Mumbai Court January 1991 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.
Abhimanyu Vithalrao Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)BomCR486; 1991CriLJ2085
1. The appellant is a Sub-Inspector of Police. He takes exception to his conviction for the offences punishable under section 161 of the IPC and under section 5(1)(d) read with S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Upon conviction for the first of this offence, he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months and for the second offence he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 18 months and fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that the accused had joined to Mandrup Police Station in Solapur District only a few months before this incident which took place on 3rd October, 1986. The accused was on duty as the Police Station Officer also on that night. 3. One Shirish Chandulal Shah (P.W. 1) is an agriculturist, holding about 50 acres of agricultural land at the village Bhandarkavathe while his reside...
Asaram Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ1860
ORDER1. By this application, the applicant challenges the order passed by the learned Special Judge, Buldana on 20-7-1990 on an application (Exh. 19) presented on behalf of the State in Special Case No. 1/84 pending on his file. Charge was framed in that case u/S. 5(1)(d) read with S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and S. 161 of the Indian Penal Code. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 placed on the Statute book, came into force on September 9, 1988. On behalf of the State, therefore, an application was made for amending the charge and requested that the charge under Ss. 13(1)(d) & 13(2) read with S. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 be framed instead of one u/S. 5(1)(d) read with S. 5(2) of the Prevention on Corruption Act, 1947 and S. 161 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that the prosecution apprehended that in view of the provisions of the new enactment contained in S. 30 thereof, the old Act having been repealed and substituted by the new Act, the ...
Jt. Contlr., Reserve Bank of India Vs. Narendra Mafatlal Mehta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1991
Reported in: 1991LC171(Bombay); 1991(53)ELT309(Bom)
Pendse, J. 1. This is an appeal preferred by the Joint Controller, Reserve Bank of India, Exchange Control Department to challenge legality of judgment dated April 15, 1988 passed by Justice Mrs. Manohar in Writ Petition No. 2385 of 1988. The learned Judge by the impugned judgment quashed the decision contained in the letter dated June 15, 1983 and reiterated in the letter dated July 25, 1983 and further directed the appellants to issue to the petitioners a blanket permit under I.T.C. Scheme for the year 1978-79 in terms of Paragraph 179 read with Appendix 28 of the Policy A.M. 1978-79. The learned Judge passed the judgment as the dispute involved in the petition was concluded by the Judgment delivered by Mr. Justice Daud on February 18, 1987 and reported in 1987 (12) ELT 273, M/s. Premchand Semchand Shah v. Union of India & Ors. 2. To appreciate the claim made by the respondents before the learned Single Judge, it is necessary to set out the relevant facts. On April 1, 1978 the Govern...
Sushma Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union Bank of India and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1991
Reported in: 1991(3)BomCR258; (1993)IIILLJ316Bom
S.M. Daud, J.1. A private company takes exception in these two Petitions to the imposition of damages upon it under Section 14-B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (Act).2. Petitioner, a private limited company, was in the business of manufacturing and weaving nylon yarn and fabrics. Its factory was at Thane and administrative office at. Princess Street, Bombay. The two were treated as separate establishments for the purpose of coverage under the Act- the separate existence being in the form of allotment of two different code numbers. Petitioner delayed remittance of contributions to the fund for the factory as also the office. The delay was for period falling between 1970 and 1978. On 15-5-1978 petitioner replied to the 2nd Respondent's (RPFC) notice dated 5th May 1978 calling upon it to show cause why action should not be taken against it for the delay. The reply sought condonation of the delay on the ground that it was due to the sudden leaving of...
Mohanlal Mahabirprasad and ors. Vs. C.i.T. Thomas, 11th Income Tax Off ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)BomCR519; 1991(1)MhLj984
M.F. Saldanha, J. 1. By this petition, filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the limited relief claimed by the petitioners is that the prosecutions instituted against them by the Income Tax authorities in Criminal Case Nos. 99/S, 119/S, 124/S, to 126/S of 1977 and 1/S to 3/S of 1983 pending before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 38th Court, Rallard Estate, Bombay he stayed until disposal of the Income Tax Reference No. 120 of 1981 which is pending before the High Court.2. The petitioners, along with certain other persons who have since passed away, filed an application dated 13th January 1983 before the trial Court praying for stay of the prosecutions under section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Income Tax department had prosecuted the petitioners, essentially alleging an offence under section 277 of the Income Tax Act contending that certain miscalculations have been made be them in relation to their assessment. The petitioners re...
Vxl India Limited and anr. Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Board and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1991
Reported in: 1991(3)BomCR184
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. The petitioners claim to be one of the largest electricity meter manufacturing company supplying electricity meters to various Electricity Board in the country, including the Maharashtra State Electricity Board, respondent No. 1 herein. Sometime in the month of May 1990, the respondent No. 1 floated a tender for purchase of large quantity of single phase and poly phase electricity meters as per details and specification set out in the tender notice and the documents forming part thereof. On 10th May, 1990, the petitioners submitted their offer to supply single phase as well as poly phase electricity meters as specified in the covering letter and the enclosures thereto. Respondents Nos. 3 to 8 also submitted their respective tenders to the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 is undoubtedly the 'The State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. On 11th, October 1990, the respondent No. 1 passed its Board resolution rejecting the petitioners' ...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Narayan Sitaram Chavan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-1991
Reported in: 1991(3)BomCR567
D.J. Moharir, J.1. This is an appeal which the State has filed to take exception to the acquittal of the respondent-accused upon the charges under section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act.2. The respondent accused is a Police Head-Constable and was at the material time attached to Dhebewadi Police Station, District Satara. Quite close to the Police Station are residential quarters meant for Police Constables. The respondent No. 1 living in one of these. Attached to the said Police Station were two other Constables by name Nalawade and Mulani and one Fadatare, Police Jeep Driver, entrusted with the work of driving the jeep which kept at the disposal of the said Police Station. All of them also lived in the Police-lines. One Shri Patil, was at the material time the Police Sub-Inspector in charge of Dhebewadi Police Station.3. On 10th of May 1980 at about 9-10 p.m. the Constable Nalawade and Mulani as also the jeep driver Fadatare had performed the duty of patrolling from about 4.00...
NavIn R. Kamani (Huf) Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1991
Reported in: (1991)36ITD576(Mum.)
1. By this appeal, theassessee has challenged the order of the learned CIT(A) dated 26-6-1986 for the assessment year 1981-82. 1.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the levy of capital gains of Rs. 67,334 in respect of sale of shares of Kamani Metals & Alloys Limited and Indian Rubber Regenerating Co. Ltd. 1.2 The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the shares were not capable of improvement by expending money and accordingly do not constitute capital asset contemplated under Section 45. 1.3 Without prejudice to the aforesaid ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) further erred in rejecting the appellant's submission that since the sale proceeds of the shares sold by auction had been appropriated towards repayment of the loan, there was a diversion of income by overriding title under a legal obligation which was enforceable in a...
V.i.P. Industries Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1991
Reported in: (1991)36ITD70(Mum.)
1. They are cross-appeals. Taking up assessee's appeal first, the first and foremost ground is directed against the disallowance of Rs. 26,99,863 claimed as commission payable to M/s. M.S. Textiles.2. The assessee is one of the topmost moulded luggage manufacturers of India. It is wholly owned subsidiary of M/s. Blow Plast Ltd. Previous year relevant to this appeal is year ending 31-7-83. Vide para4 of the order of CIT(A), assessee claimed total commission payment of Rs. 35,27,000 inclusive of Rs. 26,99,863 to M/s. M.S. Textiles and the balance to M/s. Blow Plast Ltd. and another. The commission to M/s.Blow Plast Ltd. and another stands allowed and the balance of Rs. 26,99,863 to M/s. M.S. Plastics stands disallowed. Main thrust of assessee's argument is that the commission is paid in pursuance of agreement and further that the results achieved in the form of increase in sales to Canteen Stores Department are spectacular. The main argument of the department is that though the sales ha...
Deutsche Bank Vs. S.P. Kala and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1991
Reported in: (1991)93BOMLR426; 1991(1)MhLj728
H.W. Dhabe, J. 1. This is a company appeal against the judgment of the learned single judge (See Deutsche Bank v. S. P. Kala, Official Liquidator of Sea Transportation Pvt. Ltd. [1991] 67 Comp Cas 474 who has granted leave to the appellant to file a suit against the instant company under liquidation before the company court but has denied the relief claimed by the appellant that he should be allowed to file a suit against the company in the High Court of Bombay on its original side. The contention, therefore, raised in this appeal is that the appellant be allowed to file the suit in the High Court of Bombay on its original side because the said court alone, according to the appellant, has jurisdiction to decide the claim against the third party, viz., the guarantor in the instant case, who is, incidentally, the ex-managing director of the company under the liquidation. 2. A few facts relevant for considering the contention raised on behalf of the appellant are that the company under li...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »