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.
Bombay University and College Teachers' Union and Ors. Vs. State of Ma ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1990
Reported in: 1990(3)BomCR751; [1991(61)FLR459]
S.M. Daud, J.1. The short question arising for determination in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is whether respondents Nos. 1 and 2 could give a word-of-mouth or written direction in contravention of Government Resolution dated 1st June, 1981 which is Exhibit E to the petition compilation ?2. Exhibit 'E' came to be issued because of the need for prescribing uniform norms for a minimum work-load to govern full-time as also part-time teachers in Colleges of Arts, Science, Commerce and Education affiliated to non-agricultural universities. The workload of a full-time teacher was set out in para 2 of the G.R. aforementioned in these words:---'As recommended by the University Grants Commission, the overall work-load of a full time college teacher will be 40 clock hours per week. Out or these 40 clock hours, the teacher is expected to put in work of 20 clock hours per week on the college premises. Of the 20 clock hours, the class room instruction work would consist of 17 ...
Mohmedbhai Asrafbhai Kimsarwala Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1990
Reported in: (1991)LC600Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Both these appeals arise out of common incidence but different orders passed by the Collector; one under the provisions of Customs Act and another under the provisions of Gold (Control) Act. The appeal against the order of the Collector of Customs under the Customs Act has been directly filed before the Tribunal whereas the appeal against the order of the Collector of Customs under the Gold (Control) Act was preferred to the Collector (Appeals) who rejected the same for non-deposit of the penalty amount and the present appeal is against the same order.2. The Tribunal is competent to hear the appeal against the orders under both the Acts and, therefore, it is decided that instead of remanding the matter back to the Collector (Appeals) to hear the appeal on merits without insisting on pre-deposit so far as the appeal under the Gold (Control) Act is concerned, both the appeals are heard and are disposed of by this common order.business-cum-residential premises of both the appellants, ...
Bhaurao Vs. Smt. Savitribai and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Bom55; 1991(1)MhLj136
ORDER1. The non-applicants/landlords were the plaintiffs in the earlier proceedings Special Civil Suit No. 346 of 1983. They had filed the said suit against the present applicant/tenant for ejectment and possession without permission from the Rent Controller since no permission was then necessary. That suit was decreed ex parte vide order dated 23-12-1983. The present non-applicants are the owners of the three storied building 'Prayag Sadan' situated in Ward No. 1, Variety Square, bearing House No. 1, Nag-pur. In the present proceedings, we are concerned only with the first floor of the said building. In pursuance of the decree in Special Civil Suit No. 346 of 1983, the non-applicants/ landlord got possession of the first floor. The applicant/tenant challenged the ex parte decree by way of first appeal before this Court. The appeal was dismissed by this Court on 14-2-1985. Thereafter the tenant filed Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court of India, but that was also dismissed ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Alembic Distributors Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1990
Reported in: [1991]191ITR58(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred to this court for opinion the following two questions as questions of law under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether, for working out the disallowance required to be made under the provisions of section 40(c)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the cash allowances like fixed monthly allowance, bonus and incentives, car allowance and house rent allowance should be regarded as a benefit, amenity or perquisite to the employees 2. Whether, for purposes of section 40(c)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the value of a perquisite to an employee provided in the form of rent-free quarters should be taken at the actual rent paid for the quarters by the employer, irrespective of the value of the said perquisite, computable under the Income-tax Act of 1961 read with rule 3 for purposes of section 17 of the Act ?' 2. In so far as question No. 1 is concerned, counsel ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Lubrizol (India) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1990
Reported in: [1991]189ITR703(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. The Department has sought to raise three further questions as questions of law by way of this notice of motion. The questions are :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in ignoring rule 19A and in interpreting the expression 'capital employed in the industrial undertaking' occurring in section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to mean the total value of the assets of the new industrial undertaking ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the deduction available under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, should be computed on the basis of the capital employed at the end of the revelent previous year ignoring rule 19A which provides that such deduction should be calculated on the basis of the capital employed in the new industrial undertaking as on the first day of the relevant previous year ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Nav Maharashtra Chakan Oil Mills
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1990
Reported in: [1991]189ITR556(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. There is only question involved in this reference. The question is :'Whether the assessee which is a firm registered under section 185 of the Act is entitled to deduct the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation from its profits of the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72 to arrive at the total income for the said assessment years ?'2. Shri Jetley, learned counsel for the Department, fairly admits that the question requires to be answered in favour of the assessee in view of this court's judgment in Ballarpur Collieries Co. v. CIT : [1973]92ITR219(Bom) . The question is, accordingly, answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.3. No order as to costs....
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Devidayal Stainless Steel India P. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1990
Reported in: (1991)94CTR(Bom)82; [1991]189ITR506(Bom)
T.D. Sugla J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred to this court only one question of law. The question reads thus :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in cancelling the Income-tax Officer's order under section 140A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, imposing penalty of Rs. 10,700 as ultra vires ?'2. The proceedings relate to the assessment year 1971-72. The Tribunal held that the provisions of section 140A(3) to be ultra vires following the Madras High Court decision in the case of A. N. Sali Maricar : [1973]90ITR116(Mad) , observing that at the time it was deciding the appeal, there was no decision of any other High Court taking a contrary view.3. It was pointed out by Shri Jetley, learned counsel for the Department that the position has since material change inasmuch as the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Kashiram v. ITO : [1977]107ITR825(AP) , the Madhya Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Vrajlal Manilal and Co., : [1981]127ITR512(MP) and...
Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1990
Reported in: (1990)89CTR(Bom)129; [1991]189ITR683(Bom)
T. D. Sugla, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred to this court the following question of law for opinion under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, surtax assessment order for the assessment year 1965-66 passed by the Income-tax Officer under section 6(2) of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, on January 28, 1972, that is, beyond a period of four years from the end of the assessment year, is valid in law ?'2. The assessee is a company and the proceedings relate to its surtax assessment for the assessment year 1965-66, previous year being from July 1, 1963, to June, 1964. The income-tax assessment for the year was completed on August 20, 1970. The surtax assessment has been completed on January 28, 1972, though the return of income under the Surtax Act was filed on September 14, 1965.3. The assessee filed an appeal against the order of surtax assessment on certain points and succeeded in part. It went in...
Superintendent of Customs Vs. Haribhai Vallabhbhai Tandel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1990
Reported in: 1991LC209(Bombay); 1991(51)ELT302(Bom)
1. This is a criminal revision application filed by the Superintendent of Customs, Valsad, Original Complainant (hereinafter the Complainant) against the Order dated 29th August, 1988, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Daman, in Criminal Case No. 9 of 1988 discharging Respondent Nos. 2 and 4/Original Accused Nos. 2 and 4 (hereinafter the Accused Nos. 2 and 4) from the complaint.2. The relevant facts, giving rise to the present revision application, are these :The Complainant filed a complaint against all the Respondents for an offence punishable under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. The allegations were that during the period from 30-12-1981 to 26-1-1982, 3810 totals of gold of foreign origin was sold by the Accused No. 1 to Accused No. 2 and several others on various dates. It was found in the course of investigation that an account was maintained by the Accused No. 1 Haribhai Vallabhbhai Tandel which showed disposal of gold from time to time. The said Accused No. 1...
Sheshappa S/O Narayan Rakhewar, (Died) Per L.Rs. Vs. Narottam S/O Jain ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1990
Reported in: 1991(1)BomCR143
N.P. Chapalgaonkar, J.1. The dispute before me is in respect of the possession of a theatre situated at Basmath town in Parbhani District. It is owned by Narottam s/o Jainarayan Kabra, respondent No.1 in this revision application. In the year 1964 Daulatrao, respondent No.2 took this theatre on rent from the original owner. Respondent No.3, Laxman, later joined Daulatrao as partner. Four suits, Regular Civil Suit Nos. 44/1970; 134/1972; 128/1973; and 19/1975, had to be filed by the landlord for the recovery of the rent as Daulatrao did not pay rent. An application was moved by Narottam, the owner of the property, before the rent Controller, Hingoli, for the possession of the suit theatre on the ground firstly that the tenant, Daulat, is wilful defaulter; secondly he has altered the suit premises to the detriment of the interest of the landlord; thirdly that he has introduced a sub-tenant, namely, Sheshappa s/o Narayan Rakhewar, petitioner before this Court. A preliminary objection was ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »