Mumbai Court September 1990 Judgments
Dhondubai Vs. Proprietor, Jankidas Khandsari Sugar Factory, Partners a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1990
Reported in: 1991ACJ954; (1991)93BOMLR556; (1993)IIILLJ804Bom; 1991(1)MhLj624
Desai, J. 1. This appeal raises a question of general importance relating to the tenability of Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of the High Court (Bombay) against a judgment of a Single Judge in a appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. On December 28 of 1865 Her Majesty, the Queen Victoria of England (as she then was) inter alia ordained vide Clause 15 that an appeal shall lie to the said High Court ....... from the judgment ....... of one Judge of the said High Court....... pursuant to Section 108 of the Government of India Act, 1915 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1915').Section 108 deals with the exercise of jurisdiction of Single Judge or Division Court and further authorises prescribing of rules for exercise of jurisdiction of Judges of the High Court - original and appellate jurisdiction vested in the Court. Clause 16 of the Letters Patent has further ordained that the said High ...
Tag this Judgment!Yoal S/O Vishwas Maskar and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1990
Reported in: 1991(2)BomCR485; (1991)93BOMLR432
D.J. Moharir, J.1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as also under section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners pray for quashing of a criminal case pending against them ever since the year 1983. The prosecution in this case is for commission of offence under section 17(1)(f), 17(1)(g), 39(3)(a) and 40(2) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and which offences are punishable under section 81 of the said Act and in respect of which the authority to make a complaint has to be as per the provisions of section 35 of the said Act. No Court can take cognizance of any offence unless a complaint is made by the Chief Warden or such other officer as the State Government may authorise in this behalf. Originally two separate complaints were filed. The petitioner No. 1 was proceeded against in Criminal Case No. 37 of 1981 and petitioners Nos. 2 to 6 in Criminal Case No. 36 of 1981, both launched in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Cla...
Tag this Judgment!Gunwant Bhagwan Wakode Vs. Madhuri Gunwant Wakode
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1990
Reported in: I(1992)DMC275
D.J. Moharir, J.1. This Revision Application under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code is directed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 155/88. The petitioner Gunwant Bhagwan Wakode is a Government servant and according to the minor respondent Madhuri, he is her putative father. She claims to have been born to the present petitioner from one Pushpa d/o Vithova Butale.2. An application for grant of maintenance allowance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code was made by the respondent through her mother Pushpa alleging that Pushpa and the revisional petitioner used to live at a very short distance from each other in the Talao Fail area at Yavatmal. They came to know each other, became intimate and upon promise of marriage, Pushpa physically surrendered herself to Gunwant. She conceived from him and in the first instance gave birth to a femal child which died soon thereafter. Pushpa continued to live wit...
Tag this Judgment!A.P. Trading and Co. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and Collector o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1990
Reported in: 1990(3)BomCR760; 1991(33)LC590(Bombay)
S.M. Daud, J.1. This judgment will dispose of common questions arising in the two petitions mentioned above.2. The factual position upon which the resolution of the controversy depends is taken from Writ Petition No. 2546 of 1983 and may be summarised thus:Petitioners, a firm registered under the Partnership Act, were importers of diverse materials and goods. Several licences were issued by the Licensing Authority in favour of licensees named therein. The kind of licences figuring in the present petitions are what is known as 'imprest licences'. The Import Policy for April 1981-March 1982 at paragraph 129 deals with advance licences/imprest licences. It bad this to say on the subject:(1) An Advance Licence or an Imprest Licence includes a Customs Clearance Permit and Release Order, issued before exports are effected.(2) The term 'Advance Licence' refers to cases where the import is allowed under the Duty Exemption Scheme, whereas the term 'Imprest Licence' will be used where import is ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs Vs. Kalpana Import and Export Agency
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1990
Reported in: (1993)LC154Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed on behalf of the Collector of Customs, Kandla against the Order-in-Original passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Kandla bearing No. KDL/ADDL COLLR/27/1990 dated 2-3-1990.2. Brief facts of the case for the purpose of disposal of this appeal can be stated as below.3. The respondents herein, M/s. Kalpana Import & Export Agency, filed a Bill of Entry for clearance of Ball Bearings valued at Rs. 1,59,373.00.Initially the Customs House Agent, on behalf of the importer claimed clearance of the goods against the Licence issued in favour of one M/s.Prathiba Industries, Gulbarga but the Letter of Authority from the licence-holder was not produced. Hence the department enquired from M/s. Prathiba Industries as also the importer as to whether there was any Letter of Authority issued in favour of the respondents importer.The respondents however vide their letter dated 1-10-1985 stated that they had no connection with M/s. Prathiba Industries and they had ne...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Anant Arjun Madhavi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1990
Reported in: [1991]190ITR176(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred to this court two questions as questions of law under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in this reference. They read thus :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that penalty for concealment could not be levied under amended section 271(1)(c)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which came into force with effect from April 1, 1968, though the assessee had filed his return under the reassessment proceedings only on March 18, 1969 ? (2) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in reducing the penalty under section 271(1)(c) to the minimum leviable under the law before its amendment with effect from April 1, 1968 ?2. It is common ground that the assessee had filed his return for the assessment year 1956-57 on August 15, 1956, declaring a total income of Rs. 5,300. The assessment was completed on February 14, 1957. The total income was computed at Rs. 15,300. Subs...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. International Computers Indian Manufact ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1990
Reported in: (1990)90CTR(Bom)123
T.D. Sugla, J.1. This is an application by the Department under section 256(2)of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The proceedings relate to the assessment year 1978-79. The Department has sought to raise two questions as questions of law. They are :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that passing of an order by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) resulted in the merger of the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) with the order appealed against, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income-tax from exercising his powers under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the order appealed against ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Commissioner of Income-tax cannot exercise his powers under section 263 of the Income-tax Act in respect of an assessment order passed by the Income-tax officer, after obtain...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mulla and Mulla and Craigie, Blunt and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1990
Reported in: (1990)89CTR(Bom)159; [1991]190ITR198(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. The Tribunal has referred to this court the following question of law under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 2,29,053 collected by the assessee-firm and paid by it to the estate of the deceased partners during the year of account ended March 31, 1969, in terms of the partnership deeds dated March 20, 1968, March 17, 1969, and July 10, 1969, constituted the income of the present firm for the assessment year 1969-70 ?'2. The reference is at the instance of the Department. The assessee is a reputed firm of solicitors. Its accounts are maintained on the cash basis. The deed of partnership involved in this reference is of September 1, 1967, which was effective from April 1, 1967. Clause 11 of the said deep provided that the partnership was not to be dissolved but to be continued in the event of the retirement, insolvency or death of any partner. Clause 16 of the deed provided that, in the...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Premier Automobile Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1990
Reported in: [1991]190ITR155(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. The Tribunal has, at the instance of the Department referred to this court the following two questions as questions of law under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, depreciation was allowable to the assessee on the price paid for the acquisition of drawings, specifications and technical data as they are 'plant' as defined in section 43 of the Income-tax Act. 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the development rebate claimed by the assessee has to be computed in respect of the assessment year 1968-69 and 1969-70 and allowed to be carried forward for subsequent years, even though the necessary reserve has not been created in the relevant previous years under section 34(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The proceedings relate to the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70. Counsel are agreed that, in view of this court's judgment in the assessee's own case in Premier Au...
Tag this Judgment!K.M.A. International Ltd Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1990
Reported in: [1992]194ITR332(Bom)
T.D. Sugla J.1. By this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-company has challenged the legality and validity of the impugned order dated March 18, 1987, passed by the Central Board of Direct Taxed, New Delhi (for short 'the Board'), refusing to approve the petitioner's agreement dated September 12, 1981, read with the memorandum of understanding dated June 27, 1983, with a Saudi Arabian concern : Mohammed Bin-Ladin, Organisation (for short 'the said concern').2. The petitioner entered into an agreement dated September 12, 1981, with the said concern. The petitioner and the said concern were to form a limited company by the name 'Bin-Ladin K. M. A. Industrial Ltd.' (hereinafter referred to as the 'joint venture company') for production, marketing, galvanizing, processing and fabrication of steel structures, sections and allied products. The share capital of the joint venture company was to be of 3,125 paid up equity shares of Saudi Riyals 1000 each, o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »