Mumbai Court March 1986 Judgments
Khotani Construction Co., Vs. Anwar Haji Alimohammed Cassum and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1986
Reported in: 1986(3)BomCR454
Sharad Manohar, J.1. These three Appeals from Order arise out of the judgement and order passed by the Bombay City Civil Court in the Notice of Motion taken out by the plaintiff in S.C. Suit No. 6042 of 1983 for the various reliefs against the various defendants.2. Said Suit No. 6042 of 1982 has been filed by the plaintiffs, who are the main contesting respondents in all the three appeals. Initially, the suit was filed only against two defendants, viz.,Smt. Marceline Louis Misquitta, widow of Shri Louis Francis Misquitta, as defendant No.1 and the Court Receiver, who had been appointed by this Court as the Receiver of the property which was the subject matter of the Administration Suit No. 3115 of 1947 pending on the Original Side of this Court, as defendant No. 2.3. The said suit was filed by the plaintiffs for a declaration that certain orders which came to be fraudulently obtained by one Misquitta, the husband of defendant No.1 in the suit, from the tenancy Courts, were illegal, nul...
Tag this Judgment!Brihan Maharashtra Sugar Syndicate Ltd. and Another Vs. P.R. Joglekar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1986
Reported in: [1987]165ITR279(Bom)
Kania, A.C.J.1. This is a petition under article 226 of the constitution of India. Although the petition was filed as a special civil application on the appellate side of this court, it has been transferred to the original side and hence has come up for hearing before us.2. The dispute in this petition relates to an order on revision passed by respondent No. 1, who is the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Central Division, Pune. Respondent No. 2 is the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and respondent No. 3 is the State of Maharashtra. Petitioner No. 1 is a registered company with its head office at Pune. Petitioner No. 2 is a shareholder and a director of the 1st petitioner. The dispute in the petition relates to the disallowance in the revision order of a claim of deduction respect of the payment of bonus made by petitioner No. 1 in respect of certain part of the bonus paid by petitioner No. 1 in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1962-63. The releva...
Tag this Judgment!Bank of India Vs. Winston Vaz
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)BomCR74
S.P. Pratap, J.1. Mr. Madon hands over compilation of the (i) dates and events and (ii) copies of three judgments and/or orders of this Court. Mr. Vishwanath for the judgment debtor refuses to accept copy thereof. Compilation given to the Court is taken on record. Objection not to do so is overruled.2. Affidavit of the judgment debtor taken on record and matter heard on the footing of denial by the judgment creditor. For reasons to follow, judgment debtor's request for leading evidence is rejected. Judgment creditor is not called upon to lead evidence.3. Contentions raised on behalf of the judgment debtor are on par with those raised by the same learned Counsel on behalf of the judgment debtor's brother in similar proceedings. These contentions, I am constrained to say, are but a continuation of the process of abuse of the Court initiated earlier and characterized as such by the Division Bench in the former proceedings. Facts are eloquent. The judgment creditor-Bank of India's Summary ...
Tag this Judgment!Vishwas Steel Industry Vs. Zilla Parishad and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)BomCR699; 1987MhLJ268
V.V. Vaze, J.1. Beed Zilla Parishad issued by publication in newspapers a short tender notice inviting tenders for supply of certain items of furniture such as dual desk, floor desk, steel tables, teak tables etc., with teak or novapan tops for use in the schools run by the Parishad. The Zilla Parishad in the notice gave an estimated cost of the goods, the earnest money to be deposited by the tenderers and made it known to the tenderers that time is essence of the contract and that after the contract is concluded, the supply should be made within 15 days, failing which the contractor will be liable to pay Rs. 100/- per day as penalty. In all 17 tenderers submitted their quotations and a comparative table was prepared giving their quotations item-wise. The table alongwith the tender documents was placed before the General Body of the Parishad in its meeting dated 5-2-1986 in which a discussion ensued above the modus operandi of choosing the contractor in view of the fact that the contra...
Tag this Judgment!GuruddIn Vaiju Patel Alias Babu Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1986
Reported in: 1986(3)BomCR518
A.D. Tated, J.1. This criminal revision application is directed against the conviction of the petitioner-accused under section 7(i) read with section 2(i-a) (a) & (m) read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and of the offence under section 7(iii) read with rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), read with section 16 of the Act. On the first count he was sentenced to suffer R.I. for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, or in default, to suffer R.I. for one month. On the second count he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, or in default, to suffer R.I. for 15 days. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nasik on 31st January, 1984 in Criminal Case No. 139 of 1981 was confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik, In Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 1984 filed by the accused.2. The petitioner-accused is the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales-tax Vs. Brihan Maharashtra Sugar Syndicate Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1986
Reported in: [1987]165ITR275(Bom)
Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. In these references, the following three questions are referred to us under section 39 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1962 :'Question No. 1 : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of these cases, the Tribunal was correct in holding that in respect of agricultural implements, the opponents were entitled to claim depreciation within the meaning of sub-section (6) of section 8 read with clause (b) of sub-section (16) of section 2 of the Act and rule 3 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Income-tax Rules, 1962, on the cost price of their assets and not on the basis of the cost price less depreciation allowable under the Act ?Question No. 2 : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of these ciases, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the expens es on guest house, trucks and cars to the extent disallowed by the Income-tax Officer before fixing the common charge were admissible deduc tions under clause (b) of the proviso to...
Tag this Judgment!Bajirao Ganpat More Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)BomCR541
A.D. Tated, J.1. This revision application is directed against the conviction of the petitioner-accused under section 67 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dindori, in Criminal Case No. 50 of 1981, decided on 24th September, 1982, which was confirmed in appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik, in Criminal Appeal No. 141 of 1982 decided on 6th October, 1983. The accused has been sentenced for the said offence to suffer R.I. for three and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, or, in default, R.I. for one month.2. The prosecution case in brief was that on information the P.S.I., R.V. Bival (P.W. 3) attached to the Wani Police-Station, on 17th July, 1981 at about 7 p.m. raided the house of the petitioner-accused situated at Bazar Galli, Wani, and the house search was taken in the presence of the panchas Trimbak Hari Bomble (P.W. 1) and Mohan Bhika Bagul (P.W. 2), after the accused was informed about the ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Bhumayya Guddeti and Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1986
Reported in: 1986(2)BomCR562
B.A. Masodkar, J.1. These two appeals are respectively filed by original accused Nos. 2 and 1, the first through Counsel and the latter through Jail.2. The challenge is to the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, against accused Nos. 2 and 1 for the offence under section 392 read with section 397 of the Indian Penal Code with regard to an incident reported by complainant Ramkishor (P.W. 1) to the Worli Police of robbery at his Pan Bidi shop during the night of 18th June 1980. His report is at Ex. 4.3. The case of the prosecution was that the shop of Ramkishor had been subjected to robbery by four persons who came to the shop after the midnight and one of them, that is accused No. 2, purchased a bidi bundle and a match box by paying Re. 1/-, while accused No. 1 at that time accosted Ramkishor and inquired as to why he was asking for money and whether he was not knowing that the accused were externes. During the course of the very sa...
Tag this Judgment!Kishan J. Hiranandani Vs. Collector of Customs (P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1986
Reported in: (1987)(13)LC43Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Shri Kishan J. Hiranandani filed an application dated 20.9.1979 to the Government of India under Old Section 131 of the Customs Act and this has been transferred to the Tribunal in terms of Section 131B ibid and has to be treated as an appeal before the Tribunal. The appeal is against the Order No. 113 of 1978 dated 23.9.1978 passed by the Central Board of Excise & Customs and Order No. VIII(b)10(79)CUS/68 dated 12.10.1971 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs (Preventive) Central Excise, Bombay confiscating 70 silver ingots weighing 2201.278 kgs. recovered from truck No. BMR7989 on 14.2.1968 when the same was parked unattended on Ghorapdeo Road, off Frere Road, Bombay. The truck had been taking the silver in question from Zaveri Bazar to the house of the appellant in Chembur when it developed some engine trouble and had to be halted at Ghorapdeo Road. It was the department's case that there was no one in the truck except a person named Shri Jalil Gisu who was found nea...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Mulchand Phoolchand JaIn Vs. Collector of Customs (P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1986
Reported in: (1987)(13)LC101Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Revision Application filed before the Government of India against the Order No. 39/1976 dated 9th March 1976 passed by the Central Board of Excise & Customs statutorily stood transferred to the Tribunal for being heard as an appeal.2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal may be stated as under: On the night of 17/18th of Nov. '66 persuant to a secret information that silver ingots were secreted near Shop No. 5 at the junction of Bapty Road and Shanker Puppala Road, Kamathipura, Bombay, for being smuggled out of India, the Police officers and Prohibition Intelligence Bureau, Bombay, maintained a vigil at the suspected place with a view to intercept the persons coming to take away the concealed silver ingots which were hidden underneath the heap of iron scrap. Since no one came forward to claim the silver ingots, the police officers seized the silver ingots under the panchanama and subsequently made over the seized silver ingots to the Customs & Centr...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »