Mumbai Court June 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.
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-1990
Reported in: [1991]190ITR467(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. There are three questions of law referred to us for opinion which are as under :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the entire probate court fee of Rs. 8,42,709.50 is deductible under section 50 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, from the estate duty payable and not only so much of it as is relatable to the properties or portions thereof actually brought to tax under the provisions of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that relief under section 50 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, has to be allowed if court fees are paid in respect of the property which is exempt from payment of estate duty under section 33 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in allowing relief under section 50 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, in respect of certain i...
Paresh Ramniklal Dedhia (Dr.) and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Gr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-1990
Reported in: 1990(3)BomCR429
T.D. Sugla, J.1. The petitioners are the students of medical colleges under the management and control of Bombay Municipal Corporation (for short B.M.C). All of them passed M.B.B.S. examination in January 1987. By January 1988 they completed their internship and were registered with The Maharashtra Medical Council. Being desirous of pursuing studies in the Post Graduate Degree (M.D.) course in Radio Diagnosis in the colleges run by B.M.C., they applied for and qualified for the admission. However, as per Rule 4-B of the Rules for admission to BMC medical colleges then in vogue, when diploma and degree courses existed in a given subject, registration for the degree course was to be available on merit after completion of the terms for diploma course. All of them were, thus, admitted to diploma course in that subject (known as DMRD). In view of Rule 4A which then provided for institutional preference amongst B.M.C. medical colleges in the matter of admission to B.M.C. diploma as well as M...
Vinayak Lungaji Athavale Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-1990
Reported in: 1990(3)BomCR177; [1991(61)FLR685]
H.H. Kantharia, J.1 In this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order of his reversion.2. Having passed his B.Sc. (Agriculture) examination, the petitioner appeared for competitive examination held by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission for the post of Assistant in the services of the Maharashtra Government. He came out successfully in the said examination and consequently joined the post of Assistant on February 15, 1971 in the Agriculture and Co-operation Department. It is his case that he was deliberately failed in the examinations for the promotion to the post of Superintendent by officers belonging to high caste because he belonged to Scheduled Caste However, on the last chance, he qualified himself for the promotion and ultimately promoted to the post of Superintendent by an order dated November 7, 1984. Thereafter, according to him, unfortunately he had to work for two years under one Z. Mullim who was under the influence...
New India Industries Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and Assist ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-1990
Reported in: 1990(31)LC70(Bombay)
ORDERAshok Agarwal, J.1. I had by my order dated 22nd March, 1990 issued notice to AGIL for the purpose of determining whether or not AGIL had passed on the burden of the excess excise duty collected to its dealers. Prior to the passing of the said order, the respondents in their affidavit-in-reply had contended that the refund of the excess excise duty collected from the petitioners cannot be refunded to the petitioners as the petitioners have collected the same from their customers and if refund is ordered it would result in unjust enrichment. In a further affidavit dated 16th August, 1988 filed on behalf of the respondents, the said contention was reiterated. After the passing of my aforesaid order dated 22nd March, 1990 an affidavit dated 10th April, 1990 was filed on behalf of the petitioners whereunder it was averred that the respondents are not entitled to raise the plea of unjust enrichment because of the instructions issued by the Central Government in respect of unjust enrich...
Abdulla K. Munshi Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-1990
Reported in: (1991)(52)ELT264Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Both these appeals are directed against the Order-in-Original No.82/Addl. Collr/1985 dated 12-12-1985 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs (Preventive) Gujarat, Ahmedabad, so far as it relates to imposition of personal penalty of Rs 1.00 lac on the appellant Shri B.C. Shah (appellant in Appeal CD (Bom) 331/86) and imposition of personal penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the appellant Shri Abdulla K.Munshi (appellant in appeal CD (Bom) 223/86).2. On information received that one Mr. Gulam Hussain Ismail Parekh of Gloucester, U.K., a British-national, had smuggled Vitamin B-12 powder and was to transport from Surat to Bombay, the officers of D.R.I. Surat maintained a watch at Surat Railway Station, when on the midnight of 26/27-10-1982 they located the said Parekh at the railway station. He was intercepted. On search of his baggage he was found to have possessed 4.900 Kg of Vitamin B-12 powder. On enquiry he could not produce any documents showing the licit import of the same. On r...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Official Trustee, Maharashtra State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-1990
Reported in: (1991)91CTR(Bom)192; [1990]186ITR463(Bom)
Mrs. Sujata Manohar, J.1. This is an application under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. The applicant making the reference is the Controller of Estate Duty, Bombay. The accountable person is the Official Trustee, Maharashtra State, Bombay. The questions which are referred to us relate to the estate of the deceased, Sir Jamsetjee Jejeebhoy Baronet, who died on or about September 24, 1968. The questions relate to the interest which the deceased baronet had in the Sir Jamsetjee Jejeebhoy Baronetcy Fund which was created initially under the Baronetcy Act 20 of 1860, which Act was subsequently replaced by Act 10 of 1915. Under these Acts, certain promissory notes of the Government of India producing an annual income of Rs. 1 lakh and a Mansion House and hereditaments called Mazegaon Castle were settled in perpetuity to support the title and dignity of a baronet under the said Act. Under the said Act, the income from these properties and the use of the same was conferred on the ba...
Suhas Digambar Vidwans Vs. University of Bombay and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-1990
Reported in: 1990(3)BomCR252
H.H. Kantharia, J.1. The petitioner's father was working in the University of Bombay, Department of Chemical Technology, Matunga as a Glass Blower for 23 years and died on December 7, 1973. After his death, under the relevant rules, the petitioner was employed by the University as a Laboratory Assistant-cum-Typist-Clerk under the Indian Organic Chemicals Scheme undertaken in the University Department of Chemical Technology on April 21, 1977 where he worked till December 4, 1978. From December 5, 1978 he worked as a Typist-cum Clerk in the University Department of Chemical Technology till June 30, 1980 and was then transferred to the Examination Section of the University. He was paid at the time of his initial appointment a consolidated salary of Rs. 250/- per month till December 4, 1978 but when he joined the office of the University from December 5, 1978 he was paid a basic salary of Rs. 335/- He was given a break of one day after every three months and thus in all three breaks were g...
Food Corporation of India Vs. Trustees of the Port of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-1990
Reported in: 1990(3)BomCR353
H. Suresh, J.1. This is a suit filed by the Food Corporation of India, a Corporation constituted under the Food Corporation Act, 1964 and functioning under the Ministry of Food and Agriculture, as against the Trustees of the Port of Bombay, a Corporate Body, constituted under the provisions of the Major Port Trust Act, 1879, and controlled by the Ministry of Surface Transport, for the purpose of recovering a sum of Rs. 1,98,923.20 P, as and by way of damages in respect of certain cargo which was kept in the shed of the Bombay Port Trust, which, according to the plaintiffs, was destroyed or lost, etc.2. When this suit appeared on my board during the last week, I pointed out to the two Advocates that this appear to be a matter between the two Corporation belonging to the Government and controlled and governed by the two Ministries and that, therefore, they should immediately name the responsible officers from each side who would sit across the table and put an end to this litigation. The...
National Institutes of Construction Management and Research (Nicmar) V ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-1990
Reported in: [1990]34ITD445(Mum)
ORDERPer Shri U. T. Shah, Vice-President - The main issue involved in this appeal pertains to the assessees claim for exemption under Section 10(22) of the Act.2. The assessee is assessed in the status of an AOP. The assessment year is 1985-86 and the relevant previous year ended on 31-3-1985.3. The assessee was incoporated under the societies Registration Act, 1960 vide Certificate date 16-9-1983. As per the memorandum of Association the objects of the assessee are as under :-'3. ObjectsThe Society shall exist for the service of the construction and allied industries and for increasing its relevance to the national good and international standards. The Society is formed not for purpose of profit. The objects for which the Society is established are :(a) To enagage in activities for the promotion of education, training, research, professionalism and skill formation at all levels of the construction and other allied industries.(b) To undertake special projects and activities in various ...
JaIn Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-1990
Reported in: (1991)LC358Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The aforesaid two matters were listed as appeals and heard by this Bench, consequent to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 568/1989 dated 23-1-1990, setting aside the earlier order of the full Bench of the Tribunal dated 5-12-1986, New Delhi and remanding the issue back to the Tribunal for determining the question of quantum of redemption fine. The papers, which were originally received by the Delhi Registry of the Tribunal, were transmitted to this Bench, since the matter falls within the competence of the West Regional Bench. Thereupon, these were listed as appeals from Jain Exports Pvt. Ltd. and heard by this Bench on four days, namely on 22-3-1990, 23-3-1990,12-4-1990, and 4-5-1990, when Shri G.L.Rawal, the learned advocate on behalf of the appellants and Shri K.M.Mondal, the learned SDR for the Revenue advanced extensive arguments.2. At this juncture, it would be necessary to briefly indicate the long history of the case and also m...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »