Mumbai Court September 1988 Judgments
Collector of Customs Vs. Gujral Automobiles
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1988
Reported in: (1989)(19)ECC240
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the order No.S/49-163/83L, dated 10-10-1983 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.2. This appeal is by the Collector of Customs, Bombay. The allegation against the respondent was that they imported a consignment of 7 Pallets Shock Absorbers valued at Rs. 33,016 c.i.f. which are stock lots or disposal lots without a specific licence. Thus there was contravention of Clause 5 (3) (iii) of the Import (Control) Order.3. The Deputy Collector of Customs, who held the adjudication ordered confiscation but allowed redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 16,500/-.On appeal, the Collector of Customs (Appeals) relying on the decision of the Bombay High Court referred to by the Deputy Collector viz. in the case of Abdul Hussain Mohammedally Master v. Union of India reported in 1981 ELT 936 (Bom.) set aside the order of the Deputy Collector. Hence this appeal by the Collector of Customs.4. During the hearing of this appeal Shri Mondal...
Tag this Judgment!Baban Narayan Landge Vs. Mahadu Bhikaji Tonchar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Bom247; 1989(1)BomCR669
ORDER1. Has a Civil Court jurisdiction to issue at an interlocutory stage a mandatory injunction so as to restore the statue quo anterior to the date of institution of a suit, is a point that falls for determination in his civil revision application.2. In my view, answer to this question has to be recorded in the affirmative. Here are my reasons : The subject of temporary injunction is mainly covered by O. 39, Rr. 1 and 2, C.P.C In cases not covered by those provisions, an appropriate temporary injunction can be granted also in exercise of inherent power of a Court under S. 151, C.P.C. After all O. 39, Rr. 1 and 2 are not exhaustive of the circumstances under which interim injunction can be granted. The controversy on that aspect of the matter is set at rest by a majority decision of the Supreme Court in the leading case of Manoharlal v. Seth Hiralal : AIR1962SC527 . But that apart the language employed in those two Rules is clearly wide enough to include an order in the form of a mand...
Tag this Judgment!Chand Mohamad Noor Mohamad Vs. Mohammed Faruk Mohamad Umarbhai and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1988
Reported in: 1989(1)BomCR201
A.D. Tated, J.1. This criminal application under section 482 Cri.P.C. has been filed by one Chand Mohamad Noor Mohamad for quashing the order dated 19th September, 1988 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 2nd Court, Mazgaon, Bombay [Shri S.A. Merchant], whereby he granted the application of the respondents Nos. 1 to 4- accused Nos. 1 to 4 for bail and directed that the said respondents be released on bail in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- each, with one surety in the like amount or a cash security deposit of 5,000/- plus P.R. in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- in lieu of the surety. Mr. P.M. Vyas, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, supports the petition.2. The facts giving rise to the application by the respondents Nos.1 to 4- accused Nos. 1 to 4 for releasing on bail have been stated by the learned Additional Chief Magistrate thus:-'4. On 16-6-88 at about 6.45 P.M. the complainant's [that is, the petitioner's) father Noor Mohd. was assaulted by accused Nos. 2 and 4. Accordin...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnaji S/O Venkatesh Sane and ors. Vs. Saroj Screens Private Limite ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1988
Reported in: 1989(2)BomCR410
A.A. Desai, J.1. By this appeal the original defendants have challenged the judgement and decree dated 18th of July, 1983, ordering them to execute a sale deed, pursuant to the agreement of safe dated 11th of October, 1978 in favour of the respondent/original plaintiff. This appeal amongst other requires us to ascertain, on construction of the agreement, as to whether the intention of the parties was to make the time as the essence of the contract.2. The appellants/defendants since having various shares, are the joint owners of the suit property known as Laxmi Talkies, Sitabuldi, Nagpur. The respondent/plaintiff, a private limited company deals in exhibition of films and also owns cinema theatres. The parties after negotiations for a considerable period settled the terms and conditions of the agreement of sale. The defendants on 5th of October, 1978 received Rs. 1,00,000/- as an earnest money. The parties thereafter on 11th of October, 1978 recorded (Exh. 90) an agreement of sale. Acco...
Tag this Judgment!Kishore Bajaj Vs. Dorab Cawasji Warden and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1988
Reported in: 1989(1)BomCR99
H. Suresh, J.1. This is an appeal by the original defendant No. 4 against on order of interim mandatory injunction which virtually ousts him and his wife from the suit premises, by a learned Judge of the Bombay City Civil Court, on a notice of motion taken out by the plaintiff as against the defendants.2. The relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this appeal are as follows:One Cawasji Dorabji Warden and his wife Banubai and their son Dorab, the plaintiff herein, purchased under a registered deed of conveyance dated January 12, 1934 an immovable property then consisting of land admeasuring about 1,000 square yards. After the land was purchased, a building was constructed thereon in the same year. The building is the subject matter of these proceedings. By a declaration dated April 11, 1939 made by the said Cawasji Warden and Banubai Warden, they declared that the plaintiff held beneficial and undivided share in the said land and the building as joint tenant along with them. By anot...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Film Federation of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1988
Reported in: [1989]178ITR425(Bom)
S.K. Desai, J.1. The assessee concerned in this reference is the Film Federation of India, Bombay. The reference is at the instance of the Revenue and the following question stands referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the following incomes were exempt from tax under section 11(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :(1) Subscriptions from members;(2) Interest on securities;(3) Interest on deposits;(4) Interest on savings bank account;(5) Interest on debentures ?'2. As far as subscriptions from members are concerned, we have been referred to the decision given by a Division Bench of this High Court in Income-tax Reference No. 38 of 1972, CIT v. Film Federation of India, decided on September 9, 1981, where this very assessee was concerned. In that reference, the question referred to the Bench was whether the subscriptions received by the assessee-company for the three years under consideration were liable to tax. On ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Oricon Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1988
Reported in: (1988)74CTR(Bom)20; [1989]176ITR407(Bom)
S.K. Desai, J.1. The assessee before us is Oricon Pvt. Ltd., Bombay, a private limited company engaged in construction work and executing building repairs. It also undertakes painting jobs. The question referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, reads as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee-company was an industrial company ?'2. Our attention was drawn by Shri Patil, appearing for the respondent-assessee, to a decision given in the assessee's own case and reported in CIT v. Oricon P. Ltd. : [1985]151ITR296(Bom) . When we gave that decision (in : [1985]151ITR296(Bom) ), we made it clear that the question then referred to us pertained to one narrow aspect of the matter and not the entire or larger aspect. This will be clear from the observations made in the said judgment at pages 297, 298 and 299 of the report.3. In the said decision in : [1985]151ITR296(Bom) , we opined that for the pu...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Siemens India Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1988
Reported in: [1992]193ITR358(Bom)
S.K. Desai, J.1. In this application, we are concerned with the amounts allegedly spent by the assessees towards the refreshments provided to customers. For the purpose of the application, we have to consider whether the amounts spent were on a lavish scale so as to be categorised as entertainment and, therefore, invite the disallowance. The Tribunal, at the second appellate stage, appears to have asked for details The company could not furnish the necessary details but only furnished to the Tribunal the names of 165 employees who had incurred such expenditure and the quantum on each occasion.2. It would appear to us that the Income-tax Officer without proper scrutiny accepted the assessee's contention that these amounts represented refreshments provided to the customers. It remains a mystery as to why he had done so without checking the vouchers, since some of the amounts were quite substantial. Since the necessary details were not available, the Income-tax Officer could have disallow...
Tag this Judgment!Madhuri Mukund Chitnis (Smt.) Vs. Mukund Mart and Chitnis and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1988
Reported in: 1988(3)BomCR679; (1988)90BOMLR519
A.D. Tated, J.1. This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 29th May, 1986 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Criminal Revision Application No. 204 of 1986 whereby he allowed the revision against the order dated 13th March, 1986 whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No. 4, Pune, dismissed the application filed by respondent No. 1 Mukund Martand Chitnis for discharge under Section 245(2) Criminal Procedure Code.2. The facts leading to the present petition, shortly stated, are that the petitioner Smt. Madhuri Chitnis and respondent No. 1 Mukund Martand Chitnis were married on 15th July, 1983. Immediately thereafter their relationship got strained and the petitioner had to leave the house of her husband on 6th August, 1983 and since then she is not residing with her husband. On 31st October, 1983 respondent No. 1 filed complaint case No. 494 of 1983 against the petitioner and her near relations for the offence punishable und...
Tag this Judgment!K.A. Jambhulkar (Dr.) Vs. Mangala D/O Mahadeorao Patil (Dr.) and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1988
Reported in: 1988(4)BomCR48; 1989MhLJ251
H.W. Dhabe, J.1. On September 9, 1988 we decided Writ Petition No. 1921 of 1988 filed by the non-applicant No. 1 in this Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 161 of 1988. The non-applicant No. 1 had challenged in the said petition the admission granted to the applicant for post-graduate degree course in the subject of Gynaecology and Obstetrics in the Indira Gandhi Medical College, Nagpur. The applicant was respondent No. 3 in the said writ petition. Her admission was challenged on the ground that she passed the subject of Gynaecology and Obstetrics in the third attempt and therefore, as per Clause (f) of rule 6 of the Rules for Admission, she was totally ineligible for admission to the post-graduate registration in the said subject. The applicant was absent and was not also represented in the said writ petition. However, the case of the applicant has not totally gone by default because by defending the orders of the Dean of Indira Gandhi Medical College, granting registration to the ap...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »