Mumbai Court December 1987 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.
A.H. Bhiwandiwalla Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1987
Reported in: (1988)26ITD143(Mum.)
1. These are two appeals-each by the assessee and revenue-against the order of the CWT(A) pertaining to A. Ys. 1979-80 & 1980-81. Since common issues are involved in all these appeals, therefore, for the sake of convenience, they are being disposed of by a single order.2. At the time of hearing, the learned assessee's counsel raised a preliminary issue of jurisdiction. The submission of the assessee's counsel was that if the IAC had no jurisdiction to pass an assessment order under the WT Act, there is no need to decide the matter on merits. The IAC did not agree with the contention of the assessee. On appeal, the CWT(A) also rejected the contention of the assessee.Therefore, the assessee has raised this preliminary objection before the Tribunal. The CWT(A) was of the view that Under Section 8 of the WT Act, the Officer having jurisdiction under the Income-tax Act has simultaneous jurisdiction under the Wealth-tax Act. The case of CWT v.B. Nathmal Vaid [1985] 20 Taxman 222 (Mad.) ...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Maruti Dadu Kamble
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)BomCR620; (1988)90BOMLR4
A.D. Tated, J.1. The State has preferred this appeal against the acquittal of the respondent-accused by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ichalkaranji (Mr. A.D. Deshpande), of the offence under section 12(a) of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Gambling Act').2. Ichalkaranji Police-Station submitted charge-sheet against the respondent-accused on 2nd August, 1980 in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ichalkaranji, for the offence under section 12(a) of the Gambling Act. On the same day the learned Judicial Magistrate ordered issue of process against accused. On 7th August, 1980, Vakalatnama of Mr. R.S. Bichkar and Mr. J.A. Balugade on behalf of the accused was filed. Copies of police papers were supplied to the accused. The matter was adjourned for plea of the accused to 11th August, 1980. On 11th August, 1980 the accused pleaded not guilty and hence the case was adjourned to 19th August, 1980 for recording prosecuti...
Ketaki Vs. Girish @ Satish
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1987
Reported in: I(1990)DMC382
M.S. Ratnaparkhi, J.1. The present respondent Girish has initiated a matrimonial petition No. 86 of 1987 before the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur. The petition is pending before the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur. In this petition a divorce has been claimed. The present petitioner Ketaki is the wife of Girish, the respondent.2. During the pendency of this matrimonial petition the wife Ketaki filed an application Exh-8 for interim alimony pendente lite. She claimed Rs. 1,500/-per month by way of interim alimony for herself and her child and Rs. 3.000/- for expenses of the litigation. The present respondent filed his reply denying the quantum.3. The present petitioner then filed an application before the Court for permission to lead evidence on the question of interim alimony. Her contention was that as the respondent has denied the quantum of earning, as alleged by her, she should be allowed to lead evidence. The trial Court passed the following order :--'The ap...
Gunvantlal Kantilal Khamar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1987
Reported in: (1988)90BOMLR9; 1988MhLJ194
S.M. Daud, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is to obtain a direction compelling respondents 4 and 5 to appoint the petitioner as an Assistant Head Master (AHM) after quashing the appointment of respondent 7 to that post.2. Respondent 4 is a Trust/Society registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, and the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The governing body of the said respondents, hereinafter referred to as 'the society' has for its officebearers a Secretary who is the father-in-law of respondent 6 and a Chief Executive Officer who is the husband of the said respondent. The said Society runs a school in the name and style of Fellowship School which has been impleaded to this petition as respondent 5. The said school has classes right from the Kindergarten to the class which prepares students for the Secondary School Certificate Examination. Respondent 6, the Head Mistress of the School is at daggers drawn with her husband and father-in-law and is presen...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›