Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1989)91BOMLR341
G.F. Couto, J.1. The very maintainability of this Revision Application directed against the Order dated 24th April, 1989, whereby the learned District Judge, Panaji, stayed the Judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji, in a money suit, is the subject of a strong challenge by the respondent. Therefore, while admitting this Writ Petition, my learned brother Kamat, J. who dealt with it at the time of admission made it subject to the maintainability qua Section 46 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968. Further, presumably under the assumption that the challenge to the maintainability of this Revision Application was in respect of the question as to whether a Revision Application against an Order passed under the Rent Control Act lies to the High Court, he added 'Learned Advocate-General to lend assistance to the Court'. The matter came now for hearing, and therefore, the first and the foremost question to be dealt wit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1991Bom35
1. The plaintiffs have filed this suit for recovery of Rs. 1,04,948.65 p. with interest at the rate of 20% per annum or such other rate as may be awarded on the sum of Rs. 61,135.65 p. from the date of filing of the suit till realisation from the defendantsCompany in respect of the goods sold and delivered to the defendants in the months of February and March 1983 as under:--Invoice No. 43 dt. 22-2-1983 ... Rs. 37,400.00Invoice No. 48 dt. 4-3-1983 ...Rs. 28,3.85.50Invoice No. 49 dt. 12-3-1983 ...Rs. 22,000.00Invoice No. 51 dt. 13-3-1986 ...Rs. 57,953.70Invoice No. 52 dt. 24-3-1983 ...Rs. 65,396.45The total amount due in respect of the said invoices is claimed to be Rs. 2,11,135.65 p. The plaintiffs claim that the amounts in respect of the said invoices were due on expiry of the period of one month of the date on which the goods were sold and the defendants were liable to pay to the plaintiffs interest at the rate of 20% per annum on the amount outstanding as mutually agreed. The plaint...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1991(4)BomCR156
H. Suresh, J.1. The petitioner Sharad Rao, a Member of the party of Janata Dal contested election to 42, Goregaon Legislative Assembly Constituency, held on February 27, 1990. Respondent No. 1, Subhash Desai, a Shiv-Sena Member, contested in the same constituency against the petitioner. Respondent No. 1 was declared as elected. There were other candidates from other parties who have all been made parties to the petition. The petitioner has filed this petition to set aside the election of respondent No. 1 on the ground of certain corrupt practices as provided under the representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1951). The charges are under section 123(1), bribery, by way of gift of various articles to the voters 123(3), appeal by respondent No. 1 or his agent or any other person with his consent to vote or refrain from voting on the ground of religion or community 123(3-A), promotion of or attempt to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1992Bom3; 1992(2)BomCR523; 1991(2)MhLj1258
ORDER1. The Maharashtra Wine Merchants Association and Hotel and Restaurant Association (Western India) along with their respective presidents have filed Writ Petition No. 1824 of 1991 in this Court impugning the validity of order dated 17th May 1991 issued by the Collector of Bombay (City), a copy of which is Exhibit B-1 to the petition. By the impugned order it is ordered that all the wine shops in Greater Bombay shall be kept closed between 18th May 1991 and 29th May 1991 in view of election to Lok Sabha scheduled to be held on 26th May 1991.2. The Maharashtra Retail LiquorDealers Association and Indian Hotel and Restaurant Association have filed Writ Petition No. 1826 of 1991 impugning the validity of the same very order. 3. Mr. Rajeev Adyanthaya, President of Greater Bombay Retail Country Liquor Licensees Association, and two others have also impugned the validity of same very order in Writ Petition No. 1827 of 1991. The petitioners have filed these three writ petitions under Art....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1992Bom149; 1991(4)BomCR89
1. This chamber summons is taken out by the defendants -- judgment-debtors -- for an order of recording 'adjustment' and satisfaction of decree dated 21st September 1987 passed by this Court in this suit in terms of alleged agreement dated 21st April 1990 propounded by the defendants, copy whereof is annexed as Exhibit '3' to the affidavit of defendant No. 1 dated 15th May 1990 made in support of this chamber summons. This chamber summons raises interesting questions of law relating to interpretation and application of O. 21, R. 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the role of a notary in attesting copy of a document as certified copy. The plaintiff has alleged that the alleged agreement propounded by the defendants is a forged document and it was never executed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff decree-holder is a practising advocate. The defendant No. 1 is a builder. Oral evidence led in this case consists of the evidence of defendant No. 1, the plaintiff and one Mr. Sonavane, Advocate-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1991(4)BomCR695
H.W. Dhabe, J.1. These two writ petitions which challenge the Notification of the State Government dated 26th June, 1991 issued under sub-section (3) of section 18 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Town and Country Planning Act, 1974 and its further consequential notification dated the same issued under sub-sections (1) and (3) of section 20 of the said Act can conveniently be disposed of by this common judgment. However, reference to the parties in this judgment would be as in the Writ Petition No. 240 of 1991 except where W.P. No. 243 of 1991 is particularly considered and referred to.2. The facts in Writ Petition No. 240 of 1991 are that the petitioner is the Chair-person of the South Planning and Development Authority and in Writ Petition No. 243 of 1991, the petitioner is the Goa Citizens League, which holds out itself as a Special activist organisation formed with a view to promote social, economic and educational cultural and political interests for achieving the progress and welfare of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1991)(37)LC7Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Invoking the provisions of Section 35G(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the Departmental authorities have filed these applications, seeking reference to the concerned High Courts, in relation to the questions of law, duly formulated by them in their respective applications, pleading that those questions of law arise out of various orders passed by this Bench, as detailed below:Ref. Appln. Bench's Order Appeal No. High Court Remarks No. No. and date to which referenceE/Ref-7/91 1812/90 E/195/89 Gujarat -- dt. 1.11.1990E/Ref-9/91 2053/57/90 dt. E/632/90 Bombay Single RefAppln for both 30.11.1990 E/645/90 the appeals.E/Ref-10/91 714-737/90 E/120/90 Bombay Single RefAppl No 12/91 to dt. 10.5.1990 E/134/90 for AppealNos. 148/90E/Ref-13/91 E/145- and 150/90and Ref App and 148/90 No 19/91 for Appeal Nos.E/Ref-15/91 E/150/90 134/90 and135/90E/Ref-22/91 2217- E/109/90 Bombay and 2224/90 dt. E/l11/90 (For RefE/Ref-29/91 28.12.1990 E/137- E/22/91 to 139/90 Appeal No.E/Ref-35/91 E...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1992(1)BomCR550; (1992)102CTR(Bom)194; [1992]196ITR55(Bom)
Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar J. 1. The first petitioner is a public limited company. In this petition, the first petitioner has challenged an intimation sent to it under section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act demanding income-tax and additional tax under section 143(1A) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1990-91. 2. For the assessment year 1990-91, the first petitioner filed its return of income declaring a total income of Rs. 41,64,600 consisting of income chargeable under the head 'Business or profession'. Along with the return of income, the first petitioner also filed a tax audit report in Form No. 3CD as required under the provision of section 44AB of the Income-tax Act. The first petitioner claimed various deductions in the return of income. 3. On May 16, 1991, the first petitioner received an intimation under section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act dated March 18, 1991. Along with the intimation, an adjustment explanatory sheet was annexed. In that sheet, the first respond...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1992(3)BomCR322; (1992)94BOMLR562
Ashok Agarwal, J.1. The present group of petitions are filed by several advertising agencies seeking to impugn the hike in the licence fees for advertising hoardings in the city of Bombay. The respondent Municipal Corporation has raised the fees once in the year 1985 and again in the year 1989. By a Resolution No. AR(C)/255 dated 8th May, 1985 the fees were increased by about 50%. By a Resolution No. 27 dated 2nd May, 1989 they are further increased by about 60 to 70%. Both the increases are impugned in the present petitions. In short, it is the contention of the petitioners that the impugned increase is illegal and cannot be justified on the principle of quid pro quo. The impugned increase is not supported by additional services rendered.2. The aforesaid hike in the licence fees is justified by the Corporation by stating that it was necessitated due to high cost of living and increase in the expenditure of the Corporation. It is contended that on account of the above reason there was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1993(2)BomCR301
S.M. Daud, J.1. This is a suit for a declaration and cancellation vide conveyance marked Ex. J admitted for registration on 30-11-1967 and passed in favour of defendant 1 by defendant 2 in his capacity as the Court appointed Receiver of the estate of his brother, the late Ratanchand Hirachand.2. Ratanchand, the father of defendants 3A and 3B, was the owner of a large piece of land measuring near about 6000 to 7000 sq.yds of land with a bungalow, outhouse, guesthouse, servants quarters and garages thereon on the Nepean Sea Road in Bombay. Out of the vacant portion to the south-coast, an area of less than 600 sq. yds. was sold by Ratanchand to a trust on 20-3-1951--the conveyance being at Ex. B. The settlers of the trust incorporated in a deed of 17-3-1951 were plaintiff's father Munchershaw, his uncle Kekobad and grandmother Dinbai. The deed vested a certain sum in trustees-Munchershaw, Kekobad, Maneckji and Khurshed--the last two, being the full brother and that brother's wife of the f...
Tag this Judgment!