Mumbai Court December 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.
Benedicto Fernandes Vs. State of Goa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1994
Reported in: 1996(2)BomCR128; 1995(2)MhLj743
Dr. E.S. Da Silva, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent taken up for hearing. 2. The petitioner challenges in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the action of the respondent Government in arbitrarily terminating the ad hoc appointment of the petitioner without any cause or reason while retaining that of others who were appointed along with him and were in similar circumstances as the petitioner. 3. The petitioner's case is that by order dated 31st July, 1992 he was appointed to the post of Lower Division Clerk, in the Secretariat on ad hoc basis for a period of six months with effect from 22nd July, 1992. This appointment was consequent upon his registration in the Regional Employment Exchange in its special scheme of 'One Job in a Family' after which he was interviewed for selection of candidates in the temporary vacancies existing in the cadre of L. D. Cs. by a duly constituted Selection Committee sometime in the month of March, 1992. On his appointmen...
Anant Bhiku Shirodkar and anr. Vs. Mrs. Rosalina Fernandes
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1994
Reported in: 1996(3)BomCR694
T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. The plaintiffs filed this revision application against the order passed by the Civil Judge, S.D., Quepem dated 12-7-1994 (though in the order it has been mistakenly typed as 1984), whereby an application for impleading some parties in the suit has been rejected by the Court below on the ground of limitation.2. I have heard counsel for the petitioners and the respondent. The question of limitation as raised in this order is a matter that can be raised by the person sought to be impleaded but not the person at whose instance the impleadment is being made. In fact, the impleadment has been made in view of a plea taken in the written statement that the persons sought to be impleaded are necessary parties. Therefore, the person who took up such plea cannot raise any objection in impleading those persons.3. The learned Counsel for the respondent has very vehemently argued that the suit against the persons who were sought to be impleaded is barred and the nature...
Vassudev S/O Gurachar Ibrahimpur and anr. Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1994
Reported in: 1996(2)BomCR326
A.P. Shah, J.1. This is rather an unfortunate case where Vidhya, a young girl of 22 years, lost her life on account of a love affair with a married young man Arjun, who took his own life on learning about the death of Vidhya and now the girl's own father and uncle are charged with the offence of committing her murder. The story of this unfortunate girl starts in April, 1991, when she ran away with Arjun. On making search, the girl's family found them in the house of Arjun's wife. The girl's father Vassudeo, who is accused No. 1, then took Vidhya to her maternal uncle Gopal Katti, who is residing at Hariar. Both Vassudeo and Vidhya stayed with Gopal for a period of one month and then they left Hariar for their village. There appears to be no dispute as far as this part of the story is concerned though the later part of the prosecution case is seriously challenged by the defence.2. Now the case of the prosecution is that from Hariar Vassudeo took Vidhya to several places and finally they...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. G. M. Abhayankar and Others (Huf)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-1994
Reported in: [1995]214ITR269(Bom)
DR. B.P. Saraf, J. 1. By this reference under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal; Bombay Bench 'C', Bombay, has referred the following question of law to us for opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that in computing the value of unquoted equity shares of Messrs. Hico Products P. Ltd., under rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, the difference in depreciation of Rs. 44,93,329 should be deducted from the value of assets shown in the balance-sheet ?' 2. The assessee is an individual. The assessment year is 1979-80. The relevant valuation date was March 31, 1979. On the relevant valuation date, the assessee held certain shares in Messrs. Hico Products Pvt. Ltd. The assessee as well as the Wealth-tax Officer determined the value in A accordance with the provisions of rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957. The valuation made by the assessee was as follows : Rs.'Total assets a...
Lalit Sehgal Vs. State of Goa and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-1994
Reported in: 1996(3)BomCR105; (1995)97BOMLR474
A.P. Shah, J.1. This group of writ petitions can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment as they all seek to challenge the Notification No. 2-20-92 dated December 21, 1993 issued under section 13-A of the Goa, Daman and Diu Public Gambling Act, 1976 and also the restriction under the said section 13-A that games of electronic amusement/ slot machines can only be installled in Five Star Hotels as being violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. 2. The Goa, Daman and Diu Public Gambling Act, 1976 (for short, 'the Act') was amended by the Goa, Daman and Diu Public Gambling (Amendment) Act, 1992 (for short, 'the Amendment Act'). The Amendment Act inserted into the Act a new section 13-A, which provides:-'13-A Authorised Game : (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Government may authorise any game of electronic amusement/ slot machines in Five Star Hotels subject to such conditions, including payment of such recurring and non-recurring fees, as ma...
Chandrakant Vishnu Kolhapurkar Vs. Shamba Suka Mandrekar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-1994
Reported in: 1996(3)BomCR695
T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. The plaintiff is the petitioner. The suit filed by the plaintiff is one for injunction restraining the defendants/respondents from interfering with the possession of the suit property and also the pathway. Even though ex-parte injunction was granted at the instance of the plaintiff at the initial stage, when the defendants contested the matter the injunction application has been dismissed by the trial Court. Appeal filed against that order before the Addl. District Judge, Panaji also ended in its dismissal.2. The respondents are not represented before me. I see from the endorsement in the file that they have refused to receive the notice issued by this Court. So I had the benefit of only hearing the counsel for the petitioner.3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders, the petitioner filed this revision application. The plaintiff claimed tenancy of the suit property and consequently possession also. The defendants namely, the respondents herein, contend tha...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Ajit Alias Hamid Alikhan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1994
Reported in: [1995]215ITR454(Bom)
DR. B.P. Saraf, J. 1. By this reference under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this court for opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the value of the right to receive the annuities in future secured on the annuity policies was not an asset, the value of which was includible in the net wealth of the assessee under section 2(e) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?' 2. This reference pertains to the assessment year 1977-78. The assessee is a professional film artiste. According to the terms of the contract with the film producer, remuneration was payable to the assessee for the services rendered by him in annual instalments of specified sums spread over a number of years. The producer took out annuity policies from the Life Insurance Corporation to secure payment of the mutually agreed amounts to the assessee in the stipulated yea...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Smt. Urmila L. Pittie
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1994
Reported in: [1995]215ITR356(Bom); 1995(2)MhLj35
Dr. B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this reference under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the following question of law has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to this court for opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the reversionary value of the land was not includible for purpose of valuation when the property was valued on the rent capitalisation method ?' 2. The assessee is an individual. This reference relates to her assessments under the Wealth-tax Act for the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77, the relevant valuation dates being March 31, 1975, and March 31, 1976, respectively. The assessee had 35 per cent. interest in an immovable property known as 'Raghunath Baug' in Fort, Bombay. This property was valued by the Departmental valuer by adopting the rent capitalisation method. Thereafter, the Departmental Valuation Officer added a sum of Rs. 5,16,812 as reversionary value of th...
Seth Rasesh Family Trust No. 1 Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1994
Reported in: [1995]215ITR530(Bom)
Dr. B.P. Saraf J. 1. By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made at the instance of the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench 'E', Bombay, has referred the following question of law to us for opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the gains arising out of the sale of bonus equity shares of the Standard Mills Co. Ltd. held by the assessee, were liable to be included in the income of the assessee as capital gains ?' 2. The assessee is a trust. The assessment year is 1980-81. The accounting year ended on December 31, 1979. The assessee held equity shares of Standard Mills Co. Ltd. During the relevant accounting year, the assessee sold 968 equity shares of the said company. The shares that were sold included 161 shares which had been received by the assessee-trust as bonus shares on October 19, 1978. The assessee included the capital gains arising out of these shar...
Sudesh Prabhakar Volvoikar Vs. Gopal Baboo Savoikar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1994
Reported in: 1996(1)BomCR5
T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. Admit. To be heard forthwith by consent.2. The defendant files this appeal. The suit is for recovery of money from the appellant.3. The plaintiff's case is that he was employed as a Manager of Cine Metropole at Margao under the Management of M/s. Hira Film Exhibitors. The defendant/appellant was working as a booking-clerk in the said theatre. The plaintiff/respondent was in overall charge of the staff and the day to day collection made out of the sale of tickets, which was deposited in the company bank, namely, United Commercial Bank at Margao. The appellant was entrusted with the duty of taking the cash to the bank for the purpose of depositing and, thereafter, return the pass-book to the respondent showing the deposit. On 19-10-1993 the respondent was entrusted a sum of Rs. 9,067.35 with the bank pass-book for the purpose of depositing in the bank. When the appellant went to remit the money into the bank, two door-keepers also accompanied him as securit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »