [1995(71)FLR160]; (1995)IILLJ519Bom
R.G. Vaidyanatha, J.1. Both these appeals are directed against the order dated 17th February 1987, in application (ESI) No. 33 of 1983 on the file of ESI Court, Bombay. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties. 2. The parties are referred to as per their title in the Court below. M/s. Cemendia Company is a construction company. It has a head office at Bombay. It has a workshop, a Soil Testing Laboratory and a godown at Wadala. It is an engineering and construction company which takes up construction of buildings all over India. It is an admitted fact that the workshop, the laboratory and the godown are covered by the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as 'the ESI Act'. The ESI Corporation demanded the company to pay the contribution regarding employees employed in the head office and also at various sites where construction activity is going on. The applicant refuted this claim. Subsequently, the company filed the pres...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »