Mumbai Court October 1996 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.
Laxmichand Dayabhai (Export) Company Vs. Prestige Foods Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1996
Reported in: 1997(3)BomCR90
S.M. Jhunjhunuwala, J.1. This petition has been filed under sections 5 and 6 of The Foreign Awards (Recognition & Enforcement) Act, 1961 ( for short, 'the Act ) for an order to file the Award dated 29th January, 1992 in this Court and for pronouncement of judgement in terms thereof.2. Three Contracts, all dated 12th September, 1990, were concluded at Bombay whereby the respondent agreed to sell to the petitioner 36 MT, 54 MT and 36 MT respectively of Indian HPS groundnut kernels bold 60/70 new crop (for short, 'the said goods') at the price and on the terms and conditions contained therein. Except as to quantity, the said three Contracts were identical. The terms of Federation of Oils Seeds & Fats Association Limited (FOSFA) Contract No. 34 were made part of the said three Contracts. FOSFA Contract No. 34 amongst other terms and conditions incorporate terms Nos. 23 and 25 pertaining to domicile and arbitration, which read as under :'23. DOMICILE : This contract shall be deemed to have ...
Anant S/O Diwakar Kulkarni Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through the Secre ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1996
Reported in: 1997(4)BomCR515
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner landholder challenges the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur as also the orders passed by the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal, Kelapur (hereinafter referred to as 'the S.L.D.T.' for the sake of brevity). The S.L.D.T. had held the total excess area in the holding of the landholder to be 104.13 acres. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has confirmed the order of the S.L.D.T. but has observed that there was an arithmetical mistake committed by the S.L.D.T. and on that ground it has directed to correct the arithmetical mistake and has dismissed the appeal. 2. In the return which was filed, the petitioner pointed out that there were number of sales made in respect of lands survey Nos. 12/2, 13 and 11 of Ghanmod, Survey Nos. 2 and 4 of Ganeshpur and 45 and 2 of Bahattar. The contention of the petitioner in respect of all these lands was that there were already agreements of sale executed by the landholder in f...
Executrix of Estate of Late Shri L. M. Khatau Vs. Income Tax Officer.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1996
Reported in: (1997)57TTJ(Mumbai)84
ORDERV. DONGZATHANG, VICE PRESIDENT :This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Dy. CIT(A).2. The AO completed the assessment on the assessee in the status of an AOP. The AO did not allow deduction under s. 80L as the assessee was assessed in the status of an AOP. On appeal the learned Dy. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance.3. The assessee is still aggrieved and has come up in appeal before the Tribunal contending that the AO and the Dy. CIT(A) erred in assessing the assessee in the status of an AOP and thereby disallowing deduction under s. 80L(1) of the Act.4. At the time of hearing Shri A. K. Jasani, the learned counsel of the assessee, submitted that this issue is now concluded in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Honble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs . Deepak Family Trust No. 1 & Ors. : [1995]211ITR575(Guj) and the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs . Shri Krishna Bandar Trust : [1993]201ITR989(Cal) . On the other hand...
Shri Mahadev Rama Bhonsle and Others Vs. Central Bank of India and Ano ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1996
Reported in: 1997(3)ALLMR372; 1998(2)BomCR244
ORDERR.K. Batta, J.1. Respondent No. 1 (original plaintiff) had filed a suit for recovery of money against the appellants (original defendant No. 2, now represented by LRs. and defendant No. 3) and respondent No. 2 (original defendant No. 1). Respondent No. 2 had taken loan of Rs. 58,300/- from the respondent No. 1 and the appellants had stood guarantors for the same. The loan was not paid and respondent No. 1 executed a fresh agreement of hypothecation dated 11-9-84, thereby hypothecating Matador Pickup, for the purchase of which the loan was taken. Likewise, the appellants executed a fresh Deeds of Guarantee dated 25-3-1985 and 11-9-84 respectively.2. The suit was not contested by respondent No. 2 who admitted the respondent No. 1 's claim, but the appellants took up the plea that fresh agreement of hypothecation and fresh guarantee taken by respondent No. 1 was without any consideration and did not have effect of extending limitation period. After recording the evidence, the Civil J...
Hindustan Ciba-geigy Ltd. Vs. Suresh A. Kerkar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1996
Reported in: 1997(4)ALLMR61; [1997(75)FLR837]; (1998)IIILLJ919Bom
Batta, J.1. The Respondent No. 1 was working as security guard/watchman in appellant company from April 1972 and he was charge-sheeted for misconduct under Standing Order 33(1) vide charge-sheet dated September 15, 1983. The appellants' case is that Respondent No. 1 was involved in a case of theft wherein he was arrested by the police and he was in police custody from August 27,1983 to September 1, 1983. On August, 29, 1983 Respondent No. 1 submitted an application to the appellants that he was on privilege leave from August 16, 1983 to August 30, 1983; that he was suffering from Typhoid from August, 25, 1983, he has been advised by the doctor to take complete bed rest for 20 days and as such privilege leave be extended from August 31, 1983 to September 14, 1983. The appellants directed the Respondent No. 1 to submit a medical certificate in support of 1 the said application and Respondent No. 1 filed a certificate dated September 3, 1983 of Dr. G.B. Chodankar wherein it was certified ...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Savitribai Tukaram Londhe and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1996
Reported in: 1997ACJ476; 1997(2)BomCR413; (1996)98BOMLR722
R.M. Lodha, J.1. Group of these seven appeals arises out of one accident and orders of payment of compensation of no-fault liability to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- to the claimants in each of the claim petition and, therefore, these seven appeals have been taken-up together and are disposed of by this common judgment.2. The facts in all the claim applications as well as applications under section 92-A are identical. According to the case set-out in the claim petitions the deceased alongwith other relatives and family of one Bhiva Gaikwad were travelling in a matador bearing No. MTQ-8416 owned by Shri Purushottam Tukaram Gadade and driven by Shri Suresh Tukaram Gadade. The said vehicle was insured with the present applicant New India Assurance Company Limited. According to the case set-out in the claim petitions the owner of the said matador was having relation with the said Bhiva Gaikwad and accordingly said Bhiva had requested Shri Purushottam Gadade, owner of the matador for carrying ...
Hari Shanker Ramaswarup Jaiswal Vs. Commissioner of Prohibition and Ex ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1996
Reported in: (1996)98BOMLR878
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. The petitioner herein challenges the recovery proceedings against him ordered by the Collector, Bhandara/respondent No. 2, and sought to be recovered by the respondent No. 3/Naib Tahsildar, Gondia.2. The following factual panorama will highlight the controversy involved. Toddy shops are auctioned in Bhandara district. One such auction was to be held for a Toddy Shop No. 2 at Gondia for the period 1st September, 1982 to 31st August, 1983. This auction was to be held on 17.8.1982 at Bhandara at 3. O'clock. A notice therefor was issued, which included all the conditions of auction. Condition Nos. 3, 12 and 13 as also 14 are the relevant conditions. Condition No. 3, which is in consonance with Rule 5 of the Maharashtra Toddy Shops (Grant of Licences by Auction or Tender) Order, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as: 'the Order' for the sake of brevity), was that every person wishing to bid in the auction must satisfy the Collector about his solvency and he must have a solve...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Savitribai Tukaram Londhe and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1996
Reported in: I(1997)ACC370
R.M. Lodha, J.1. Group of these seven appeals arises out of one accident and orders of payment of compensation of no-fault liability to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- to the claimants in each of the claim petition, and, therefore, these seven appeals have been taken up together and are disposed of by this common judgment 2. The facts in all the claim applications as well as applications under Section 92 A are identical. According to the case setout in the claim petitions the deceased alongwith other relatives and family of one Bhiva Gaikwad were travelling in a matador bearing No. MTQ 8416 owned by Shri Purushottam Tukaram Gadade and driven by Shri Suresh Tukaram Gadade. The said vehicle was insured with the present applicant New India Assurance Company Limited. According to the case set out in the claim petition s the owner of the said matador was having relation with the said Bhiva Gaikwad and accordingly said Bhiva had requested Shri Purushottam Gadade, owner of the matador for carrying...
Bansal Steel Corporation Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1996
Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT578Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Both the appeals were taken up for hearing with the consent of both sides, after granting waiver of pre-deposit.2. The issue involved in these appeals is, whether loss to the extent 10%, which the appellant claims occurs during the process of making forgings is admissible. In his order, the Commissioner has noted that this 10% stated to be burning loss caused by high temperature and subsequent hammering, was not shown in the Form IV register, which the appellant is required to maintain, and is not substantiated. He has ordered that loss of 3% is permissible and demanded duty on the rest.3. The departmental representative contends that this loss of 10%, which is in addition to the loss of material (which has not been questioned) which occurs subsequent to making of forging before they become ready for marketing, is excessive and has not been substantiated by the appellants.4. It is a settled law that before duty can be demanded on the goods stated to have been removed without paymen...
Smt. Emilia Tinoco (Deceased by Lrs.) Vs. Shashikant Naguesh Gad and O ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Bom319; 1997(3)ALLMR13
ORDERBatta, J.1. The original appellant had filed a Suit for eviction of the respondent No.1 on the ground of personal occupation and non-payment of rent. The appellant's case, in brief, is that she is the owner of the suit premises which consists of a godown and the same was rented to the father of the respondent No.1 The father of the respondent No.1 had died and the respondent No.1 stopped making payment of rent from January 1974. The appellant's case further is that her son Caetano D'Souza had come to Goa for good from Kenya and wanted to start his own business in the suit premises. On these grounds, namely, that the suit premises were required to start business and non-payment of rent. The appellant sent a notice to the respondent No.1 terminating the tenancy with effect from 30th June, 1976. The notice is dated 29th April, 1976. The respondent No.1, in his reply dated 4th August, 1976, submitted that his father was tenant of the suit premises and after him, he had become the tena...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »