Mumbai Court June 1983 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.
Shaikh Noor S/O Shaikh Kathu and ors. Vs. Shaikh Rasool S/O Shaikh Has ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1983
Reported in: 1988(3)BomCR311
M.P. Kanade, J.1. By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-original owner of land Survey No. 61/1 admeasuring 18 acres and 28 Gunthas and land Survey No. 53/AA admeasuring 18 acres and 1 guntan, both the lands situated at Simodi, Taluka Kalamanuri, District Parbhani, the judgment and order dated August 14, 1975 passed by the learned member of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal is challenged.2. The few facts leading to this petition are....That the respondent No. 1 and one Kondiba, whose heirs are respondents No. 2 & 3 on record, were declared the owner under the provisions of section 38-E of Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tenancy Act'). The date of declaration of ownership is May 25, 1957. It further appears that in the exercise of powers under sub-section (3) of section 38-E of the Tenancy Act the learned Tahsildar fixed the price of the said land at Rs. 4,115.12/- in respect of the land Survey No...
Kantilal Nanalal Kansara Vs. the Gold Control Administrator
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC1212DTri(Mum.)bai
1. M/s Kantilal Nanalal Kansara of Nadiad and their partner Shri Mohanlal Ranchhoddas Kansara have tiled these appeals against the order No. 6(Gold)/82 dt.l8J. 82 of the Deputy Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad a-s confirmed by the Order No. S/49-35/82 GC (Ahd) S/49-34/82GC(Ahd.) dt. 15.11.82 of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay, under which 169.100 gms. of primary gold recovered from Shri Mohanlal Ranchlioddas Kansara on 2.7,81 in the shop of M/s. Kantilal Nanalal Kansara was confiscated and penalties of Rs. 2000/- had been imposed on the firm and its partner. Since both these appeals under Section 81 of the Gold Control Act arise out of the same orders of the lower authorities, both these appeals have been heard simultaneously and the common order is being passed in the matter.2. The appellants admitted the recovery of gold from the pocket of Shri M.R. Kansara on 2.7.81. The primary gold was in 2 pieces and in the statement recorded from Shri M.R. Kansara under Section ...
Kanaiyalal J. Chinai Vs. Eighth Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1983
Reported in: (1983)6ITD332(Mum.)
Assessment completed without waiting for valuation officer's report, therefore, Commissioner was justified in set asiding the case.There can be no bar on the Commissioner exercising his revisional powers to remedy a mistake and/or under-assessment found by him in the order of the Wealth Tax Officer. As the assessment made without proper jurisdiction was liable to be challenged by the assessee as not valid in law, in this sense it was prejudicial to the interests of the revenue and was, therefore, liable to be revised.1. These five appeals filed by the assessee, Kanaiyalal J. Chinai, HUF, are directed against the consolidated order under Section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act'), passed by the Commissioner, in the assessee's case for the assessment years 1970-71 to 1974-75 (both inclusive). As the order of the Commissioner is challenged on identical grounds for all the assessment years and involves basically the same set of facts, these appeals are consolidated and disposed...
Baburao Shankarrao Chavan Vs. Shaikh Biban Baban Pahelwan and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1983
Reported in: 1984(1)BomCR194
1. The appellant before me is the original complainant whose complaint against respondent No. 1 (who will be referred to hereinafter as 'the accused') for offence under Section 500 of the I.P.C. has been turned down by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nasik, who, by his order dated 14th January, 1980 acquitted the accused of the said offence.2. The facts are very few. On 24-9-1974, the accused sent an application to the Revenue Minister, Maharashtra State, Bombay. Certain statements made in the said application and particularly statements in paragraphs 3, 4 and 6 of the same were, according to the complainant, of a defamatory character, harming the reputation of the complainant. By the said application the accused requested the Hon'ble Revenue Minister, to make appropriate enquiry in relation to the information contained in the said application. By the said application, the accused also requested the Hon'ble Revenue Minister to take appropriate action against the complaina...
A.R. Azimullah Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-1983
Reported in: (1983)6ITD72(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee pertaining to the assessment year 1975-76 against the order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), confirming the penalty of Rs. 46,035 levied under Section 271(1) (a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') by the ITO. (ii) Interest on loans given to Shakeel Pictures and Smt. Safrabi Haji Mastan. (iii) Director's fee from F.M. Chinoy & Co. (P.) Ltd. and Bombay Garage (P.) Ltd. For the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1975-76 the assessee was under obligation to file the return under Section 139(1) of the Act. The ITO issued notice under Section 139(2) on 1-5-1975 directing the assessee to file the return within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the notice. The notice was served on 1-5-1975. So, the return was to be filed by the assessee on or before 31-5-1975. The assessee failed to file the return within time. The ITO issued notices under Section 142(1) of the Act. The first notice was issued on 22-8-1975 requesting ...
Harishankar Hiralal Bohra and ors. Vs. Karsandas Nathubhai Majithia an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-1983
Reported in: 1984(1)BomCR266
C.S. Dharmadhikari, J.1. An Ejectment Application No. 49/215 of 1973 was filed before the Court of Small Causes, Bombay against one Ganpatlal by the Trustees of Ratneshwar temple and Smt. Kesarbai Jamnadas Majithia Hindu Sanatorium Trust. In the said Ejectment Application a decree was passed against Ganpatlal on 19-6-1979. A Darkhast for execution of the decree was then filed on 12th of November, 1979, which was obstructed by the petitioners. Therefore, the Obstructionist Notice No. 362 of 1979 was taken out on 13th November, 1979 and the same was made absolute on 23rd June, 1982. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court, the petitioners filed an appeal, bearing Appeal No. 337 of 1982, before the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes, which came to be dismissed by the Appellate Bench on the ground that it was not maintainable. It is against this appellate order that the present writ petition is filed by the present petitioners. In view of the narrow controversy inv...
Shri Naresh A. Tejwani and Shri Vs. the Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC1215DTri(Mum.)bai
1. S/Shri Naresh A. Tejwani and Nandalal R. Sachdeo have filed appeals registered under CD. (BOM) No. 65 & 66 of 1982 respectively, against the Order No. S/14-4-923/81 Pint dt. 13.8.82 of the Addl. Collector of Customs (Prey.) Bombay under which he has inter alia ordered confiscation of goods seized from M/s. Reshma Art Gallery which is owned jointly by the two appellants and ordered levy of penalty of Rs. 5C00/- on each of the appellants. Since the appellants had been aggrieved by the common order their appeals had been heard together and a common order is being passed in the matter.2. The learned Counsel Shri Desai for the appellants has argued that the appellants did not receive the show cause notice within 6 months of the date of seizure of the goods from their shop and hence in terms of Section 110(2) of the Customs Act they asked the Addl. Collector to release the goods in their letter dt. 18.2.82. However, on 23.2.82, the appellants received a letter stating that the showca...
New Shakti Dye Works Pvt. Ltd. and Mahalakshmi Dyeing and Printing Wor ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1983
Reported in: 1984(3)ECC274; 1983LC1142D(Bombay); 1983(14)ELT1736(Bom)
Chandurkar, Actg. C.J.1. This judgment disposes of the above-mentioned 24 petitions as the question involved in all these petitions is identical.2. The petitioners in all the petitions carry on the business of processing cotton fabrics and man-made fabrics by bleaching, dyeing, printing and finishing them. The question is, whether the petitioners, who carry on the business of bleaching, dyeing, printing and finishing cotton fabrics, are liable to the excise duty as the manufacturers for the purpose of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Excise Act'). Since it is common ground that the business carried on by all the petitioners is of the same nature, for the purpose of convenience we shall refer to the facts as alleged in Writ Petition No. 623 of 1979 New Shakti Dye Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr. According to the petitioner-company, cotton fabrics and man-made fabrics are received in the company as full manufactured fabrics commercially kn...
Kalkhusru Nanabhoy Bharucha and ors. Vs. Doss Maneckshaw Bharucha and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1983
Reported in: 1983(2)BomCR277
S.C. Pratap, J.1. This is a petition for transfer to this Court of a suit being R.A.D. Suit No. 796 of 1983 filed by respondent No. 1 herein under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay and for a direction that on transfer the said suit should be treated as a suit filed on the Original Side of this High Court under Rule 62 of the High Court (Original Side) rules. The prayer for transfer has been made by invoking Clause 13 of the Letters Patent as also the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The dispute relates to the estate of one Bai Navajbai D. Bharucha who died at Bombay on 24th May, 1918 leaving her last Will and Testament dated 6th March, 1912. Probate of the said Will was obtained by all the three executors on 3rd July, 1924. Unfortunately, all the executors expired without having fully administered the estate in question. Thereafter, petitioner No. 1 herein---one of the residuary legatees under the aforesaid Will---applied for and wa...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Indopharma Pharmaceutical Works
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC1220DTri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-II, against the order No. V-2(14E)1244/81, dated 26.7.1982 of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. The Additional Collector of Central Excise has been authorised by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-II to file the present appeal. M/s.Indopharma Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd., have filed the cross-objection against the same order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) dated 26.7.1982. Therefore, the appeal and the cross objection have been heard together and are being dealt with together for passing the common order.2. After explaining the facts of the case, it has been contended in the appeal that there was suppression of fact on the part of M/s.Indopharma Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. SPASMINDON PAEDIATRIC DROPS were classifiable under Item 14-E of the Central Excise Tariff, and they did not pay the duty thereon. Therefore, the Assistant Collector has invoked 5 years of time limit unde...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »