Mumbai Court March 1990 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.
Collector of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Bajaj Tempo Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1990
Reported in: (1991)LC377Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal filed by the Department is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 27/85-PNE dated 15-4-1985 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) rejecting the appeal filed by the Department against the order of refund bearing No VIII(CUS) 20-227/83/4899 dated 6-6-1983 sanctioning refund of Rs. 49,651.35 to the respondents, solely on the ground that the appeal filed by the department was beyond the limitation prescribed under Section 129-D(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. When the matter was called out for hearing Mr. Paithankar, purchase clerk of the respondents' firm, appeared and submitted a letter dated 28-2-1990 enclosing therewith the copy of written representation filed before the Collector of Customs (Appeals) and submitting that there was no case for the department requiring the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) to be set aside. As a postscript, they have mentioned "In case you have any further queries, kindly give a personal hearing at a suitable date". Readi...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Mohd. Ismail Ahmed Doda
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1990
Reported in: 1990(50)ELT346(Bom)
1. The State has come in appeal against the order of acquittal of Original Accused Nos. 6, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17 and 18 for the offence punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code r/w Section 135 of the Customs Act and Section 5 of the Imports sand Exports (Control) Act, 1947 in Criminal Case No. 76/CW/79 on the file of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 40th Court, Girgaum, Bombay. However, the appeal against Accused Nos. 6, 11, 12, 13, 17, and 18 was dismissed summarily and only leave was granted to appeal against the order of acquittal of Accused No. 16 who is the present Respondent No. 5 and the same was admitted.2. Briefly stated facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under :-Original Accused Nos. 3, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23 and 25 along with other known and unknown persons were alleged to be parties to the criminal conspiracy at Bombay, Dubai and other places and the object of the said conspiracy was to smuggle textiles and ...
R.M. Bhade Shop Inspector, Pune Vs. P.S. Malgaonkar Div. Mag.4.i.F. an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)BomCR426
I.G. Shah, J.1 The Shops Inspector, Pune Municipal Corporation has filed this appeal against the order of acquittal of the present respondent No. 1 of the offences punishable under sections 8 and 5 read with section 52(1)(c) of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Criminal Revision Application No. 127 of 1979 setting aside the order of conviction and sentence of fine of Rs. 25/- passed against respondent No. 1 by the trial Court. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:---2. Respondent No. 2, the original accused is the Divisional Manager of the United India Fire and General Insurance Company, Pune. The Shop Inspector filed a complaint against the present respondent No. 1 contending that respondent No. 1 had not complied with the provisions of sections 8 and 15 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948. The defence of respondents No. 1 was that the provisions of the Bombay Shops and Establ...
C. M. Desai Vs. Ninth Addl. Income-tax Officer.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1990
Reported in: [1990]34ITD431(Mum)
ORDER1. These nine appeals involving a common point of dispute are disposed of together for the sake of convenience.2. The assessee is an individual and derives income by way of salary, dividend and interest. The assessment years are 1971-72 to 1978 and the relevant previous years are the corresponding financial years.3. The common point of dispute pertains to the assessees claim for deduction of interest payment to his sisters and the bank out of the dividend income claimed by him.The amount involved are as under :Asstt. YearSistersBanksRs.Rs.1971-726,960701972-736,960701973-745,4807751974-753,688221975-76'3,2541976-77'3,7951977-78'3,4001978-79'2,8881981-82'8,5384. The assessee received certain properties under the will if his father dated 2-2-1962. The assessees did on 16-12-1966. In order to better appreciate the rival stands of the parties, it would be necessary to reproduce below the relevant portion of the will :'Property owned, and possessed by me and in respect of which this wi...
First Income-tax Officer Vs. Kantilal Manilal and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1990
Reported in: [1990]33ITD340(Mum)
ORDERPer M. A. Ajinkya, Accountant Member - This is an appeal by the department against the order of the CIT (Appeals) dated 2-11-1985 directing the ITO to allow the assessees claim for a sum of Rs. 47,49,530 as loss on account of its transaction with M/s. Madura Coats Ltd.2. Certain relevant facts may briefly be stated. The assessee is a registered firm. Its accounting year for the year under appeal is S. Y. 2037. In the course of assessment proceedings. It claimed deduction of certain amounts on the ground that the assessee was required to import pharmaceuticals and chemical items and had incurred certain expenses in the process of importing such pharmaceuticals and chemicals. It would appear that the assessee had obtained licences of the value of Rs. 58,74,665 from a company called M/s. Madura Coats Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the limited company) by paying a guarantee margin of profit amounting to Rs. 17,62,399. The said limited company had issued a letter of authority in favo...
Peter Morris Lobo and Another Vs. Kumari Sonal Maganlal Shingala and O ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1990
Reported in: 1991ACJ215; AIR1991Bom1; 1990(3)BomCR112
1. These two appeals are by the appellants who are the owners of School Bus No. MRR 7274 and the Insurance Company with whom the said vehicle was insured. Respondent No. 1 in the two appeals are the two original claimants who were injured as a result of an accident that took place on 21st September 1973 when they were sitting in the abovesaid bus. It is pertinent to mention that when the School Bus No. MRR 7274 was stationed on the fateful day on a public road, another School Bus No. MRS 8374 came at a high speed from a by-lane and dashed against the stationary bus. The impact was so heavy that all the children travelling in the school bus were thrown from their seats and fell down inside the bus and received bodily injuries. The two claimants hereinabove received comparatively serious injuries and filed the claim applications. 2. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal by its separate judgments and orders dated 15th July 1977 accepted the contention of appellant No. 1 that the driver of t...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Sampatlal Nemsukh Bothara
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1990
Reported in: 1990(2)BomCR376; 1990CriLJ2120; 1990(1)MhLj695
1. The State has come in appeal against the order of sentence passed against the present Respondent, the Original Accused, in Summary Case Nos. 4073/77, 4071/77 and 4072/77 for enhancement of the sentence of fine of Rs. 5/- levied by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Ahmednagar.2. As in all these three appeals the Appellant-Accused is the same and the contravention alleged is also same, they are being disposed of by a common judgment.3. Briefly stated facts giving rise to these three appeals are that on 9-2-1977 Factory Inspector visited Bothara Engineering Works, a factory belonging to the present Respondent and found that Jaywant Pund, Sudhakar Shinde and Murlidhar Karale were working in the factory but their names were not entered as workers in the register as required by Section 62 of the Factories Act. The Factory Inspector, therefore, filed three separate complaints in respect of each of the workers in the Court. The learned Chief. Judicial Magistrate on strength of the evide...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Bipinchandra N. Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1990
Reported in: (1990)86CTR(Bom)231; [1990]186ITR29(Bom)
T.D. Sugla J.1. The main question of law involved in these four Estate Duty references at the instance of the Department is common. For the sake of convenience, all these references are disposed of together. The question of law referred to this court in the individual references are :2. Estate Duty Reference No. 21 of 1976 :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the estate duty liability should be deducted in the computation of the principle value of the estate of the deceased ?'3. Estate Duty Reference No. 30 of 1976 :AAXC'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that, in the computation of the principal value of the estate of the deceased, the estate duty payable in respect of the estate of the deceased should be deducted ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in holding that tax liability with reference to annuity deposit wa...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Sampatlal Mensukh Bothara
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1990
Reported in: (1992)ILLJ107Bom
1. The State has come in appeal against the order of sentence passed the present Respondent, the Original Accused, in Summary Cases Nos. 4073/77, 4071/77 and 4072/77 for enhancement of the Sentence of fine of Rs. 5/- levied by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmednagar.As in all these three appeals, the Appellant-Accused is the same and the contravention alleged is also the same, they are being disposed of by common judgment.Briefly stated facts giving rise to these three appeals are that on February 9, 1977, Factory Inspector visited Bothara Engineering Works, a factory belonging to the present Respondent and found that Jaywant Pund, Sudhakar Shinde and Murlidhar Karale were working in the factory but their names were not entered as workers in the register as required by Section 62 of the Factories Act. The Factory Inspector, therefore, filed three separate complaints in respect of each of the workers in the Court. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on Strength of the eviden...
Shridhar Babaji Vibhute, (Deceased) by Heirs Vs. Ganpati Bayaji Patil ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1990
Reported in: 1990(3)BomCR246
M.L. Dudhat, J.1. The present writ petition is filed against the order dated 19-8-1982 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal at Kolhapur in Revision Application No. MRt. SS. 270 of 1981.2. The present petitioners are the heirs and the legal representative of one Shridhar Babaji Vibhute. The said Sridhar Babaji Vibhute was admeasuring about two acres and 10 gunthas situated at Kasegoan in Taluka Walwa, District Sangli. The said Shridhar Vibhute filed an application under section 88C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the B.T. & A.L. Act, for the sake of brevity) for the grant of certificate and obtained the said certificate on14-4-1959. Against the said certificate respondent No.1 the tenant had not preferred any appeal and the said certificate became final thereafter. Thereafter the said Shridhar Vibhute, whom I will refer to hereinafter as 'the original applicant' for the sake of brevity, filed application land, on the ground of bon...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »