Mumbai Court November 1991 Judgments
Smt. Ushadevi Agarwal Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1991
Reported in: (1992)41ITD85(Mum.)
1. These three appeals by the assesses are directed against the order of the CIT (Appeals), Central-I, Bombay and pertain to the assessment years 1981-82,1982-83 and 1983-84. All these appeals rotate round the common issue. For the sake of convenience, these are consolidated and disposed of by a common order.2. The assessee is the owner of Flat Nos.112 & 122 in Block A-2 on the 11th and 12th floors of the building known as "Sarnath" situated at 59, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Bombay-26 with an approximate area of 2211 sq.ft. (hereinafter called the premises).3. The assessee has given this premises to M/s. J. K. Synthetics Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act, 1913 and having its registered office at Kamla Tower, Kanpur on licence to use and occupy the said premises, together with the fixtures and fittings, on the terms and conditions contained vide Lease and Licence Agreement executed by the parties. The agreed consideration for the user of premises with fixtures and fitti...
Tag this Judgment!Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. the Union ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1991
Reported in: 1991(4)BomCR451; 1992CriLJ3752
Sukumaran, J.1. Godrej and Boyce . (a long name; we shall refer it hereafter as 'Godrej') had an encounter with the Excise Wing of the Central Revenue. It was somewhat exhausting and exhaustive. Every weapon in the armoury, from scud missiles to sterile spears, were employed. On the eve of the ides of March of 1990, the war was over. At least so thought Godrej. It was, however, soon dis-illusioned. The Union of India wants to open another front. That is not part of an adversarial affront, assures the Union. Court itself could open the front, for, the crime complained of, is one against administration of justice itself. Everything is fair in love and war - it is generally said. That is not the rule within the sanctified precincts of the Courts of law. It has been declared in explicit terms in the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (abbreviated as IPC). The responsibility for overseeing the enforcement of that salutary statutory provision rests with the Court; for a sanction for such legal action i...
Tag this Judgment!Laxman Kalba Hodkar Vs. Ramchand Hamichand Shah and Co. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1991
Reported in: 1991(4)BomCR31; (1991)93BOMLR816; 1991(1)MhLj1576
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. The petitioner in this case assails the correctness of an appellate judgment dated 5-10-1983 passed by the learned District Judge, Pune, in Civil Appeal No. 752 of 1982. The present petitioner was a judgment-debtor in respect of a decree passed on 15-1-1963. It is undisputed that the decree was made payable in two instalments, the first in January 1964 and the second in January 1965. It was further provided that default of payment of two successive instalments would entail execution of the entire decretal amount. It is also undisputed that the present execution application was filed on 4-11-1976. Under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation for execution of a decree is 12 years and, consequently, the petitioner contended before the trial Court that the execution application filed in November 1976 was time-barred. This contention was rejected and the matter was taken in appeal. The learned District Judge held that the second instalment of t...
Tag this Judgment!Lt. Col. Clive Everard Ryan Williams (Retd.) Vs. Raju B. Kriplani and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1991
Reported in: 1991(4)BomCR32
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. At the very outset, it needs to be pointed out that this is an unfortunate litigation which has been forced upon a retired service officer, and the record indicates that prior to the approach to this Court in the year 1984 that he was dragged through certain unnecessary and, to my mind, thoroughly unwarranted proceedings before the Court of Small Causes at Bombay. The mistake committed by the petitioner appears to have been to induct respondent No. 1 into his residential flat No. A/4 situate on the 4th Floor, Dolphin Apartment, Sadashiv Park, Pilot Bunder Road, Bombay 400 005. The petitioner has given his perfectly valid and plausible reason for the paying guest arrangement which he entered into, namely, that he was effectively staying there alone at that time and, therefore, had some spare accommodation. The law certainly entitled him to utilise that accommodation by granting a transitory licence to people who were in need of temporary accommodation. It is under th...
Tag this Judgment!Ruby Mills Ltd. Vs. First Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-1991
Reported in: (1992)41ITD171(Mum.)
1. to 4. [These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues] 5. The next ground is with regard to the disallowance of the liability of excise duty of Rs. 19,59,972 and Rs. 12,32,881. The facts are that in the draft order of assessment, the ITO had disallowed these two claims by observing that regarding the demand of Rs. 19,59,970, the company did not accept the liability and challenged the same in a court of law and the Bombay High Court on 1-9-1981 struck down the demand note on the company. Thus, according to the ITO, there was no liability on the company in regard to this demand. Regarding the other demand of Rs. 12,32,882, he observed that it was also not accepted by the company and the same was disputed in writ petition in the High Court which has granted a stay and a final decision was pending. He further observed that the company had not paid this demand nor had made any provisions in the accounts for the year under consideration or even in the subsequent year. I...
Tag this Judgment!Usha Tandon Alias Usha Gopalan Vs. Lilavati H. Hiranandani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-1991
Reported in: 1991(4)BomCR422
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. This petition raises an important issue with regard to the interpretation of section 43 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 and in particular, the question as to when can it be held that the title under which the tenancy was created stands determined. a few facts that are relevant are set out below.2. The petitioner, in this case, has originally instituted proceedings under section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 before the Court of Small Causes at Greater Bombay, against the respondent, for recovery of possession of part of the disputed premises. The facts in this case are unusual and so are some of the circumstances. The premises consisted of Flat No. 36 in a building that is now called the Mazagaon Terrace Co-operative Society Ltd., and the petitioner had granted a licence to use part of the her flat to the respondent. This Society came into existence around the year 1965 and the time-frame is of some consequence to the decision of th...
Tag this Judgment!Asrar Ahmed Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-1991
Reported in: 1992(37)ECC73
S.P. Kurdukar, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Lokur waives service for the respondents. By consent petition placed on record and called out for hearing.2. The petitioner imported the goods on 19.1.1988 and on such imported goods, under the notification dated 9th of July 1985 as amended by Notification No. 97/87-Cus. dated 1st March 1987 (Exh. B.), petitioner was required to pay rate of duty at 40 per cent. This notification remained in force till August 1989.On 19.1.1989 petitioner filed bill of entry and claimed clearance of the goods on the basis of the notification at Ex.B. On 17th of March 1989 the Assistant Collector of Customs, however, permitted the petitioner to avail the rate of duty in terms of notification Ex. B but, however, he put a condition and it reads as under:.I have been directed to say that for the purpose of benefit of the said exemption notification, you are required to execute a bond undertaking use of the goods in leather industry supported by a Bank guaran...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1991
Reported in: (1993)(42)ECC236
1. This is an appeal directed against the order bearing No. 420/90 BCH dated 6-3-1990. The appellants, M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. filed an Into Bond Bill of Entry for warehousing 1100 M. Tons of Solvent Bright stock, out of a quantity of 5333.400 M. Tons brought by S.S. Nand Smiti. Two other Bs/E for warehousing of 1500 M. Tons and 2733.400 M. Tons were also filed by M/s. HPCL and M/s. IOCL respectively. The goods were discharged by pipeline into the tanks of M/s. BPCL & M/s. lOCLs and through the tank lorries for M/s. HPCL. M/s. ICOL received 2383.832 M. Tons in their tanks as against their Into Bond B/E for 2733.400 M. Tons. M/s. BPCL, the appellants herein, received only 930.314 M. Tons as per their shore tanks out turn report as against the total quantity of 1100 M. Tons for which Into Bond B/E was filed. Thus in the discharge a total loss of 546.972 M. Tons was noticed, out of which, in the case of the appellants, the quantity short received was to the extent of 169.68...
Tag this Judgment!R. Mahadevan Iyer Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1991
Reported in: 1991(4)BomCR414; 1992CriLJ1388
ORDER1. Is there just no enforceable deadline for the termination of State Prosecution, or is an accused committed to suffer in silence indefinitely if such proceedings span decades Is it to be assumed that the Constitutional guarantee of a right to a speedy trial only envisages that there is due compliance if the proceedings commence within a reasonable time without any possibility of the end being in sight. In other words, where a citizen is faced with the new rather familiar pattern of a case being part-heard for an indefinite period of time, would the High Court be justified in exercising its inherent powers to quash such proceedings The inherent powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are often exercised for purposes of quashing a proceeding where no, prima facie, case is made out, or where the prospects of a conviction appear to be extremely bleek, or in situations where the machinery of a criminal Court is being used for a collateral purpose. 2. Quashing...
Tag this Judgment!Poulad Deochand Patil Vs. Samasta Aher Nhavi Panch Trust and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1991
Reported in: 1992(2)BomCR583
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-tenant has sought a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari calling for the record and proceedings of the case, for quashing and setting aside of certificate dated 4th December, 1959 issued by the District Deputy Collector, Nandurbar, District Dhule (respondent No. 2 herein) in respect of the land in question bearing Survey No. 102 of Village Chinode, Taluka Taloda, District Dhule, being the certificate of exemption granted by the 2nd respondent-District Deputy Collector under section 88-B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as 'the Tenancy Act'.2. The crucial facts required to be stated for disposal of this petition are as under :-(a) The petitioner claims to be the tenant of the land in question described in paragraph 1 of the petition ever since 1948. The land in question is described in the petition as land be...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »