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.
Bafna Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-1990
Reported in: (1991)LC138Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Collector of Customs, Bombay, bearing No. S/10-46/83G dated 16-2-1984 issued on 22-3-1984 ordering confiscation of a consignment of Chilled Cast Iron Rolls valued at Rs. 1,80,9527- but allowing redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 90,0007-.2. Brief facts for the purpose of disposal of this appeal can be stated as below: 3. The appellants are running a Roller Flour Mill producing Maida. They had imported a consignment of Chilled Cast Iron Rolls for their mill and claimed clearance under Appendix 10 Item 4 of AM 1982-83 Policy as permissible spare. However, the department objected to the clearance on the ground that the goods have been imported during the 1983-84 Policy and the Letter of Credit has been opened only during the Policy Period 1983-84 and the aforesaid item as per the Policy AM 1983-84 has been listed under Appendix 3 requiring a specific licence and cannot be imported as permissible spare under Appendix 10. In the adjudic...
Murlidhar Deonath Samel Vs. Sadashiv Deonath Samel and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Bom7; 1990(3)BomCR232
1. This petition is for revocation of the probate granted on 19th May, 1981. This concerns the estate of Satyabama bai Deonath Samel. She had made a Will on 23rd April, 1971. She died on 10th May, 1975. On 18th June, 1977 her son (Sadashiv) filed Petition No. 623 of 1977 for obtaining probate. On 19th May, 1981 the probate was granted. Thereafter the present petition has been filed for the relief as stated above. 2. The present petitioner claims to be an heir of the deceased (Satyabamabai) and on that basis he claims that citations should have been issued to him and that he had a right to challenge the Will. The present petitioner is a step-son of the said Satyabamabai. In Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 he would come under item (b) of sub-sect ion (1) of Section 15. However, he would be excluded by the sons of Satyabamabai falling underclause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the said Act. Since Satyabamabai left the sons including Sadashiv, the petitioner in Petiti...
L.B. Vs. A.B.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Bom8; 1990(3)BomCR65; I(1991)DMC76
ORDER1. This petition is for the declaration that the marriage solemnised between petitioner (wife) and the respondent (husband) under Christian rites and ceremonies is null and void on the ground that the respondent was impotent at the time of the marriage and at the time of the institution of the petition. 2. The relevant facts are as follows :-- The parties are Indian Christians professing the Roman Catholic faith. They were married on 26th December, 1984 in St. Paul's Church at Dadar, Bombay in accordance with Roman Catholic rites. There is one son born on 30th October, 1985 from this marriage. On 2nd April, 1990 this petition was filed by the wife. Her case is that the respondent is impotent relatively to her. As regards the birth of the child, she says 'In order to give a chance to the situation, the petitioner suggested to the respondent that they should go on a brief honeymoon out of Bombay, which they accordingly did sometime towards the end of January, 1985. The said honeymoo...
Babulal Mishrimal Vardhan and Others Vs. Sudershan Wadia and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ298
1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for stay of criminal proceedings being Criminal Case No. 92/S of 1984 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, IX Court, Bandra, Bombay. In the alternative, the petitioners are praying for quashing the said criminal proceedings.2. Respondent No. 1 - Sudarshan Wadia has filed a complaint case against the petitioners under sections 4, 5, 7, 9, 10 and 13 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act') and under sections 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code. Petitioner No. 7 - M/s. Venus Enterprise is a partnership firm of which petitioners Nos. 1 to 6 are the partners. Petitioner No. 7 constructed a building known 'Jal Darshan'. According to respondent No. 1, the petitioners sold Flat No. 503 situate on the 5th floor in the said building to his wife Neena in the year 1978 for a consideration of Rs. 1,26,0...
Gurdayal Berlia Charitable Trust Vs. Fifth Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-1990
Reported in: (1990)34ITD489(Mum.)
1. Since a common point is involved in these appeals, they are disposed of together for the sake of convenience.2. The assessee is a public charitable trust, which came into existence under a Deed of Trust executed sometime in December, 1972. The assessment years are 1984-85 and 1985-86 and the relevant previous years ended on 31-3-1984 and 31-3-1985 respectively.3. The common point involved pertains to the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 11 of the Act in respect of the income other than dividend income. It may be mentioned that during the relevant previous years the assessee was holding 12,000 preference shares of National Rayon Corporation Ltd. Apart from income by way of bank interest, donations, the assessee had also earned dividend income on the said Preference Shares. By virtue of the provisions of Section 11(5) of the Act, which came into effect from assessment year 1984-85, the assessee lost exemption under Section 11 of the Act in respect of dividend income. Howe...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. K.T. Divecha and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-1990
Reported in: [1990]186ITR310(Bom)
T.D. Sugla J.1. This is a reference at the instance of the Department. The assessee is an architect. He carried on a profe ssion as architect for some time as an individual and then as a partner of a firm which was also carrying on the profession of architects in the two years under reference. Both the assessee and the partnership firm were maintaining their books of account of the cash method of accountancy. The outstanding fees were, therefore, not shown in their balance-sheet.2. The Wealth-tax Officer held that outstanding professional fees represented an 'asset' and were includible in the net wealth of the assessee. There was no dispute that the outstanding professional fees amounted to Rs. 1,27,430 for the assessment year 1969-70 and Rs. 81,120 for the assessment year 1970-71. The alternative claim of the assessee was that income-tax liability in respect of outstanding fees should be treated as debt owed by the assessee and 50% of the outstanding fees should be allowed as bad debt...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Vasantlal D. Mehta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-1990
Reported in: [1990]186ITR284(Bom)
T.D. Sugla J.1. This is reference at the instance of the Department. The Tribunal has referred three questions of law to this court for opinion under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The questions read thus :'1. Whether the case of an assessee carrying on a profession, as distinct from carrying on a business, is covered by section 7(2)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, on the cash system of accounting followed by the assessee, his share in the fees outstanding on the valuation date in the vase of the firms in which he was a partner could be included in his net wealth as on the relevant valuation date 3. If the answer to question No. 2 is in the affirmative, whether the value of the debts to be deducted from the value of the assets in order to arrive at the net wealth of the assessee as on the relevant valuation date should also be taken on accrual basis instead of on cash basis ?'4. The assessee is a solicitor. He h...
Nirali Enterprises Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Cc and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-1990
Reported in: 1992(41)LC316(Bombay)
M.L. Pendse, J.Rule, returnable forthwith. Shri Vyas waives service on behalf of the respondents.Heard counsel.1. Several petitions are filed in this Court seeking identical reliefs as in present petition and minutes of order are tendered in all the petitions. Shri Vyas has raised objection to pass identical orders on two counts. The first objection is that the petitioners ought to have filed several separate petitions. The objection is that the petitioners have imported various consignments by different ships and in respect of those diverse consignments separate petition should have been filed. It is difficult to find any merit in the submission, save and except that the respondents desire that there should be multiplicity of litigation. It is difficult to appreciate who would be benefited by filing separate petitions when the relief claimed is identical and it is the petitioners alone who have imported all these consignments. The first objection is therefore overruled.2. The second o...
Kumari Meena Mohanlal Merchant Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-08-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Bom74; 1990(3)BomCR151
ORDER1. The petitioner after passing her Higher Secondary School Examination (XII Standard) in June, 1984 applied for admission for medical course under a reserved seat for other backward class on the ground that she belonged to 'Hindu-Darji' caste. She was admitted to first year M.B.B.S. course in Sheth G. S. Medical College, Parel, Bombay provisionally for the academic year 1984-85 in the reserved seat under the cate-gory of other backward class (Shimpi) subject to verification of her caste claim by the Caste Verification Committee. It appears that her caste certificate was verified and invalidated by the said Committee. It was held by the Committee that the petitioner did not establish that she was 'Shimpi' as her father's school leaving certificate showed that he belonged to 'Hindu-Darji' caste which was not notified as other backward class in the State of Maharashtra and that 'Darji' and 'Shimpi' are not the same. The Committee also held that although 'Darji' means tailor a person...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Hira Lal Tirath Ram Narang
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-08-1990
Reported in: [1990]186ITR449(Bom)
Mrs. Sujata Manohar, J.1. The following two questions have been referred to us under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, in respect of the estate of one Jaikishan Naran :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the accountable person was entitled to a deduction of liability of Rs. 2,64,725 arising on account of a joint agreement dated May 1, 1944, with Bharat Bank Ltd., in arriving at the dutiable value of the estate of the deceased ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ought to have held that the interest in the joint family property of the lineal descendants of the deceased was not includible for the purpose of determining the rate of estate duty to be paid on the property passing on the death of the deceased ?'2. The deceased and one Bhagwandas Mehra entered into an agreement with Bharat Bank Ltd., on May 1, 1944, as a result of which they agreed to act as guarantee br...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »