Mumbai Court September 1998 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.
Ganesh S/O Madhavrao Hawaldar Vs. Mithalal S/O Keshaolal Dave
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Bom120; 1999(1)ALLMR598; 1999(1)BomCR868; 1999(1)MhLj110
ORDERS.D. Gundewar, J.1. By this second appeal, the appellant/defendant challenges the judgment and decree passed against him by both the courts below. Both the courts below have held that the plaintiff had advanced an amount of Rs. 4,000/- to the defendant and it was a loan transaction. In the result, both the courts below found in favour of the plaintiff and the suit of the plaintiff came to be decreed for an amount of Rs. 4,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. It is this finding of the courts below which is challenged in this appeal.2. The only substantial question of law which arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether the suit is barred by limitation when the suit transaction was held to be a loan transaction3. It is true that both the courts below have held that the suit transaction was a loan transaction. Admittedly the said transaction took place on 13-3-1973. Therefore, the suit should have been filed on 13-3-1976 for recovery of the amount of loan. Howeve...
Ramesh S/O Rajaram Pail and Others Vs. Shivaji Kachru Patil and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1998
Reported in: 2000(1)BomCR829; 1999(3)MhLj649
ORDERA.D. Mane, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of the order dated 24-2-1998 passed in Writ Petition No. 1884 of 1997 by the learned Single Judge. 2. It is relevant to mention the circumstances under which the Writ Petition No. 1884 of 97 was filed. The petitioner are the members of the respondent No. 7 Co-operative Society called as Dongaon Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Ltd. The election of the society for electing the members of the Managing Committee was ordered on 5-8-96. The respondent No. 4 was appointed as Returning Officer to declare the election programme for a period of 1996-97 to 2000. The respondents No. 1 to 10 filed their nomination forms but, the Returning Officer by his order dated 5-5-1997 returned their nomination forms on various grounds. That order of the Returning Officer was challenged before the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies respondent No. 13 by way of an appeal on 15-5-97 but, their appeal was dismissed. Therefore, the responden...
Prabhu Shriram Sahakari Dudh Vyawasaik Sanstha Maryadit, Dahigaon Tq. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1998
Reported in: 1999(3)BomCR20; 1999(1)MhLj619
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. Rule. By consent rule made returnable forthwith. 2. The petitioner society has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Articles 14, 19(1)(c)(g) to challenge the permission dated 3-10-1996 granted to a proposed co-operative society i.e. the respondent No. 3. The petitioner society was registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act on 26-3-93. The society's functioning is in the village Dahigaon having population of 1147 of 197 families. The petitioner society contends that it is collecting milk approximately 279 litres from the village. The petitioner has further stated that there is another society which is also collecting milk on an average 230 Litres. This latter society is also a proposed society from the said village. According to the petitioner.the total availability of the milk in the village is approximately 630 litres. On the basis of the Government Resolution dated 2-4-1993, there is no-scope for r...
Smt. Dina Hazarilal Kachera Vs. A.K. Srivastava and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ236
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. By means of this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner who is the wife of the detenu Nahim Noor Qureshi alias Haji has impugned the detention order dated 8th April, 1996, passed by the 1st respondent Mr. A. K. Srivastava, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, (Department of Revenue) New Delhi, detaining the detenu under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'PIT NDPS Act').2. At the very outset we would like to point of that the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Shirish Gupte candidly stated that an earlier writ petition preferred by the petitioner in respect of the said detenu (Criminal Writ Petition No. 839 of 1996) challenging the same detention order was disposed of as withdrawn by a Division Bench of this Court on June 20, 1997 on a statement made at the bar that the period of detention of the d...
Freny S. Contractor Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1998
Reported in: (1999)63TTJ(Mumbai)758
ORDERM.A. Bakshi, Third MemberThis appeal had come up for hearing before 'D' Bench of the Tribunal and since there was a difference of opinion between the Judicial Member and the Accountant Member, the matter has been referred to me under section 255(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Hon'ble President for a decision of a Third Member in respect of following difference of opinion:-'(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, there was sufficient material on record with the assessing officer to warrant rectification under section 154 of the assessment made under section 143(3) for allowing necessary relief under section 80G in respect of the alleged donation of Rs. 1,00,000 even though admittedly no such claim was made in the return ?(2) Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was correct in upholding the order of the assessing officer rejecting the application under section 154 ?'I have perused the relevant orders passed by the learned Judicial Member and the learned Accoun...
The Commissioner of Sales Tax Maharashtra State, Bombay Vs. M/S. R.M.D ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)BomCR1; 1999(2)MhLj615
ORDERDr. B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this reference under section 9 of the Maharashtra Sales Tax on the Transfer of the Property in Goods Involved in the Execution of Works Contract (Re-enacted) Act, 1989 read with section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this Court for opinion, at the instance of the revenue :'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and on a true and correct interpretation of the provisions of the Maharashtra Sales Tax on the Transfer of Property in Goods involved in the Execution of Works Contract (Re-enacted) Act, 1989, was the tribunal justified in law in holding that there is no transfer of property in the ink purchased and used by the respondent in the printing job where paper is supplied by the customers and consequently the opponent is not required to pay tax on the ink so used in such printing work and hence not a dealer qua the transaction incurring any liability for r...
Shri Shrikant Gangaram Teli Vs. Shri Bhaskar Narayan Kuvalekar and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)ALLMR403; 1999(1)BomCR49; 1998(3)MhLj542
ORDERR.M. Lodha, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India prays for quashing the order dated 17th August, 1984 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal affirming the order passed by the Collector, Sindhudurg on 8th September, 1982.2. The petitioner made an application before the Tahsildar and Agricultural Land Tribunal, Deogad under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short 'Bombay Tenancy Act') praying that the petitioner be declared as deemed purchaser of agricultural land bearing Survey Nos. 159, 162, 166 and 167, the details of which have been given in the application. In the said application, the petitioner averred that he was a tenant of the land in question and was in possession as on 1st April, 1957 and therefore became deemed purchaser under law. The Tahsildar, Deogad, after holding the inquiry, held that the petitioner was tenant in the suit land and was entitled to purchase the same....
Mohd. Javed Siddiqui Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ379
N. Arumugham, J.1. By virtue of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this writ of Habeaus Corpus has been preferred by the petitioner who is the brother of the detenu by name Mohammed Zulfikar Siddiqui detained by an order passed by the second respondent namely the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, vide his order F. No. 673/40/97-CUS-VIII dated 28-4-1997 under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 impugning and praying to quash the same. Both the detention order above referred along with the grounds of detention and the documents relied thereupon as shown in Exhibits A, B and C respectively were admittedly executed and served upon the detenu on 26-9-1997.2. The prejudicial activities which pertains to the passing of the above referred order of detention are briefly stated as under, for the purpose of appreciation of the entire case diary :-On getting a specific int...
Mrs. Mahayanoo N. Irani and anr. Vs. Jahangir N. Irani and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1998
Reported in: (1998)100BOMLR779
T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. A complaint was filed by the respondent No. 1 before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th Court, at Girgaum, Bombay in Case No. 38/89 purported to be under Section 24(4) of the Bombay Rent Act read with Section 109 of the I.P.C. Apart from the petitioners, there are other 4/5 accused who are all the landlords of the flat No. 8 on the 3rd floor of Islam Club Building, 3 Sea face, Chowpatty. Bombay-7. The allegation against the accused including the petitioners is that they were not allowing the respondent No. 1 to use the lift. It is the case of the petitioners that the lift in the building stopped working since the end of June, 1989.2. Further the case of the complainant is that the accused No. 6 with the support of her brother accused No. 7 without consulting any other tenant unilaterally carried out temporary repairs of the lift and accused No. 6 disconnected the call button of the first and second floor of the lift and was using the lift only for the pers...
Buvaji Shamrao Kamble Vs. Sou. Girjabai W/O. Shankarrao Kadam Since De ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)BomCR535; (1998)3BOMLR620
ORDERR.M. Lodha, J.1. None appears for the petitioner. Mr. Purandare appears for the respondent.2. This writ petition relates to the year 1987 and therefore, I did not think it fit to dismiss the writ petition for default. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 perused the judgment passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Sangli on 31-8-1987 affirming the judgment and decree for eviction passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sangli on 31-3-1984.3. The respondent is the original plaintiff and for the sake of convenience I shall refer her as the landlady. Plaintiff is the original defendant and shall be referred to hereinafter as tenant. The landlady let out three rooms of the property bearing C.S. No. 1135 situated at Gaonbhag, Sangli to the tenant for a monthly rent of Rs. 80/-. The tenant allegedly did not pay the rent since January, 1980 and therefore, issued a notice terminating the tenancy of the tenant, demanding vacant possession a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »