Mumbai Court February 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.
Macario Antonio Francisco De Cunha and Anr. Vs. Alex Fred D'Souza and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-1991
Reported in: 1993(1)BomCR465
G.D. Kamat, J.1. Petitioners are the owners in possession of a property bearing Survey No. 173/2 situate in the village of Parra. It is common ground that it is an open plot of land except for a small structure thereon in which the business of grocery and bar is being run. A well is also situated in this property. It appears that on 20th January, 1986, the petitioners brought about the construction of compound walls and when the said work was in progress the original plaintiffs, now respondents No. 1 to 5, apprehended that their way would be blocked from the public road Parra-Anjuna. Respondents No. 1 to 5, for short plaintiffs, instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 26 of 1986 praying for a declaration that they are entitled to use a strip of land of three metres in breadth as indicated in the plan annexed thereto or, in the alternative, for a declaration that they have acquired right to use the said way by prescription. A mandatory injunction was also sought restraining the petitioners fr...
Durukumar Shambhulal Chandnani Vs. Hon'ble Shri Chittahtosh Mookerjee, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)BomCR23; (1991)93BOMLR71; 1991(1)MhLj454
Sujata Manohar, J. 1. The petitioner is a Personal Secretary to a Honourable Judge of this High Court on the Appellate Side establishment of the High Court. He has filed this writ petition challenging an order dated 9th January, 1990 of the Chief Justice of Bombay suspending him from service, in contemplation of a Departmental Inquiry against him. This was done in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 3(1)(a) of the Bombay High Court Discipline and Appeal Rules. The petitioner has also challenged a show cause notice issued thereafter and a charge-sheet issued to him on the ground that since the original suspension order is bad in law, these 'consequential' steps are also bad in law.2. The Bombay High Court Discipline and Appeal Rules are framed in exercise of powers conferred under Article 229 of the Constitution of India. Under Rule 3(1)(a) it is provided as follows :'3. Suspension.---(1) The appointing authority or any authority to which the appointing authority is subordinate ...
Sharad S/O Chandanlal Jaiswal Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-1991
Reported in: 1991(4)BomCR233; (1994)94BOMLR803
N.P. Chapalgaonker, J.1. Petitioner is a member of the Municipal Council and is a journalist. He is a Commerce Graduate and is associated with some educational institutions and sport association. On 22nd April, 1989, a show cause notice purporting to be under section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, requiring petitioner to show cause as to why action under section 56(1)(a) and 56(1)(bb)(1) of the said Act be not taken against him and he be not externed from the areas of Parbhani, Nanded and Akola Districts for a period of one year. It was contended that since last five years petitioner's acts have created or are likely to cause alarm, danger or harm., Instances of these acts were cited as offences registered at Serial Nos. 92 of 84, 122 of 85, 150 of 85, 24 of 87 and 125 of 88 in Hingoli Police Station. It was also mentioned in the notice that five non-cognizable cases have also been registered in the said Police Station against the petitioner and Police have instituted chapter cases...
Lawrence Kaitan Koli Vs. S.V. Bhave, Commissioner of Police
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-1991
Reported in: (1991)93BOMLR103
S.W. Puranik J.1. The petitioner-detenu has been detained by an order dated July 12, 1990 issued by the 1st respondent under Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers and Drug-Offenders Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the M.P.D.A. Act'). The petitioner detenu was detained on July 27, 1990 in pursuance of the said order. He has been committed for detention at Nashik Road Central Prison, Nashik. The petitioner-detenu was served with order of detention along with the order of committal to prison, the grounds of detention and the documents on the basis of which the order of detention came to be issued.2. Shri U.N. Tripathi, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, has challenged the order of detention on various grounds. However, he has restricted his submissions only to ground 6 J. of the petition as amended. Briefly stated, it is his contention that the impugned order of detention passed by the Commissioner of Police, Greate...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Golden Tobacco Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-1991
Reported in: [1992]197ITR78(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J. 1. In this Departmental reference relating to the assessment of the assessee-company for the assessment year 1972-73, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred to this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following two question of law which read as under : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the entire sum of Rs. 1,71,70,000 styled as general reserves was includible in the computation of the capital of the assessee-company under rule 1 of Schedule II to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, for the assessment year 1972-73 ?' 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in directing the inclusion of the sum of Rs. 40,732 being the reserve for doubtful debts, for the purpose of calculating the capital base for the assessment year 1972-73 ?' 2. Question No. 1 apparently suggests that the dispute is not about the inclusio...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Automobile Products of India Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-1991
Reported in: [1991]190ITR647(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. This is a reference at the instance of the Department. The proceedings relate to the assessee's assessment for the years 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71. The Tribunal has referred to this court the following three questions of law under section 256(1) of the income-tax Act, 1961 : 2. Assessment year 1968-69 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the cash allowance, viz., entertainment allowance, car allowance and house rent allowance do not come within the purview of section 40(c)(iii) of the Income-tax, 1961 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the cases, the assessee was entitled to depreciation on the roads inside the factory premises treating them as plant or building used for the purpose of business ?' 3. Assessment year 1969-70 : '3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in directing the Income-tax Officer to verify the admissi...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Acrow India Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-1991
Reported in: 1991(3)BomCR598; [1991]188ITR485(Bom)
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench 'A', has referred the following questions to this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : ' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regarding to the activities of the assessee-company, it could be held that the assessee-company was a manufacturer of the articles in question (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in holding that the assessee-company was in 'industrial company' entitled to the concessional rate of tax applicable to that class of assessees under Paragraph 'F' of Part I of the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1969?' 2. Relevant portion of section 2(6) (c) of the Finance Act, 1969, defines the expression 'industrial company' for the purpose of the said Act as under (See [1969] 72 ITR 22) : 'Industrial company' means a company which is mainly engaged in the business of generation or distribution of electric or an...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dajibhai Kanjibhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-1991
Reported in: (1991)95CTR(Bom)262; [1991]189ITR41(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J. 1. In this departmental reference relating to the assessee's assessment for the assessment year 1969-70, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred to this court the following six question of law under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The question read thus : '(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in cancelling the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (2) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the charge of filing inaccurate particulars was unsustainable because the basic fact for framing an assessment was made known by the assessee himself by disclosing prize money receipt in Part-IV of the return (3) Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the primary ingredient for initiating penalty proceedings was absent in this case as the Income-tax Officer did not record his satisfaction during the course of the assessment proceedings is correct in law (4) Whether, on t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kolhapur Oxygen Acetylene Pvt., Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-1991
Reported in: [1991]190ITR574(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. In this departmental reference relating to the assessment of the assessee, a company, for 1972-73, 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 Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee has an option to claim or not to claim depreciation and that the Income-tax Officer was not entitled in law to allow depreciation when the assessee has not supplied the particulars for grant of depreciation allowance as required by section 34 of the Act ?' 2. Counsel are agreed that the issue involved herein is covered by our court's judgment case of CIT v. Shri Someshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. : [1989]177ITR443(Bom) , in favour of the assessee. Following the said decision, we answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.3. No order as to costs....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vickers Sperry of India Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-1991
Reported in: [1991]188ITR615(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. In this departmental reference relating to the assessment of the assessee-company for the assessment year 1971-72, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred to this court the following question of law under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which reads thus : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that an appeal lies against levy of interest under section 217(1A) ?' 2. The assessee is a company. It filed its return of income for the year disclosing a total income of Rs. 18,65,988 subject to the set-off of carried forward deficiency under section 80J of the Act. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) on a total income of Rs. 19,54,970. The Income-tax Officer had, inter alia, reduced the assessee's claim for deduction under section 80J by holding that the assessee was entitled to 5/12ths of Rs. 1,24,021, as the new industrial undertaking had worked for a period of five months only du...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »