Mumbai Court September 1988 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.
Madhuri Mukund Chitnis Vs. Mukund Martand Chitnis
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1988
Reported in: I(1990)DMC352
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 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 offences punishable under Sections...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Automatic Electric Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1988
Reported in: [1989]176ITR295(Bom)
S.K. Desai, J.1. This is a reference at the instance of the Revenue and the following two questions stand referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench 'E', under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that proportionate reduction in the capital on account of relief under sections 80-I and 80M did not come within the scope of rule 4 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, for the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73 ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that bonus reserve does not come within the provisions of rule 1(iii) of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, and that it should have been considered as a reserve in the computation of capital of the assessee-company ?'2. As far as question No. (1) is concerned, Shri Jetley for the Revenue has very f...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gabriel India Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1988
Reported in: [1989]176ITR349(Bom)
S.K. Desai, J.1. This is a reference at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City III, Bombay, made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench 'B', under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The question referred to us for our consideration to be found in paragraph 5 of the reference reads as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was correct in directing the Income-tax Officer to also include the sum of Rs. 1,55,000 credited to General Reserve No. 2 for the purposes of the computation of capital within the meaning of rule 1 (iii) of the Second Schedule to the Surtax Act, 1964 ?'2. For this assessment, we are concerned with the computation of capital under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. The Income-tax Officer in making the capital computation excluded two amounts, being the amounts shown for General Reserve No. 1 and General Reserve No...
Suhas Prabhakar Nagarnath and ors. Vs. B.T. Gangal and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1988
Reported in: 1989(1)BomCR309
Sharad Manohar, J.1. Interpretation of the word 'family' in the context of the provisions of section 13(1)(I) of the Rent Act is the main question calling for the decision of this Court in these writ petitions.The question involved is common in both the petitions. Landlords are the same, viz., the present petitioners. Only the tenant are different. The defendants (present respondent) will be referred to by their names in the subsequent portion of this judgment.2. One of the tenants is Gangal. He was tenant in respect of a room admeasuring 210 sq. ft. He is the respondent in Writ Petition No. 2603 of 1986. The other tenant is one Mejari. He is also in possession of one room tenement admeasuring identical area of 210 sq.ft. In fact, these are just one-room tenements held by these two respective tenants. Each is partitioned into two parts for the sake of convenience. Essentially, they are one-room tenements. Rent of the premises is also identical Rs. 58.25 per month. In the case of Gangal...
Vijaysingh Rajasingh Varma Vs. Vishinkumari Udaysingh Varma (Smt.) and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1988
Reported in: 1989(2)BomCR139
H. Suresh, J.1. One Rajasingh was the owner of several proporties in Bombay and Thane, out of which one property comprising of about 121 acres of land is situated at Majewadi, Thane. That is the subject matter of this appeal. Rajasingh died on December 12, 1971. He had two wives; one Laxmi who died in 1945 and the other Parvati. From his first wife he had a son and two daughters viz. Udaysingh (son) and Sushila and Ramavati (daughters). From his second wife also he had a son and two daughters viz. Vijaysingh (son) and Anita and Pramila (daughters). Udaysingh died on April 12, 1985 leaving behind his widow and 4 children. This suit has been filed by Vijaysingh as against the widow and the children of Udaysingh. Defendant No. 1 is the widow of Udaysingh and Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 are the children of Udaysingh. Defendant No. 8 is the mother of the plaintiff Defendant Nos. 9 and 10 are the sisters of the plaintiff while defendant Nos. 11 and 12 are the steps-sisters of the plaintiff i.e. di...
Mohan @ Mannu Radhamal Basantani Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1988
Reported in: 1988(4)BomCR203; 1989MhLJ613
A.D. Tated, J.1. A short question involved in this revision is whether the Sessions Judge can entertain the revision against the order of the Judicial Magistrate granting bail to the accused notwithstanding the provisions of section 397(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. The above question arises on the following facts. On 30th of March, 1988 on the report of one Vinod Kishanchand Rajesh, Police Station Vithalwadi, registered an offence under sections 302, 354, 323, 336, 147, 148 and 149 I.P.C. against the petitioner alias Mohan Mannu Radhamal Basantani for having committed the murder of Vinod's brother Narendra Kishanchand Basantani. During the investigation of the crime, the petitioner was arrested on 16th April, 1988. The petitioner moved the Sessions Court for the grant of bail vide his Application No. 476 of 1988. The Sessions Court by an order dated 7-5-1988 rejected his application for bail. Thereafter on 27th May, 1988 the petitioner moved an application for bail before Mr. S...
Indian Cork Mills Private Ltd. Vs. P. Unnikrishnan of Bombay and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1988
Reported in: 1988(4)BomCR127; [1989(58)FLR139]; 1989MhLJ24
S.M. Daud, J.1. This petitioner under Article 226 impugns an award given by a Labour Court pursuant to the reference of an industrial dispute raised against the petitioner by the 1st respondent.2. The petitioner Company is a manufacturer of cork products and has a factory at Powai, Bombay-12. The workman was working as a supervisor in the stopper Department of the factory and it was his duty to supervise the packing and write out the packing slips. The management of the company accused the workman of being in league with the buyers of its products, in that, vast quantities not purchased by them went into packs meant for them. The packing slips were deliberately underrecorded. The explanation given by the workman was found to be not satisfactory. Eventually he came to be dismissed and the conciliation attempted having failed, the dispute was referred to the 2nd respondent for adjudication.3. The employer and worker put forth their respective cases vis-a-vis an enquiry allegedly held pri...
inacio Manuel Miranda and ors. Vs. State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1988
Reported in: 1988(4)BomCR106; 1989MhLJ77
C.S. Dharmadhikari, J.1. These Writ Petitions came to be registered on the basis of the letters received from the prisoners. In the letters, several complaints were made about the conditions in the prison. After being prima facie satisfied, this Court directed the District and Sessions Judge, North Goa, Panaji, to inquire into the complaints made by the prisoners, by visiting the Jail and to submit his report. Accordingly, after visiting the Jail and recording the statements of inmates and Jail Officers, the learned District and Sessions Judge submitted his report.2. Supreme Court in the case of Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra 1988(1) Bom.C.R. 58 has reiterated the view expressed in the earlier decisions, that term 'Life' in Article 21, has an extended meaning. Therefore, citizens who are detained in Prisons either as undertrials or as convicts are also entitled to the benefits guaranteed by the Constitution, subject to reasonable restrictions. This Court in Madhukar Bhagwan Jambh...
Calama Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-1988
Reported in: (1989)(22)LC213Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The facts of this case which are not disputed are that the appellants imported 163 unpacked Seamless Steel Tubes valued at Rs. 2,13,263/- and presented an Import Licence for items shown in Appendix 5 of April-March 1982 Policy Book, as being required for their end product.2. The department's case is that the goods are hit by S.No. 662(c) of Appendix 3 of AM-82 Policy Book and that, therefore, the import of the goods is banned. The import of these goods without cover of a valid ITC licence is prohibited in terms of the Import Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7- 12-1955, in pursuance of Section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947 and the absence of a valid licence covering the consignment constituted an offence attracting the provisions of Section lll(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, it is alleged.3. We have heard Shri J.R. Gagrat, Advocate for the appellants and Shri S.P. Prabhu, JDR for the respondents.4. The learned advocate pointed out that a Public Notice No. 40 dated 14th A...
Kalyanmal Savantraj Mehta Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-1988
Reported in: (1989)(21)LC19Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the order in original bearing No. 27/88 (Collector) dated 26/5/1988 passed by the Collector of Customs (P); Bombay.2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are pure and simple and they are not disputed.3. M/s. Mehta Emporium were the holders of Gold Dealers Licence No.423/G/63. The appellant was one of the partners of the firm M/s. Mehta Emporium. For the contravention of the provisions of the Gold (Control) Act, on 13/2/1979, by M/s. Mehta Emporium, the adjudicating authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the appellant besides ordering confiscation and levying fine in respect of the seized gold. On appeal by the firm M/s. Mehta Emporium this Bench by its order No. 229/87 WRB dated 13-3-1987 set aside the penalty on one Shri Sawantraj Hanwantraj and confirmed the penalty on the appellant and also confirmed the confiscation as well as the fine.4. On 11-4-1983, the appellant herein made an application for Gold Deal...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »