Mumbai Court September 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.
K. R. Venkitaperumal Raja Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1990
Reported in: [1992]193ITR213(Bom)
K. S. PARIPOORNAN J., - The petitioner in Original Petition No. 1881 of 1986 is the appellant in this writ appeal. The original petition was filed to quash exhibits P-3 and P-6 orders passed by respondents Nos. 2 and 1, respectively. The appellant is an assessee under the Agricultural Income-tax Act. For the assessment year 1984-85, he was assessed under section 18 (4) of the Agricultural Income-Tax Act (best judgment assessment, on default), by the second respondent, by order dated December 31, 1984. The revision filed therefrom was dismissed by the first respondent by exhibit P-6 order dated January 5, 1986. Exhibit P-3 assessment order, as affirmed in exhibit P-6 order, was assailed in the original petition.A learned single judge of this court dismissed the original petition, by judgment dated January 22, 1990. The Petitioner in the original petition has come up in writ appeal.We heard counsel for this appellant, Mr. Jose Joseph, as also counsel for the respondent/Revenue, Special G...
Stup Consultants Ltd. Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1990
Reported in: (1990)90CTR(Bom)116; [1991]187ITR353(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. The petitioner-company has challenged the legality and validity of the ten order dated July 8, 1986, September 18, 1986, October 14, 1986, and December 1, 1986 (being exhibits F, G, H, I, J, K, M, Q, R, S, and V), passed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi, refusing to approve thirteen agreements referred to in paragraphs 9, 13 and 20 of the petition under section 80-O of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The petitioner's applications for approval of the agreements under section 80-O were rejected by the Board on the ground that the agreements included supply of drawing, designs, etc., for construction projects within the meaning of section 80HHB and, therefore, the agreements were out of the ambit of section 80-O in view of the provisions of section 80HHB(5). Admittedly, the Board did not, as such, examine whether the agreements in question satisfied the conditions laid down for approval in section 80-O of the Act.3. This approach the Board, in my judgment, is n...
Ram Gopal Gupta Vs. Rajesh J. Kothari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1990
Reported in: 1990(3)BomCR596
H. Suresh, J.1. The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit in the Bombay City Civil Court, being Suit No. 7879 of 1989 as against the respondent defendant for a decree or an order, in effect, to remove him from a certain cabin, which is in the occupation of the defendant.2. The plaintiff's case is that he is a tenant in respect of a second floor of a building bearing No. 35, Hamam Street, Fort, Bombay, since about the year 1953. The plaintiff has built number of cabins in the said premises. Each of the cabin is provided with a door. The original keys of the doors of all the cabins have also been in the custody of the plaintiff all the time since 1953. Different cabins have been given to different persons from time to time. So, the plaintiff's case is that he is in possession and control of the entire premises, while the defendant is allowed the use and occupation of one of the cabins. After filing of the suit the plaintiff took out a notice of motion for certain reliefs when the defendant ra...
CaptaIn Nanda Vs. Amarnath P. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1990
Reported in: 1990(3)BomCR601
H. Suresh, J 1. Respondent No. 2 filed a suit in the Bombay City Civil Court, being Suit No. 1537 of 1984 as against the present appellant/defendant No. 2 and also one Amarnath P. for a declaration that the present appellant as also the said Amarnath have no right of any nature to enter upon the property of the plaintiff and also for an injunction restraining them from trespassing or entering upon the plaintiff's property known as Akash Deep situated at Gamdevi, Bombay-400 007. He took out a notice of motion for interim reliefs, being Notice of Motion No. 1407 of 1984. In that notice of motion, the present appellant took up a contention that the Bombay City Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try this suit. That objection was raised under section 9-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Judge, accordingly, framed a preliminary issue and decided the same by his order dated 2-5-1985 whereby he held that the Bombay City Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain and try...
Jhamatmal Shersing Balchadani Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1990
Reported in: 1990(3)BomCR564
C. Mookerjee, C.J1. The petitioner was one time an employee of Karachi Municipal Corporation and had thereafter retired from the services of the Corporation on an invalid pension of Rs. 51.5 paise per month. After partition of the country he had migrated and settled down in Maharashtra . The petition of the petitioner to the respondent for payment of his pension having been neglected, he approached this Court and this Court had suo moto issued Writ Petition No. 845 of 1987. After hearing both the petitioner who appeared in person and the learned Counsel for Union of India and the State of Maharashtra P.S. Shah and H. Suresh, JJ., by their order dated 6th October, 1987 held that the petitioner was entitled to pension payable at the rate drawn from Karachi Municipal Corporation for the period 5th November, 1949 to 5th December, 1958. The Union of India was directed to pay the pension for the said period within the stipulated time. Their Lordships in their judgement noticed that for the p...
Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-1990
Reported in: 1991(51)ELT278(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. Petitioner No. 1 is an existing company within the meaning of Section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956 and are engaged in the manufacture of various types of bimetal bearings at their factory at Khadki. Pune District. The company holds L-4 licence issued by the Central Excise authorities under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules for the manufacture of bimetal bearings in the factory. The bearing are manufactured in a composite plant from the raw material stage upto the stage of final product. The process of manufacturing bimetal bearings is first to purchase aluminium ingots from canalising agencies. The aluminium foils are purchases from the open market. The alloy billets are then faces, rolled and annealed in the plant. During annealing, excess tin and other impurities appear on the surface of the rolled billet in the form of bubbles. The bubbles are removed by process known as tin bleeding. The alloy billets are then flattened and degreases and brushed. The aluminium foil ...
Rishikesh Premnarayan Gupte Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-1990
Reported in: 1991(52)ELT198(Bom)
R.G. Sindhakar, J.1. The revision appellants were original accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Criminal case No. 577 of 1979 in the court of the Joint Civil Judge. J.D. & J.M.F.C. Palghar, Thane district. They came to be convicted under Section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 each in default to suffer R.I. for 2 months. They were also convicted under Section 135(1)(b) of the said Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 each and to undergo R.I. for 2 months in default of payment of fine. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. The appeal preferred by them to the Sessions Court bearing No. 81 of 1984 partly succeeded. The order of conviction recorded was maintained. However, the learned Sessions Judge who heard the appeal reduced the substantive sentence of R.I. from 6 months to 4 months. He maintained the order of fine and the order of R.I. in default.2. Aggrieved by thi...
Thakurdas Sugnomal Mehra Vs. Commissioner of Police for Gr. Bombay and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-1990
Reported in: 1991(1)BomCR303
S.M. Daud, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the constitution takes exception to documents marked Exs. R and S and the alleged deprivation of petitioner from a right to occupy flat No. G, third floor of what was formerly known as 'Fazalbhoy House' and is now known as 'Kakad House.2. The building afore-mentioned consisting of five floors formerly belonged to the Trust Settlement of Bai Sherbanoo wife of Mr. Abdulla Fazalbhoy. That Trust is presently represented by respondents 4 to 6. The Trust owned the building till the year 1981 when the said building was conveyed to respondent No. 7.3. After outbreak of the second world war the then Government enacted for amongst other things the better and more efficient prosecution of the war legislation in the shape of the Defence of India Act, 1939. Rules were framed (under this Act to enable requisitioning of property) and one such rule was that bearing 75-A. The said Rule reads as under:-'(1) If in the opinion of the Central government or...
Mattel Toys (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1990
Reported in: (1991)LC346Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal directed against the order of the Addl. Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur bearing No. 46/89, dated 17-7-1989.2. The brief facts of the case for purpose of disposal of the appeal can be stated as below : The appellants herein are the manufacturers of toys. They had applied for availing modvat facility in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of toys and accordingly they were availing the modvat credit since 6-11-1987. However, in 1988 Budget, under Notification No.64/88, dated 1-3-1988, toys, the final product were exempted. The appellants were served with a notice for declaring the stock of inputs lying as on 1-3-1988 and also the stock of finished product containing the inputs in respect of which modvat credit has been taken. It was alleged that under Rule 57C of the Central Excise Rules, modvat benefit cannot be availed of in respect of duty paid on inputs going into the manufacture of final product which are exempted. Hence, inputs received prior to 29-2-...
The Indian Card Clothing Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1990
Reported in: 1991LC73(Bombay); 1991(53)ELT301(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. Petitioner No. 2 is a private limited company having factory at Pimpri Industrial Area, Pimpri, in Pune district, while petitioner No. 1 is a public limited company having factory at Bombay - Pune Road, Pimpri. Petitioner No. 1 company is engaged in the manufacture of a product known as 'card clothing'. The product is used in textile mills along with machines known as 'carding machines. For the purpose of making card clothing, an intermediate product known as 'foundation cloth' is required. The card clothing is a highly specialised product and there are only two or three manufacturers in India. Foundation cloth which is an intermediate product is also a specialised product and can be used only for the purpose of making card clothing. Foundation cloth is not used for any other purpose and is also not available in the market. Petitioner No. 1 company supplies cotton fabrics to petitioner No. 2 company and petitioner No. 2 manufactures foundation cloth by subjecting cotton fa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »