Mumbai Court August 1989 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.
Ramchandra Shankar Ghone Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1989
Reported in: 1989(3)BomCR214
A.D. Mane, J.1. This application in revision is directed on a question as to the legality of an order of forfeiture of money seized from the house of the accused who is acquitted of the offence charged under the Gambling Act.2. It appears that on 7th July, 1983 at about 10.30 a.m, the Police Head Constable of Umbraj Police Station acting on some information about illegally carrying on country liquor business, conducted a raid in the house of the petitioner and in search he seized certain articles suspected to be articles of gaming and also cash Rs. 10,111.25. Thereupon, the petitioner was prosecuted in Summary Case No. 1153 of 1983 for alleged offences punishable under sections 4, 5 and 12(a) of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). On conclusion of the trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate, F.C. Patan, on deputation at Karad however, by his order dated 18th August, 1987 acquitted the petitioner, but at the same time directed that muddemal a...
Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1989
Reported in: 1989(25)LC332(Bombay)
Bharucha, J.1. Prior to the coming into force of the Industries Development and Regulation Act, 1951, the petitioners were manufacturing typewriters. They were, after the Act came into force, registered under Item 13(1) of the First Schedule to the said Act. Item 13 deals with commercial, office and household equipment and sub-item (1) thereof with 'typewriters'. On 17th November, 1977 the petitioners had permission to manufacture 50,000 typewriters.2. On 14th April, 1982, the petitioners wrote to the Secretary of Industrial Approvals in the Ministry of Industries of the 1st respondent stating that they were proposing to manufacture electronic typewriters within their overall licensed capacity of 50,000 typewriters and were informing the addressee accordingly. On 25th October, 1982, the petitioners were advised to submit an application for a licence under the Act for the manufacture of electronic typewriters, which would be considered on merits and in the light of the then extant polic...
Bunnan AllauddIn Khan Vs. Mohd. Alias Mustaf Ahmed and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-1989
Reported in: (1990)ILLJ333Bom
1. This is a peculiar petition in the sense that there is no effective respondent. The petitioner herein is the mother of the deceased who met with a motor accident. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are the widow and the minor daughter respectively of the deceased. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are the owner of the vehicle and the insurance company respectively who are not very much concerned with this petition as the amount of compensation awarded has already been deposited and in any event they have not challenged that award. Respondent No. 5 is the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation who passed the impugned award. He has been served.2. Under the award an amount of Rs. 79,693 has been awarded to the legal heirs of the deceased. The amount of compensation so awarded has also been apportioned between the three legal heirs, i.e., the mother, widow and the minor daughter, of the deceased. The petitioner does not challenge the award or its distribution/apportionment. It is, however, pointed out tha...
Bunnan AllauddIn Khan Vs. Mohd Alias Mustaf Ahmed and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-1989
Reported in: I(1990)ACC438
T.D. Sugla, J.1. This is a peculiar petition in the sense that there is no effective respondent. The petitioner herein is the mother of the deceased who met with a. motor accident. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are the widow and the minor daughter respectively of the deceased. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the owner of the vehicle and the insurance company respectively who arc not very much concerned with this petition as the amount of compensation awarded has already been deposited and in any event they have not challenged that award. Respondent No. 5. is the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation who passed the impugned award. He has been served.2. Under the award an amount of Rs. 79,693 has been awarded to the legal heirs of the deceased. The amount of compensation so awarded has also been apportioned between the three legal heirs, i.e, the-mother, widow and the minor daughter, of the deceased. The petitioner does not challenge the award or its distribution apportionment. It is, however, po...
Nadir B. Godrej Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1989
Reported in: (1990)32ITD271(Mum.)
1. The present application under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, has been filed against the order of the Tribunal dated 29.8.1988 passed under Section 35 of the Act in M.A. No. 166/Bom./1987.2. At the outset, we pointed out to the learned counsel for the assessee as to how the present application was maintainable. Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act 1957 only permits an application to be made to the Tribunal to refer to the High Court any question of law which arises out of an order passed under Section 24 or under Section 26 of the Wealth-tax Act. In the present case, the order dated 29-8-1988 is an order passed by the Tribunal under Section 35(l)(e) of the Wealth-tax Act and if that was so, how an application under Section 27(1) would lie against this order. The question we posed before him was whether the order dated 29-8-1988 was an order under Section 24 of the Act or an order traceable to Section 35 of the Act and hence a miscellaneous order passed on a miscellaneous ...
Dr. Fredie Ardeshir Mehta and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1989
Reported in: 1989(3)BomCR656; [1991]70CompCas210(Bom)
S.P. Bharucha, J. 1. The petitioners were, at the relevant time, the directors of the Ahmedabad Advance mills Ltd., a company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1882. On May 31, 1977, the company purchased a flat in Clover Apartments at Cuffe Parade, bombay, for a sum of Rs. 1,84,000 for accommodating the seventh petitioner who was an employee of the company and its whole time director. It was agreed when the purchase was made that the seventh petitioner would have the option to purchase the flat during the course of his employment or within 12 months thereafter. On September 14, 1978, an agreement was entered into between the company and the seventh petitioner giving him such option on payment by him of Rs. 100. On November 29, 1978, an agreement was entered into between the company and the seventh petitioner exercised the option. He then paid to the company a sum of Rs. 92,000 being half of the purchase price and requested that he be allowed to pay the bal...
Shashibala Nair Vs. Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1989
Reported in: 1989(3)BomCR228; (1989)91BOMLR214
H. Suresh, J.1. The petitioner was arrested by the Narcotics Control Bureau on or about 20-3-1989 on a charge for possession and export of 5 Kgs. of heroine and has been charged with offences punishable under sections 8(3), 2(2), 21, 23, 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (No. 61 of 1985) hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act. She has been in custody since then. She made an application for bail before the learned Sessions Judge. The application was rejected by an order dated 22nd June, 1989. The petitioner filed this Criminal Application as against the said Order and also purporting to be an application under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The prayer is for release of the petitioner on bail.3. During the course of the arguments, Mr. Moomen submitted that the petitioner has been in custody for more than 90 days. Since no charge-sheet or complaint has been filed, she is, by virtue of Proviso to sub-section (2) of section 167, Cri.P.C. entitle...
Pravasa Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1989
Reported in: (1990)LC20Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal directed against the Order-in-Original bearing No.Collector/No. 12/1989 [File No. V(Gen) 15- 38/Adj/86/3021] dated 8-2-1989 passed by the Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad.2. Brief facts for the purpose of disposal of this appeal can be stated as below: 3. The appellants are manufacturers of sugar. On 11-1-1986 at about 9.30 a.m. a fire accident took place in their factory effecting godown No. 19 where fully manufactured sugar was stored. On the very same day the appellants have sent telegraphic intimation to the concerned authorities, namely to the Assistant Collector and Collector and apart from giving a letter to the local Supdt. bringing out the fact of fire accident and also requesting for permission to transfer the damaged sugar to another godown. After the investigation, a show cause notice was issued alleging removal under Rule 9(i) of 16959.17 Quintals of white sugar and demanding duty amounting to Rs. 9,73,456.45. The show cause notic...
Eknath Ashiram Alekar and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1989
Reported in: 1989(3)BomCR165
B.N. Deshmukh, J.1. Writ Petition No. 2187 of 1988 is filed by 870 petitioners, who claim to be sugar-cane growers within the area of operation and also within the reserved zone for supply of sugar cane to Respondent No. 3-Shrigonda Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana. Ltd. hereinafter called 'sugar factory'. Writ petition No. 417 of 1989 is filed by the 9 petitioners, who are all Directors of the said factory. As the questions involved and raised in both these petitions were almost identical and co-related, heard both these petitions together.2. The substantial questions, which are agitated in these two petitions, are that the membership is granted by Respondent No. 5, who is chairman of the sugar factory, on one single day, i.e. on 30th June, 1988, when all the applications of as many as 3,387 persons were rushed through for the grant of membership. The petitioners contended that the membership is conferred in these 3,387 persons without following procedure prescribed by the Maharashtra Co-oper...
Letape (India) (P.) Ltd. Vs. Sixth Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1989
Reported in: (1989)31ITD222(Mum.)
There was no evidence of enquiry either into the claim for deduction for commission payments or for deduction of gratuity payments in the order passed by the assessing officer for the assessment year 1984-85, therefore, the Commissioner was fully justified in proceedings under section 263 for the assessment year 1984-85. There is evidence to support the finding of the Commissioner that there was no proper enquiry made by the assessing officer in respect of certain claims for deduction and such absence of enquiry caused prejudice to the revenue.Revision under s. 263--LIMITATION--Order of Commissioner passed before order of Commissioner(Appeals) The appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) was filed in May, 1986 and the order of the Commissioner(Appeals) was passed on 15-3-1989 whereas the Commissioner, City III issued notice under section 263 on 29-3-1988 and passed the order on 30-3-1988. Therefore, when the order was passed by the Commissioner under section 263, there was no order by ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »