Mumbai Court November 1986 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.
Hypo-phosphite and Co Vs. First Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-11-1986
Reported in: (1987)20ITD638(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) for the assessment year 1975-76. The main ground agitated in this appeal is that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that there was no partnership firm existing in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1975-76 as evidenced by an instrument of partnership and in further holding that the allocation of profits between the partners was not in accordance with the partnership deed.2. The appellant in this case is a firm. The relevant accounting year is the year ended 31-3-1975. It appears that a notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') was issued and served on the assessee on 26-2-1977 as no return of income was filed by the assessee for the assessment year 1975-76 (apparently wrongly mentioned as 1976-77 in the assessment order by the ITO). Since no return was forthcoming, a notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued again on 3-3-1978. In response to this ...
Manoharlal B. Sablok Vs. Collector of Customs and Central
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-1986
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC671Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeal filed before the Gold Control Administrator against the order-in-original bearing No. XVII(GC)8-70/Adj/78 dated 13.3.80 passed by the Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Pune statutorily stood transferred to the Tribunal.2. The facts required for the disposal of this appeal lie in a narrow compass. The Income Tax Authorities seized gold and gold ornaments weighing 4413 gms valued at Rs. 2,70,560/- from the residence of the appellant. The Income Tax Authorities, however, released the seized gold and gold ornaments to the son of the present appellant Shri Manoharlal B. Sablok. But then the Gold Control Officer seized the entire quantity from Shri Devendrakumar the son of the appellant on the ground that the said gold contravened the provisions of the Gold Control Act. After recording statements of the appellants and others, and after issue of show cause notice and personal hearing, the Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Pune ordered release of 2170.900 gms t...
Allana Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-1986
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC736Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Revision Application filed before the Government of India against the order bearing No. 1014 of 1980, dated 29-11-1980 passed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs statutorily stood transferred to the Tribunal for being heard as an appeal.2. When this appeal was taken up for hearing, none represented the appellants. But then Shri Nankani who had appeared for the appellants had requested the Bench to proceed with the appeal on the basis of the written arguments submitted by him. I heard Shri Pal, learned Departmental Representative.3. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are not in dispute and they lie in a narrow compass. The appellants M/s. Allana Sons Pvt. Ltd., imported 36 drums of Diethylene Diamine Tech. 62.6% valued at Rs. 1,71,441/-. They sought clearance against three licences which were transferred to the Export House which permitted import of raw materials, components, consumable stores and packing materials, subject, however, to the restrictions c...
Kays International Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-1986
Reported in: (1987)(14)ECC239
1. M/s. Kays International, New Delhi have filed the present appeal under Section 129A of the Customs Act against the order No.S/16-DEEC-1634/84 Exem dated 5-3-1986 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay under which he ordered clearance of textile fabrics imported under four bills of entry totally valued at Rs. 11,56,769 without any fine or penalty, but subject to certain conditions. Feeling aggrieved with this decision, M/s. Kays International have approached this Tribunal with the present appeal.2. On behalf of the appellant, Shri T.V. Krishnamurthi, Consultant stated that the appellants were merchant exporters. They applied for the advance licence under the duty exemption scheme as they procured an order for export of 10,000 dozens shirts from M/s. Hemchand & Bros., Dubai dated 22-2-1984. Accordingly, they were granted advance licence No. 3025480 dated 14-5-1984 for 1,51,200 meters of 100% polyester fabrics width 60" for a value of Rs. 12,85,200. In terms of the ...
Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. and Vs. Union of India (Uoi),
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-1986
Reported in: 1988(15)LC128(Bombay)
Bharucha, J.1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the legality of the orders dated June 29, 1982 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Refund Department, Bombay, rejecting the application filed by the petitioners for refund of excess duty paid on the ground that the applications were barred under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act. The question as to under what tariff item the goods imported by the petitioners fall is concluded by the decision dated December 31, 1985 of Mr. Justice Kurdukar in Writ Petition No. 1802 of 1982. In view of that decision, there is no dispute that the petitioners are entitled to refund. The claim is rejected only on the ground that it was lodged beyond the period prescribed under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act.2. Mr. Rana, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that in view of several decisions of this Court, it is now well settled that the refund of duty r...
Siona Nuriel Samuel Vs. Nuriel Nissim Samuel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-1986
Reported in: (1986)88BOMLR646; 1987MhLJ99
S.N. Khatri, J.1. The short question that is posed before me in these three matters is whether this Court has power under Section 4A of the Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1948 (hereafter 'the Act') to transfer matrimonial disputes arising under the Jewish Law, to Bombay City Civil Court.2. Three submissions were advanced, opposing the proposed transfer. These are:I. The State Legislature has no competence to- enact Section 4A of the Act, because it purports to override the provisions of the Letters Patent.II. This Court gets jurisdiction to try matrimonial disputes between the Jews under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent and not under Clause 35. Matters falling under Clause 35 alone can be deemed to have been filed under 'the matrimonial jurisdiction' of this Court. As such, matrimonial suits between the Jews which fall under Clause 12 will not come within the mischief of Section 4A of the Act.III. Even assuming that the Court has power under Section 4A of the Act to transfer the present t...
Tajuddins. Shaikh Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-05-1986
Reported in: (1986)(26)ELT764Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the order in original bearing No. S/14-4-952/ 84 Pint dated 17-12-1984 passed by the Collector of Customs (Preventive) Bombay.The surveillance staff of D.R.I, found a truck bearing No. MTS 6207 parked at Chembur BMC check naka. After some enquiry at the Naka, the officers checked the contents of the truck in the presence of panchas.The truck was found to contain 49 pkgs. of contraband goods such as VCPS, video cassettes and sony audio cassettes etc. kept concealed under the cover of 47 bags of wheat and chanas. After detailed inventory and since nobody came forward to claim the goods as well as the truck, the officers took possession of the truck as well as the goods. The documents contained in the truck were looked into and after further investigation and on coming to know that the truck in question was originally registered in the name of Shri Ram Nivas Agarwal and it was transferred in the name of Tajuddin, the present appellant,...
Alluri Ramayya Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-05-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)BomCR709; 1986MhLJ1055
V.A. Mohta, J.1. Appellant-original accused Alluri Ramayya Mondi has been convicted by the Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, under Ss. 302 and 201 of the Penal Code and aggrieved by the said conviction, the present appeal has been filed.2. The victim of the crime is Alluri Malladu, uncle of Ramayya. Ramayya and Malladu were living separately in the same village. Ramayya was living with his wife and children. Ramayya is a liquor addict and used to mercilessly beat his wife. On 12th August, 1982 his wife left the house and did not return up to the night. Malladu went to Ramayya at 8 or 9 p.m. to advice Ramayya to behave property. Ramayya was enraged and gave blows with axe (Art. 4) on his head and face which proved to be fatal. Malladu fell in the verandah. It was raining, Ramayya dragged Malladu's body for about 300 feet and left in a pit near a temple. In the morning the dead body was found. Samayya, the son of the deceased learnt from Shankar son of Ramayya about the incident. Police Patil ...
P. Ripalkumar and Co. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-05-1986
Reported in: 1993(63)ELT404(Bom)
ORDERBharucha, J.1. This is a notice of motion for contempt of court directed against the Union of India and one S. K. Bhatta, Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Bombay, at the relevant time and now holding the same position in New Delhi.2. By his judgment and order dated 20th August 1985, Pratap J. disposed of the aforementioned writ petition and directed the Union of India, the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, New Delhi, and the Joint Chief Controller, Imports and Exports, Bombay, 'to (i) revalidate for a period of six months from the date of revalidation the petitioners' import licence; and (ii) endorse the said licence to be valid for import of O.G.L. items under Paragraph 185 (excluding sub-para 7 thereof) of the AM 83 Policy except any item the import of which has been specifically banned under the current policy'.3. The respondents preferred an appeal against Pratap J.'s judgment and order. The appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench of this court on 19th De...
Bajirao Maruti Dhumal Vs. Shankar Yallappa Mane
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-05-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)BomCR522; (1987)89BOMLR4; 1987MhLJ149
P.B. Sawant, J.1. This is a reference made by one of us (Kotwal, J.) to the Division Bench, for a correct interpretation of section 32(1-B) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Another learned Single Judge (Tulpule, J.) has taken the view that the mortgages from the landlord is not a successor-in-interest of the landlord and hence the dispossessed tenant is not entitled to the restoration of the land under the said provision. With this view my brother Kotwal, J., has differed and by his reasoned judgment has referred the matter for answering the following two questions---(1) Whether the rations in Balu Sripati v. Bandu Tatoba, 1981 Mh.L.J. 685 lays down the correct construction of the concept of 'possession' in section 32(1-B) of the Bombay Tenants and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, and consequently, therefore whether the said term 'possession' is to be construct in its generic sense or it should mean that to formulate that conce...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »