Mumbai Court February 1994 Judgments
Forbes Forbes Campbel and Co. Ltd. and another Vs. Vilasrao Deshmukh t ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Bom346; 1994(3)BomCR660
1. The petitioner, Forbes Forbes Campbel and.Company Limited, is engaged in the business of acting as agents for an American Shipping Company ('American Company'). As agent of the said company, it has to carry out the work of unloading goods from vessels of the. said American company which arrive at Bombay Port. The petitioner is also required to transport goods from, the ships to the taking area within the port trust area at Bombay port. For the purpose of moving the imported cargo, the petitioner had imported 30 trailers in the year 1973 and 28 trailers in the year 1976- The said trailers were trailers of a specific type so constructed that a part of it is superimposed on and a part of its weight is borne by the driving vehicle. These trailers in commercial parlance are called 'semi trailers'. The above trailers were imported by the petitioner, under an import licence from the Government of India subject to the following conditions:(a) The said semi-trailers' would be usedonly within...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. A.U. Shaikh and anr. Vs. Dr. N.N. Kailas and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-1994
Reported in: (1994)96BOMLR333
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order, dated 19th August, 1993, passed by the Charity Commissioner. Maharashtra State, Bombay under Section 47 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 in the matter of 'Kailas Seva Sadan' a public trust duly registered under Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The Respondent No. 1 had expired.2. About 40 years ago, a public trust known as 'Kailas Seva Sadan' was founded by Dr. N. N. Kailas, Dr. M. D. Gilder, Mr. C. C. Sheth, Mr. Mangaldas Pakvasa and other prominent social workers. The said trust was duly registered as required (sic registered) under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. Prior to 31st January, 1993, Dr. N. N. Kailas, Dr. A. U. Shaikh and Mr. M. U, Chauhan were the only three, trustees of the said trust. It was the requirement of the rules and regulations governing the said trust that there shall be not less than three and not more than eleven trustees of the trust. The relevant portion of the said rules and regulations als...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs Vs. H. Mangaldas and Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-1994
Reported in: (1994)(52)LC382Tri(Mum.)bai
On the basis of the report received from Central Bureau of Investigations, Bombay, the Licence of M/s. H. Mangaldas & Co., C.H.A.No. 11/95, was placed under suspension vide Order No. S/8-1/87 Admn.dated 31.3.1987, in terms of Regulation 21(2) of Custom House Agents Licensing Regulation, 1984.Aggrieved by the said order M/s. H. Mangaldas & Co., 11/95, filed a Writ Petition No. 1429 of 1987 before the Hon'ble High Court, Bombay.The Hon'ble High Court, by its order dated 9.6.1987 inter alia ordered that the Collector of Customs or any other officer nominated by him will complete the enquiry proceedings and pass and communicate the order to the petitioners on or before 30.9.1987 failing which the suspension order dated 31.3.1987 shall stand revoked automatically without any further orders.As the enquiry proceedings against M/s. H. Mangaldas & Co., 11/95, got delayed and it was not possible to pass an order before 30.9.1987, the then Collector of Customs by his order of even No...
Tag this Judgment!Mulraj Tulsidas Morarji and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-1994
Reported in: 1994(4)BomCR187
V.A. Mohta, J.1. Validity of show cause notice dated 4th September, 1986 (Ex. L) issued under proviso to section 7(1) of the Requisitioning & Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (the Act of 1952) is questioned in this petition.2. The point arises against the following undisputed legal and factual backdrop. Multistoried building known as Sudama House situated in Ballard Estate, Bombay, was requisitioned by the Government of India under Rule 76 of the Defence of India Rules, 1939 vide order dated 26th June, 1942 during Second World War on the stated ground of the requirement by the Department of supply for use in connection with the prosecution of the war.3. A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution being Misc. Petition No. 289 of 1962, challenging the requisition as well as its continuation on several grounds was filed in the Court. Government of India, Ministry of Law, vide communication dated 18th March, 1963 informed that due to shortage of accommodation it was not pos...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Dattatraya Navale Vs. Shivanappa Hanumantappa Nagure and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Bom186; 1994(4)BomCR422; 1994(1)MhLj575
ORDER1. A short but interesting point arises in this matter. The father of Respondent No. 1 Shivanappa filed Regular Civil Suit No. 70 of 1970. The learned Civil Judge, J.D. Akkalot by his judgment and order dated 3-11-1971 decreed the said suit directing that the Respondent No. 1 was entitled to recover Rs.4660/- from Respondent No. 2 along with interest at 6% per annum on principal amount of Rs.4,000/ -from the date of suit till realisation. He also ordered the costs in favour of Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 filed execution proceedings i.e. Regular Derkhast No. 39/83. It came to be filed on 17-11-1983. The Respondent No. 1 claimed total amount of Rs. 8388-51 which included the principal amount, interest at 6% per annum on Rs. 4,000/- and the costs. In the said execution proceedings, order came to be passed on 22-1-1985 directing attachment of the 1/3rd share of the property C.S. No. 1314 of the Petitioner under Order 21, Rule 54 of Civil Procedure Code. Thereafter order came to...
Tag this Judgment!Gopalsing Vs. Mumtaz HussaIn ShamsuddIn Bohra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Bom331; 1996(1)MhLj742
ORDER1. The present Writ Petn. No.1607/89 is filed by the tenant against the order passed by the Resident Deputy Collector, Buldana by which the Resident Deputy Collector has allowed the applications filed by the landlords for permission to issue a quit notice under the provisions of clause 13(3)(ii) & (iv) of the C. P. & Berar Letting of Housesand Rent Control Order, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rent Control Order' for the sake of brevity). By the instant order, the Resident Deputy Collector, Buldana has also disposed of the applications made by the tenant and the landlords for fixation of fair rent. In view of this, this Judgment shall govern the Writ Petn. No. 1490/89 also.2. The subject matter of the dispute is a house in Ward No. 31, Malkapur which is tenanted to the present petitioner Gopalsing at the monthly rent of Rs. 16/-. This was a fairly old tenancy and the tenant was in the house for about 40 years. An application came to be made by the landlords -- the three bro...
Tag this Judgment!Murlidhar Bapuji Valve Vs. Yallappa Lalu Chaugule Since Deceased by Hi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Bom358; 1994(3)BomCR461; (1994)96BOMLR530
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 2-3-1982 passed by 4th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune in Special Suit No. 127 of 1966. The appeal has been filed by the original plaintiff as the trial Court has decreed the suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiff only in part and not in its entirety. During the pendency of the suit, the original defendant Nos. 1 and 2 died. The heirs of original defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are brought on record of the suit and are impleaded as the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in this appeal. The respondent No. 3 in the appeal was original defendant No. 3 in the said suit. The respondent No. 3 claims to be subsequent transferee for value without notice. The respondent No. 3 has filed cross-objections as permissible under the Code of Civil Procedure. Therespondents Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. the heirs and legal representatives of original defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have not filed any objections against the findings recorded by the trial...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra Vs. Kachrusingh Santaramsingh Rajput and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1994
Reported in: 1994(3)BomCR348
M.S. Vaidya, J.1. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the Counsel for both the Revision Applications.2. These are the Revision Applications filed by the State which had felt aggrieved by the orders dated 28-1-1994 passed against two different accused persons concerned with the offence registered at Cr. No. 6/1994 of MIDC, Waluj Police Station under sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act; section 423 of the Petroleum Act and sections 420, 468, 471, 477-A read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The offence in question was registered at the Police Station on 22-1-1994 against the respondents in both the Revision Applications and also against some others.3. Respondent Kachrusingh in Criminal Revision Application No. 42/94 had applied for anticipatory bail in the Court of Special Judge and Addl. Sessions Judge, Aurangabad on 24-1-1994 in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 48/94, and respondent-Lalit in Criminal Revision Application No. 43/94 had applied for a...
Tag this Judgment!Himalaya Builders and Developers and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1994
Reported in: 1996(2)BomCR108
H.W. Dhabe, J.1. These two writ petitions can be conveniently disposed of by this common judgment. However, for the sake of convenience we shall deliver the judgment in Writ Petition No. 687 of 1993.2. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 687 of 1993 is a partnership firm carrying on business of building houses and developing sites for houses. By an agreement dated 20-5-1992 the petitioner purchased Plot No. 29 Sheet No. 21-A admeasuring approximately 9206 sq.ft. for construction of a building thereon. The said Plot No. 29 belonged originally to one Balkrishna Mukundrao Satwalekar. He expired on 25-1-1991. He had left behind him his widow, one son and two daughters. His widow expired on 24-10-1991. The aforesaid agreement of sale was executed on 20-5-1992 by the son of the deceased Balkrishna, viz. Parag and was consented to by his two daughters.3. Perusal of the agreement of sale dated 20-5-1992 shows that the consideration agreed to between the parties was Rs. 18,42,000/- for the purc...
Tag this Judgment!Radhakrishna RamnaraIn Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1994
Reported in: (1994)50ITD159(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee which is directed against the order of the CIT (Appeals) dated 16-12-1988 wherein penalty of Rs. 4,950 levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 273(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was confirmed. The assessee has raised several grounds to urge that the CIT (Appeals) was not justified in confirming the penalty and the penalty levied should be cancelled.2. The assessee is a limited company and earns income from property and business. The assessment year involved is 1980-81. In order to giving proper focus to the issue involved in this appeal, it is considered necessary to refer to the assessment proceedings which highlight the relevant facts which are required to be taken into account in deciding the appeal.3. The assessee-company owned a property at Juhu known as Ruia House.It is situated at a plot of land measuring 18,936 sq. yds. The property has a guest house, swimming pool and own arrangement for water supply.It was given on rent of Rs. 5,...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »