Mumbai Court April 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.
Govind Ganesh @ Bhai Tilve Vs. A.U. Chate, Police Constable B. No. 519 ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-1994
Reported in: 1994(4)BomCR442
R.G. Vaidyanatha, J.1. This is a writ petition filed by the complainant against the order dated 30th October, 1987 on the private complaint filed by the writ petitioner in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panvel. Arguments are heard.2. The petitioner filed a private complaint in the Court below against respondents Nos. 1 and 2 alleging that they had committed offences under sections 166, 342 and 220 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 147(c) of the Bombay Police Act. The learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the complainant. Then he passed the impugned order dated 30th October, 1987 under which he dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved by the said order, the complainant has come up with this writ petition.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner questioned the correctness and validity of the impugned order. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have remained absent inspite of service of notice. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing...
Lt. Col. Ravindranath H. Hiramath Vs. Prashantkumar Buttan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-1994
Reported in: 1994(4)BomCR445; (1994)96BOMLR346; 1994(2)MhLJ1731
M.L. Dudhat, J.1. This civil revision application along with Civil Revision Application Nos. 456 of 1990, 4618 of 1990 and 608 of 1989 are tagged together as there is a common question of law as to the applicability of section 13-A-2 of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947.2. The present petitioner has filed this civil revision application against the judgment order, dated May 30, 1992, passed by the Competent Authority, Division Pune, in M.A. No. 5 of 1992. By the aforesaid judgment and order the competent authority dismissed the application filed by the present petitioner on the ground that the competent authority has no jurisdiction to entertain the said application and also on the ground that the petitioner is a tenant-member of the Society and such a tenant-member of the Society is excluded from the ambit of section 13-A-2 of the Bombay Rent Act. The petitioner in this case is a tenant-member of the Tridal Nagar Co-op. Housing Society in respect of flat No. 5 in building No. A-1 which is dul...
Satyabhamabai Sitaram Deshmukh and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra Throu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-1994
Reported in: 1994(4)BomCR438; (1994)96BOMLR384
A.D. Mane, J.1-This First Appeal arises out of an order passed by the Court below dismissing the reference made by the appellants under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act).2. The lands owned by the appellants bearing Survey Nos. 192 and 195/1 admeasuring 30 Hectares 76 Acre situated at Osmanabad were acquired for the purpose of M.I.D.C. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, passed his award on 15-2-1978. He valued the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 1875 per acre. The claimants were served with the notice under section 12(2) of the Act on 2-1-1979. It appears that immediately thereafter, the appellants raised objection to the valuation of the acquired land, by their application on 1-3-1979. On their request, reference under section 18 of the Act was made to the Court for determination of the compensation, as according to the claimants, the valuation made by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate and was not acceptable to them.3. It may be stated that...
Samindrabai Manika Gajabhare and anr. Vs. the Divisional Controller, M ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-1994
Reported in: II(1994)ACC480; 1995ACJ350; 1994(3)BomCR491; (1994)96BOMLR354
A.D. Mane, J.1. This First Appeal is directed on behalf of legal heirs of deceased Manika against the award of damages for death of Manika in the accident.2. Deceased Manika was the husband of appellant No. 1 and father of appellant No. 2. He was dealing in a leather business. On August 5, 1981 at about 9 A.M. he was coming from his village to go to Nanded on foot, carrying a bundle of leather on head. Near the Seed Farm at Latur cross-road he met with an accident with the S.T. bus bearing No. MTB 5207. The bus was coming from Mukhed to Umarkhed via Nanded. It was stated that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of S.T. bus diriver-Pandurang. Deceased sustained crush injuries to both of his legs and several injuries on his chest and other parts of his body. He was shifted, in an injured condition, in a city bus, to Civil Hospital, Nanded but in the afternoon he succumbed to the injuries.3. The appellants filed their claim for damages for death of Manika befo...
Suresh Atmaram Ambre Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-1994
Reported in: 1994(4)BomCR462
H.H. Kantharia, J.1. By this habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner-detenu (hereinafter referred to as 'the detenu') takes exception to the detention order dated 2-5-1992 passed against him by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, under sub-section (2) of section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980.2. It was alleged against the detenu that he had been indulging in acts of physical violence by making use of dangerous weapons such as choppers and iron rods and the like and waylaying people and committing various offences punishable under Indian Penal Code. It was also alleged against him that the people in the localities of Ambyachi Bharni, Shivneri, Tanaji Wadi, Tulshet Pada, Sai Hill, Nardas Nagar, Pipe Line, Tembipada of Bhandup (West) were mortally afraid of him on account of his nefarious and notorious activities. He is considered to be a weapon wielder, desperado and a gangster. Therefore, with a view to preventing him from acting in any...
P.B. Samant and Others Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Bom323; 1994(4)BomCR491
ORDERPendse, J. 1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are seeking a writ of mandamus restraining respondents from entering into final treaty relating to Dunkel Proposalswithout obtaining sanction of the Parliament and State Legislatures. The Dunkel Proposals emerged out of continued differences amongst foreign countries who had signed the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and who met at the 8th round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, known as Urugway Round in September, 1984. The General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade (GATT) is a treaty established in year 1947 and which contains the rules for governing international trade. India has been member of GATT from the very inception and currently, there are 117 members of GATT treaty. Two important principles of Gatt are the most favoured nation and the national treatment. The former implies that the treaty members may not discriminate against the other members of the treaty i...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Manohar Alias Manya Kanhaiya Bairagi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-1994
Reported in: 1994CriLJ2536
1. The question in this appeal against acquittal by the State is as to whether the test of a woman's individual reaction to the act of the accused with regard to outraging of modesty is the test, or, that the essence of a woman's modesty is her sex. In the process, the question is as to whether the Court has to consider a woman's modesty as lying in her sex and exposing through her instantaneous reactions irrespective of the intention of the accused as regards the matter. Reaction of a woman instantaneously is very relevant together with the position that it is her sex that clothes with a born sense of modesty. In fact, these principles are laid down by the Supreme Court and even thereafter. They are to the effect that the body of a female of a tender age may be immature at a given point of time, but development of a sense of shame, an awareness of her sexual characteristics, although get postponed to a particular age, the Court has regard that from her very birth, she possesses the mo...
Nasrulla Khan Bismilla Khan Since Deceased Through L. Rs Vs. ShabuddIn ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-1994
Reported in: 1994(3)BomCR488; (1994)96BOMLR889
A.D. Mane, J.1. This is plaintiff's appeal challenging the dismissal of his suit on a preliminary ground.2. The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of contract of sale of land Survey No. 83 admeasuring 12 acres 5 gunthas of village Lakhegaon, Tahsil Paithan.3. It is case of the plaintiff that the defendant No. 1 is the owner of the suit land. There was a long standing litigation between the defendant No. 1 and the defendant No. 8, as the defendant No. 8 was claiming the tenancy in respect of the suit land. Pending that litigation, the possession of the land was restored to the defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 1 put the plaintiff in possession on 26-6-1974 in part performance of the said agreement of sale. The defendant No. 8 filed civil suit against the defendant No. 1 on 10-7-1974 for injunction but he was un-successful. It is, therefore, case of the plaintiff that the agreement of sale was for consideration of Rs. 20,000 and he has paid to defendant No. 1 earnest money...
Jatta Poly Yarn (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-1994
Reported in: (1994)50ITD368(Mum.)
1. These appeals by the assessee are consolidated and disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience as they involve common grounds.2. These appeals pertain to assessment years 1989-90 and 1990-91 and arise out of the separate orders of the CIT (Appeals) wherein, inter alia, he held that the assessee was not entitled to investment allowance under Section 32Aof the Act. All the grounds taken for the assessment year 1989-90 and the grounds 1 to 4 undertaken for the assessment year 1990-91 relate to the claim of investment allowance.The assessee is a resident company and follows financial year as the previous year.3. During the previous year relating to the assessment year 1989-90, the assessee installed plant & machinery of Rs. 7,09,650 together with electrical installations totalling to Rs. 10,73,546. The assessee claimed, inter alia, both the depreciation and investment allowance on both these items. As per certificate filed, the plant & machinery have been erected ...
Assistant Commissioner of Vs. N.S. Guzder and Co. (P.) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-1994
Reported in: (1994)50ITD301(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the Revenue, which is directed against the order of the CIT (Appeals) relating to assessment year 1984-85 for which the accounting year ended on 31-3-1984.2. The assessee is an investment company. It carries on the business of clearing and forwarding, supply of cotton bales to textile mills and also new line of leasing. For the assessment year 1984-85 income returned was Rs. 7,45,316 as per the revised return filed but the total income was determined at Rs. 8,23,940 as per assessment order dated 30-12-1986. In this background, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has not distributed dividends of Rs. 2,53,907. Hence, he issued show-cause notice on 16-12-1987 and after considering the assessee's counsel's letter, the Assessing Officer imposed additional tax of Rs. 1,54,860 under Section 104 of the I.T. Act, 1961. In short, the case of the Assessing Officer was that the assessee has not distributed any dividend and hence additional tax was levied. The cas...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »