Mumbai Court November 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.
Steelage Industries Limited and Another Vs. Smt. Chander Begai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Bom406; 1991(4)BomCR24; 1992(1)MhLj857
ORDER1. Can a litigant invoke the inherent powers of a civil Court u/S. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for purposes of circumventing the statutory provisions on the ground that the interests of justice would condone such a procedure. The obvious answer is an emphatic no particularly where what is defined as justice to one party, in reverse results in injustice to the opponent, The present petition deals with a mixed question of fact and law and touches upon one of the situations in which interference under Art. 227 of the Constitution of Indiamay be necessary, not to set aside an order but to correct it.2. The petitioners before me are the Defendants in R.A.L. Suit No. 1386/4379 of 1987 instituted by the landlady Smt. Chander Bagai. The Respondent has sought recovery of possession of the premises on the ground of bona fide use and requirement and the history of the proceeding discloses a rather unpleasant background. The Respondent succeeded in obtaining an order for expediti...
Monica Fernandes Vs. Suresh Shirodkar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-1991
Reported in: 1991(4)BomCR325
E.S. Da'Sliva, J.1. Some where in the year 1980 respondent No. 1 filed a civil suit against the petitioner for eviction in respect of a dwelling house situated in the property 'Chirputcm' consisting of house and coconut trees situated at Alto Mapusa bearing Chalta No. 11 and 46 of P.T. Sheet 154 of City Survey of Mapusa. The property was originally belonging to one Joaquim Caetan D'Sa and by sale deed dated 3-4-1978 was purchased by the said respondent No. 1. It was an admitted position that prior to the sale deed the petitioner was occupying the house situated in the property but immediately after the purchase the said respondent No. 1 sent to her lawyer's notice dated 2-1-1978 calling upon the petitioner to vacate the house.2. It is the case of the petitioner that it was not alleged by the respondent No. 1 in the said notice that the petitioner had forced herself in the suit house or that she was a trespasser. The said notice was however ignored by the petitioner and thereafter for p...
Crown Shipping Company and ors. Vs. Collector of Customs (P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1991
Reported in: (1992)(43)LC753Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Both the aforesaid appeals are directed against the order passed by the Addl. Collector of Customs (Prev.) Bombay bearing No. S/14-1-77/86P dated 30.8.1988, imposing a penalty of Rs. 7.5 lakhs on the Customs clearing Agency firm, M/s. Crown Shipping Agency; Rs. 2.5 lakhs on Shri Iqbal Qureshi the working partner of the above firm and Rs. 1 lakh on Shri Anant P. Pai, an employee of the said firm.2. At the outset, it is to be mentioned here that these appeals along with the appeal filed by M/s. Air India, Bombay (A. No. C/l 05/89) were listed for hearing together. The arguments on behalf of M/s. Air India Bombay and also from the Id. SDR, were heard on merits. However, in regard to the above two appeals, Shri H.C. Jain, the Id. advocate urged for remand for adjudication by a different officer on a short ground, without going into the merits in detail. Hence, these two appeals are taken up for consideration separately, after hearing the arguments from both the sides. The order in the ...
Ambalal Punamchand Rashamwala Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2373
ORDER1. The petitioner seeks (a) an anticipatory bail, and (b) order to respondent No. 1 (State of Maharashtra) not to execute the fresh non-bailable warrant which has been issued in Case No. 9/S/81 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate of Tis Hajari Court, Delhi and to stay execution of that warrant till 18th December 1991. 2. As far back as 10 years ago in 1981 a criminal case was filed by respondent No. 2, Bashir Beg, against the present petitioner. It appears that the applicant has attended that Court several times and has even engaged Advocate Dinesh Chawla from Delhi to conduct his defence. The matter in the Delhi Court was fixed on 9th September 1991. He could not attend the Court on 9th September 1991 and has pointed out various reasons as to why he could not attend the Delhi Court on that date. As regards his Advocate not attending the Court he has pointed out that the Advocates of Tis Hajari were on strike. Thereafter the petitioner received a letter dated 10th October 1991 ...
Jayendra Shantaram Dighe and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)BomCR679; 1992CriLJ2796
1. The only limited point that is to be decided in this appeal is, as to whether a member of an unlawful assembly which was initially lawful can be said to be guilty of the offences committed by the unidentified members of the unlawful assembly by foisting vicarious liability u/S. 149 of the Indian Penal Code 2. In all thirty six persons from Baramati were charged u/Ss. 147, 148, 149, 295, 295-A, 332, 353, 434 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. Out of these thirty six persons the present appellants, in all eighteen in number, were convicted u/Ss. 147, 148 and 332 read with S. 149 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 250/- on each count and in default of payment of the fine to undergo simple imprisonment for ten lays on each count. These appellants were acquitted of all the other charges for which they were charged before the trial Court. The rest of the accused persons were acquitted by the trial Court. It is against this decision dated December 12, 1983, passe...
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. Madhurkumar Bajaj
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1991
Reported in: [1995]211ITR519(Bom)
V.A. Mohta, J.1. These are applications under section 26(3) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 ('the G.T. Act'), by the Commissioner of gift-tax, Vidarbha, Nagpur, seeking a reference on the following question, said to be of law : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Income-tax appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the valuation of unquoted equity shares be made on the basis of the yield method and not on the basis of break-up value?' 2. During the assessment years between 1971-72 and 1973-74, the assessee sold unquoted equity shares of certain companies. The Gift-tax Officer valued the shares at a higher rate on the basis of the break-up value as per the Wealth-tax Rules and treated the difference between the two rates as deemed gifts under section 4(1)(a) of the gift-tax Act. The appeal by the assessee before the commissioner of gift-tax (Appeals) was successful and the matter was remanded for fresh assessment of the value of the shares on the basis ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rajesh Steel Industries
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1991
Reported in: [1995]211ITR548(Bom)
V.A. Mohta, J.1. This is an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Vidarbha, Nagpur, requiring the Tribunal to draw up a statement of case and to refer the following question said to be of law to this court, under section 256(1) of the Act : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that unabsorbed depreciation in the hands of the partners for the assessment year 1976-77 is to be set-off against the income of the firm for the assessment year 1977-78 ?' 2. The Tribunal rejected the application on the ground that the issue is covered by the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Ballarpur Collieries Co. v. CIT : [1973]92ITR219(Bom) . The relevant assessment year in 1977-78. For the assessment year 1976-77, the assessee, Messrs. Rajesh Steel Industries, Nagpur (a partnership-firm), had returned a loss to the tune of Rs. 3,01,010. The Income-tax ...
Koron Business Systems Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1991
Reported in: 1992(58)ELT48(Bom)
Pendse. J. 1. The petitioner is a Public Limited Company and manufactures photo-copying machines at their factory located at Thane. The photo-copying machines are assessable to payment of excise duty under Tariff Item 33D of the Central Excise Tariff. The photo-copying machine consists of two main units, document copier and a processor unit. The document copier consists of a camera, a stand on which the camera is mounted and other attachments like timer, lens, screen, lamp holders, etc. The camera consists of bellows and the metal frame with racks and gears. The petitioner claims that the timer and lens required for the camera are purchased from the open market. The entire photo-copying machine consisting of the document copier and the processor unit was assembled at the factory. The petitioner claims that as the timer and the lens were purchased from open market and in respect of which excise duty was already paid, while determining the value of the photo-copying machine, it is not pe...
Vasu Dhondi Sutar Vs. Ganpati Dhondi Sutar and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1991
Reported in: 1991(4)BomCR685
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has impugned order dated 29th April, 1978 passed by the Tahsildar, Panhala, District Kolhapur, in T.N.C. case No. 12 of 1977, order dated 29th August ,1981 passed by the Assistant Collector, Shahuwadi Division, Kolhapur, in Tenancy Appeal NVo. 72 of 1979 and order dated 9th July, 1982 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. MRT-KP-285/81. By the above-referred three orders the authorities concerned have held that the petitioner was not a tenant of lands in question. The impugned orders were passed on application made by the petitioner to the Tahsildar on 18th June, 1977 for a declaration that the petitioner was a tenant of the lands in question and the appeals and revision arising from the said proceeding initiated by the petitioner under section 70-B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'.2. At the ...
Shantabai Parshuram Mule and ors. Vs. Sharda Prasadsingh and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1991
Reported in: II(1992)ACC677; 1992ACJ270
H.D. Patel, J.1. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dated 29th June, 1981 in A.C.C. No. 36 of 1978 the appellants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased Parshuram Tukaram Mule, have filed this appeal.2. The deceased Parshuram met with an accident on 15.3.1978 while he was driving car No. MTY 3806 as a driver of the State Transport Corporation. The car was on its way to Ratnagiri. The said car crossed Mahad and while proceeding to its destination on Bombay-Goa Road a motor tanker No. MNP 7952 belonging to the respondent No. 1 and driven by the respondent No. 2 in course of his service being in employment of respondent No. 1, coming from opposite direction dashed against the car No. MTY 3806 with the result that the deceased Parshuram as well as another occupant of the car Dinanath Shirodkar received multiple injuries and both died on the spot. The third occupant of the car Pradip Sawant was seriously injured. There is no dispute that Parshuram Tukaram Mul...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »