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.
Ramesh Ramrao Hate Vs. Parvez B. Bhesania
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)BomCR407; (1996)98BOMLR784
R.M. Lodha, J.1. This Civil Revision Application filed under section 31F of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short, 'Bombay Rent Act') is directed against the order of eviction passed by the Competent Authority, Konkan Division, Bombay on 10th May, 1996 in Case No. 19/95 against the present petitioner in the proceedings under section 13A(2) of the Bombay Rent Act.2. On 28-12-1993 an agreement for leave and licence was entered into between Mr. Parvez Bamansha Bhesania respondent No. 1 herein (for short, 'licensor') and the present petitioner Ramesh Ramrao Hate (for short, 'licensee') permitting the licensee to use and occupy flat No. 32, 8th floor, Jai Jalaram Co-operative Housing Society, Kharkar Alley, Thane (West) owned by licensor for a period of 11 months from 28th December, 93 to 27th November, 94. The licensee was required to pay compensation for use and occupation of licenced premises @ Rs. 3,863/- p.m.. The licensee also deposited a sum of ...
Capt. Suprabha Joel Gaikwad Vs. Dr. Joel Soloman Gaikwad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Bom171; 1997(2)BomCR403; I(1997)DMC306
ORDERM. L. DUDHAT, J.1. This first appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 30th November, 1991 passed by the family Court at Pune in P. A. No. 600 of 1990. By the aforesaid judgment and decree, the Family Court at Pune dismissed the petition filed by the Appellant-wife for dissolution of marriage under Sections 18 and 19 of Indian Divorce Act, 1869, more particularly, on the ground that the respondent-husband was impotent at the time of marriage and at the time of institution of the suit.2. Few facts which are material from the point of view of dismissal of this appeal are as under :It is the case of petitioner-wife that she was Captain and Respondent was a Doctor. They were married according to Christian religion at Calcutta on 19th November, 1989. The said marriage, according to the petitioner, was an arranged marrige. After the marriage, they went for honeymoon to Mahableshwar for a period of four days. However, during the period of honeymoon, she had no sexual contact...
Yeshwant Bandhkam Majur Sahakari Society Ltd. Vs. Assistant Registrar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1996
Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR837; 1998(1)BomCR590
ORDERN.D. Vyas, J. 1. By the present petition which is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside the orders dated 1st June, 1987 and 17th July, 1987 passed by the respondent No. 1 and the order in appeal dated 29th November, 1988 passed by the respondent No. 2. 2. The petitioners are a Co-operative Society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, hereinafter referred to as the said Act. The said Society is a labour Society. The Society was served with an order dated 1st June, 1987 passed by the respondent No. 1 which is impugned in the present petition. This order happened to be an interim order passed by the respondent No. 1. After the said order was passed, the final order was passed on 17th July, 1987 and the same was served on the petitioner Society. It is the petitioner Society's grievance that neither any notice was given to the petitioner Society nor any reasons were given while passing the fina...
Pravinkumar Kailashchandra Shukla and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ577; 1997(2)MhLj136
T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J. 1/ The accused in Sessions Case No. 224 of 1991 filed this appeal challenging the Judgment of the Sessions Judge Greater Bombay whereby accused Nos. 1 and 2 were convicted under Sec. 392 r.w. Sec. 397 and Sec. 34 of IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 7 years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each i/d. R.I. for 2 months each. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 were also convicted under Section 135 r.w. Section 37(i)(a) of Bombay Police Act, 1951 and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 4 months each and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each i/d. S.I. for one week. (Sentences imposed on accused Nos. 1 and 2 to run concurrently). The accused No. 3 was convicted under Section 392 r.w. Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- i/d. R.I. for one month. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 29-7-1990 at about 12.00 noon PW-1 Ramtej R. Gupta who owns a taxi car took the taxi out for business from Golibar, Santacrus and by 9.15 p...
Gondia Bidi Leaves Contractors Association Vs. Union of India and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1996
Reported in: [1998]229ITR388(Bom)
M.B. Shah, C.J.1.In this petition, the petitioners have prayed that the provisions of section 44AC and section 206C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, be struck down as null and void. It has also been prayed that the respondents-authorities be directed to issue the certificates to the members of the petitioner association contemplated by the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 206C of the Income-tax Act certifying that the members of the petitioner association are processors of tendu leaves and therefore are not liable to pay the tax under section 44AC and section 206C of the Act. In the alternative, it is prayed that the respondents be directed to decide the representation submitted to them by the petitioners at annexure 'B' to the petition. Annexure-B is a representation by the Gondia Bidi Leaves Contractors Association, Gondia, wherein it is submitted that the members of the petitioner association are manufacturers and therefore the proviso to section 206C would apply. 2. At the time of...
Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd. and Another Vs. Bharat Petrole ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1996
Reported in: [1998]91CompCas862(Bom)
S.M. Jhunjhunuwala J. 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated September 23, 1994, passed by the Company Law Board, (see [1995] 82 Comp Cas 539) upholding the refusal of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., to register the transfer of shares from the first appellant to the second appellant, this appeal has been preferred by the appellants under the provisions of section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act'). 2. Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd. (for short, 'SHCOIL') is a company incorporated under the Act and is promoted by several financial institutions, viz., Unit Trust of India, Industrial Development Bank of India, Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Industrial Finance Corporation India, Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India and General Insurance Corporation of India Limited and its subsidiaries. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited was incorporated on November 3, 1952, under the provisions of t...
Vithoba Ravaji Mankar Vs. Shri Digambar Gaba Choudhari and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1996
Reported in: 1997(3)ALLMR451; 1997(3)BomCR507
R.G. Deshpande, J.1. The present petitioner - Vithoba Mankar is a tenant in respect of House CTS. No. 427 and also of some portion from CTS No. 428/1 situated in the township of Raver, Tq. Raver, Dist. Jalgaon, at a monthly rent of Rs. 26/-, whereas the respondent Nos. 1 to 5, the original plaintiffs, are the owners thereof. The present respondent Nos. 6 and 7 - Sitaram Narayan and Bansi Kisan, are the alleged sub-tenants of the present petitioner, who was the original defendant No. 1 in the trial Court.2. The facts of the case are as under :-The petitioner/original defendant No. 1 (who is hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner' all through), had initiated an application bearing Miscellaneous Civil application No. 20 of 1971 on 29th September 1971 for fixation of standard rent of the suit premises. However during the pendency of the above-said application, the respondent Nos. 1 to 5, who were the original plaintiffs, issued a notice dated 22nd October, 1972 to the petitioner on the...
Thane Zilla Shramik Zopadpatti Sudhar Sangh and ors. Vs. the Thasildar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1996
Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR401
N.D. Vyas, J.1. By the present petition which is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners have asked for quashing and setting aside of notices dated 4th February 1989 issued under Section 50 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Cede.2. The Petitioner No. 1 is a registered Association and the Petitioner No. 2 is the Secretary thereof. The members of the Association viz. the Petitioner No. 1 Association are having nearly 146 huts occupied by various persons, a list whereof is annexed to the petition. These huts arc situated on Survey No. 141/A at Boisar Village, Taluka Palghar, District Thane, which land belongs to the State Government. It is the Petitioners' case that the said huts are used for residential purpose and also for carrying on business as shop-keepers. Many of the residents are working in the nearby industries as labourers and their offices are situated nearabout. The residents are paying assessment to the Village Panchayat, Boisar, and the Village Panchaya...
Commissioner of C. Ex. and Customs Vs. Spm Tools
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1996
Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT147Tri(Mum.)bai
1. None represented the Respondents though notice has been duly served.Invoking the provision of Section 35E of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the department has sought reference on the issue framed by them arising out of Order No. 2014/96-WRB, dated 28-6-1996 - 1997 (89) E.L.T. 199 (Tribunal) passed by this Bench. The issue framed reads thus : Whether the interpretation of Rule 57B done by the Appellate Tribunal is held as proper and just which states that the higher notional credit, availed can be allowed on the inputs received within six months from the date of claim? 2. Heard Shri K.M. Mondal, the ld SDR, who submits that the issue is of availment of higher notional credit at a later date and that Rule 57B read with other provisions of the Modvat scheme does not permit availment of credit in part at different dates. What the Tribunal has held in the impugned order is that Rule 57B read with other provisions of the Modvat scheme entitles the person receiving inputs from SS...
New Kashiram Textile Mills Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1996
Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT567Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against order-in-appeal cited above confirming Order-in-Original No. 3/86, dated 22-12-1986.2. Some processed goods were being removed from the factory premises of the appellants and the description in the gate pass indicated that they had only calendered the same and therefore they were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 253/82, dated 8-11-1982. The officers visited the factory and found that there was a zero zero finishing machine installed. It was felt that they were not eligible for benefit under the said notification. However, before the show cause notice was issued to the appellants, vide their challan dated 29-1-1986 they made a deposit of the duty amount and in reply to the show cause notice they admitted their mistake and requested for not initiating any further proceedings. The adjudicating authority however imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 2,500/- and also ordered confiscation of the goods which were provisionally released but allowed ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »