Mumbai Court August 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.
Nirmalkumar Ashokkumar and Another Vs. K.V. Gopi, Income-tax Officer, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1990
Reported in: [1991]187ITR329(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. By these petitions under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to issue notices under section 148 read with section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, dated March 26, 1987, March 22, 1988, and September 1, 1987, for assessment years 1978-79, 1979-89 and 1981-82, respectively.2. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee had, interalia, filed copies of loan accounts with confirmation letters. On that basis, the genuinesness of the loans was accepted without making any further enquiry and the assessments were completed under section 143(3).3. Some time in the year 1984, the premises of one Shri Satyanarayan Kedia were searched by the Department. Certain books and documents were seized. One such book was red copy/diary in which the names of the petitioners were noted at pages 53 and 261. Shri Kedia stated before the officers of the Department who had come to search his premises ...
Draupati D/O Fakira Bhimte (Ku.) Vs. Fattu S/O Chirkutrao Shelare
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1990
Reported in: 1991(1)BomCR454
M.S. Ratnaparkhi, J.1. The applicant plaintiff obtained a decree for eviction against the respondent/non-applicant in Small Cause Suit No. 458/82. This decree was challenged before the District Judge vide Civil Appeal No. 254/85. The decree, inasmuch as it related to eviction was stayed by the District Court. However, this stay order came to be vacated on 15-10-1985. On 17-10-1985, the plaintiff filed an execution for possession. Possession warrant was issued and the Possession was delivered on 30-10-1985. The execution was accordingly disposed of.2. On 1-11-1985, the judgment debtor applied for restoration of the premises under section 144 of Code of Civil Procedure. The Executing Court held that the decree put in execution being void, no possession could have been delivered. But as it was already delivered, it directed restitution not under section 144 of Code of Civil Procedure, but under section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure. The observations of the Court were that it was the duty...
Sayyadrasul Sayyadahamad Pirjade Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1990
Reported in: 1991(1)BomCR40
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. The accused in this case who was the driver of motor truck No. MYJ 3915 stands convicted for having committed offences punishable under sections 304-A, 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code and section 89 read with section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The petitioner-accused was found guilty by the trial Court and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for a term of nine months and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-, in default to undergo further R.I. for three months for the offence punishable under section 304-A, I.P.C. He was also found guilty of the offences punishable under sections 279 and 338, I.P.C. and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months for both the counts. He was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to undergo two months simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under section 89 read with section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act.2. Against his conviction the accused filed an appeal to the S...
Vidyadhar Govind Patwardhan Vs. Aravind Shreedhar Ghatpande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1990
Reported in: 1990(3)BomCR567
S.M. Daud, J.1. The petitioner in the two matters is the landlord who had secured a decree for ejectment against one Sahashrabuddhe. The said decree was assailed in appeal and writ petition not by Sahashrabuddhe, but by the person figuring as 1st respondent in the present proceedings.2. In the writ petition bearing No. 824 of 1988 I had passed an order on 23 February, 1988 which reads thus :---'Counsel for petitioner is heard. There is no merit in the petition as the decree passed by appeal Court is perfectly correct. Time to vacate till 15-5-88 granted to the petitioner on his furnishing in two weeks a written undertaking in the usual terms, Undertaking to be furnished in the appeal Court.'On 7 April, 1988, the 1st Respondent gave an undertaking worded thus :---'That I Arvind Shreedhar Ghatpande hereby undertake and assure that I shall hand over the vacant and peaceful possession to respondent No. 1 Shri V.G. Patwardhan the landlord of the premises in my possession at 1481. New Sukhra...
Causeway Chemist Vs. Abdul Kadir Mohamed HussaIn Kaskar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1990
Reported in: 1990(3)BomCR755; (1990)92BOMLR545
S.M. Daud, J.1. An interesting question of jurisdiction arises in this appeal.2. Appellant is the lesses of premises described as shop No. 3 and under an agreement dated 2-6-1955 (Ex. A), respondent was permitted to put up a wooden cupboard upon a portion of the said premises. The cupboard was to be used for storage, display and sale of hosiery and ready-made garments. The cupboard had a bulb for illumination of its contents. The consideration payable to appellant was Rs. 65/- per month inclusive or electricity charges. By notice dt. 2-11-1972 appellant claimed to have revoked the licence and called upon respondent to remove the cupboard. Respondent by reply dated 28-11-1972 set up the plea of being a tenant-the alleged tenancy being protested under the Bombay Rent Act. Faced with this reply, appellant filed a suit in the Civil Court seeking injunctions-mandatory and prohibitory. The first was that defendant remove the cupboard from shop No. 3 and the second that he do not refix the cu...
Pandurang Sakharam Dravid and Vs. Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1990
Reported in: 1991(34)LC256(Bombay)
K.N. Patil, J.1. This is an application under Section 407 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for transfer of criminal case No. 9 of 1986 from the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune, to the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or any other Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay.2. The petitioner and respondent nos. 1 to 34 are the complainant and accused respectively in the case. Respondent No. 1 is a company manufacturing hermetically sealed compressors which are the main components of refrigerators and air-conditioners. The other respondents barring respondent no.35 are the chairman and directors and officers of the company. Respondent No. 29 is a subsidiary company of the main company. The company has offices located at places all over the country such as Calcutta, Madras, Delhi and Bombay. On the basis of information received by the officers of the Central Excise, Anti-Evasion, that there had been evasion of the payment of Central Excise duty on the goods manufactured by the responden...
1. State of Maharashtra 2. First Income-tax Officer Vs. Narayan Champa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1990
Reported in: [1993]201ITR315(Bom)
A. A. DESAI, J. - By this appeal at the instance of the State and revision application on behalf of the Commissioner of Income-tax, the appellant and revisionist have questioned the validity and correctness of the finding of acquittal for the offence punishable under section 275A of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with section 406 and section 461 of the Penal Code, 1860.Pursuant to an authorisation under sub-section (1) of section 132 of the Act, P. W. -3, Prasad, on October 29, 1985, undertook search of the premises of respondent-accused Narayan Bajaj. The search continued till 9.30 p.m. However, it was incomplete. During the course, P. W. -3, Prasad, and the raiding party separated the pawned jewellery and kept it in the almirah. The almirah was sealed. P. W. -3, Prasad, then issued a prohibitory order purported to be under sub-section (3) of section 132 of the Act. Seizure panchanama (exhibit 21) was drawn.P. W. -3, Prasad, and his party next day, i.e....
Chandmal Uttamchand Bora Vs. Government of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1990
Reported in: 1991(1)BomCR607; [1991(63)FLR525]
S.M. Daud, J.1. This petition under Article 226 is for recovery of arrears of special pay alleged to have been wrongfully withheld from petitioner and interest thereon.2. Petitioner was in the subordinate judicial service of the State having been recruited thereto in the year 1949. Starting at the lowest rung, he rose to the position of a Selection Grade District and Sessions Judge. Well before reaching superannuation which event was to take place on 30th September 1976 petitioner applied for 120 days leave which he had earned. The same was refused in public interest. As a Government servant, petitioner's service was governed by the then in force Bombay Civil Service Rules (BCSR). Rule 753 thereof permitted and petitioner was allowed to avail of 'refused leave' as from the day succeeding the last day of his service. During the period of refused leave the individual concerned though not working draws salary and allowances as distinct from pension. He cannot take up other employment exce...
Chemiequip Limited Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1990
Reported in: (1991)(53)ELT407Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal bearing No.HN-383/TH-l 1.3/86 dated 23-9-1986, confirming the order-in-original bearing No. V(RC)14-D-l/83/6277 dated 14-9-1983, rejecting the claim for refund of the appellants on the ground that the same was received in the office of the Assistant Collector after a period of six months from the date of payment.2. The appellants preferred a refund claim addressed to the Assistant Collector before the Supdt. on 2-2-1983 with an endorsement that it was forwarded through the Supdt. of Central Excise. The Supdt. Central Excise forwarded the same claim to the jurisdictional Assistant Collector. It was received in the office on 2-2-1983. Taking the date of receipt in his office as the date of filing the refund claim and treating the refund claim as for the period beyond six months the jurisdictional Assistant Collector rejected the said claim and the order of rejection was confirmed by the Collector (Appeals) 3. Shri Prakash Shah, the ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Aarkay Saree Museum
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1990
Reported in: (1991)93BOMLR163; [1991]187ITR147(Bom)
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. This is a reference under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made at the instance of the Revenue pursuant to the order of this court in Income-tax Reference No. 18 of 1968 dated January 13, 1971, the question referred to us reads as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in cancelling the penalty order ?'2. The relevant assessment year is 1959-60. The facts leading to the making of this reference are as under :The assessee was assessed to tax for the assessment year 1959-60 in the status of an unregistered firm. The assessee carried on business as exporter and importer of sarees, cotton and art silk yarn and art silk clothes. On February 2, 1960, the assessee-firm voluntarily filed its return of income for the assessment year 1959-60 showing income of Rs. 61,286. The Income-tax Officer completed the process of assessment and passed his assessment order on January 31, 1964. The Income-tax Officer ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »