Mumbai Court April 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.
State of Maharashtra Vs. Chandraprakash Keshavdeo Shinghaniya and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-1991
Reported in: 1991CriLJ3187
1. The State of Maharashtra, as a matter of propriety, has filed the present appeal which is directed against an order dated 31-5-1983, passed by Shri N. L. Telge, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nasik Road in Criminal Case No. 932 of 1977. 2. The five respondents, who are before the Court, stood charged with an offence punishable u/S. 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, in so far as it was alleged that in furtherance of their common intention, that they had cheated the Maharashtra State Electricity Board by obtaining a sum of Rs. 1.68 lacs being the 90% price of 4200 kgs. of Hydrazine Hydrate supplied by the accused Nos. 1 to 4 on 9-6-1976 and 11-6-1976. The accused Nos. 1 to 4 were the partners of M/s. Anil Dye-Chem Corporation, Bombay and had tendered for the supply of the chemical to the power station but there was a stipulation that the chemical was to be of 80% concentration of Hydrazine Hydrate. This chemical was an essential one for purposes of preserving the boilers a...
Tyresoles Goa Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-1991
Reported in: [1992]193ITR649(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. This is a reference at the in stance of the assessee. It relates to the assessee's assessment for the assessment year 1964-65, 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred to this court the following two questions of law for opinion under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : '(1) For the assessment years 1964-65, 1965-66 and 1966-67 : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and more particularly in view of the fact that, before the assessments for the assessment year 1964-65, 1965-66 and 1966-67 were finalised, the Government had fixed a lower percentage of royalty, the Tribunal had erred in holding that the amount of royalty higher the what was actually allowed to be remitted was to be deducted in computing the total income ?' (2) For the assessment year 1967-68 : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal erred in law in treating the sum of Rs. 36,571 being the difference bet...
M. R. Bhansali and Co. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-1991
Reported in: 1991(56)ELT24(Bom)
A.V. Savant, J. 1. The petitioner-firm has challenged the order dated 16th August 1985, which is at Exh. 'D' to the petition, under which the respondents have rejected the request for revalidation and for the OGL endorsement on its imprest licence bearing No. 0470552 issued on the 12th May 1982 for the value of Rs. 3,37,85,400/- against the F.O.B. value of exports in the sum of Rs. 5,19,77,557/- for the import of un-cut and un-set diamonds. The said Imprest Licence expressly contained a stipulation that it was subject to the conditions in force at the time of the issue of the licence. On the 7th/8th July, 1983. Redemption Certificate was granted to the petitioner. On the 30th June, 1984 the petitioner's Export House Certificate expired. On 2nd August 1985 the petitioner applied to the third respondent for endorsement under para 185(4) of the relevant Policy AM-83. This application dated 2nd August 1985 came to be rejected under the impugned order at Exh. 'D' dated 16th August 1985. The...
Laxman S/O Krishna Gulunjkar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)BomCR178; (1991)93BOMLR861; 1991(1)MhLj943
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. The appellant in this case was charged with having committed an offence punishable under section 7 read with section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. It was alleged that the appellant was the proprietor of Anandnath Provision Stores at 789. Budhwar Peth, Pune and that he is alleged to have sold kerosene at a rate higher than the prescribed one. It is the prosecution case that on 2-3-1983, a customer was sent to the shop, that he purchased a litre of kerosene and that the accused charged him Rs. 4/- per litre instead of the controlled price of Rs.1-77 ps. per litre. The learned Special Judge, Pune, convicted the accused for the offence with which he was charged and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. It is against this order of conviction that the present appeal has been filed.2. Mr. Dhakephalkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the ap...
Swastic Household and Industrial Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-1991
Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT279Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal directed against the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) bearing No. M-1873/TD-884/86/R, dated 26-6-1987, allowing the appeal of the department and setting aside the order of the Asstt.Collector. The facts of the case are that the appellants were availing of proforma credit facility in respect of certain inputs under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules. A show cause notice was issued on 14-7-1981 covering the period 1-1-1980 to 24-2-1981, alleging that though D 3 declarations in respect of the receipt of the inputs have been filed by the appellants, the goods were taken into use before 48 hours prescribed for enabling the departmental officers to verify. When the adjudication proceedings were held, the Asstt. Collector set aside the demand for Rs. 1,96,655.94 but confirmed the show cause notice for recovery of the credit of the duty amounting to Rs. 3699.54. This order has been accepted by the appellant and this amount has also been paid.However, the departme...
Damodar Tatyaba Alias Dadasaheb Rupwate Vs. Vamanrao Mahadik and Other ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-1991
Reported in: AIR1991Bom373
ORDER1. As the arguments have been common, these are being dealt with by this common Order.2. Mr. Chinoy and Mr. Korde raise a Preliminary Issue as to the maintainability of the three Notices, issued pursuant to the Order dated 25th March 1991. They submit that the question of maintainability be decided first. In support of this contention reliance is placed upon the case of Samar Singh v. Kedar Nath & Ors. reported in : AIR1987SC1926 . Based on this it is submitted that the Court is bound to raise this and try this as a Preliminary Issue. Mr. Vashi has no objection to these submissions being heard and decided first. I have accordingly heard parties on the question of maintainability of the Notices. 3. The challenge as to maintainability of the Notices is on two grounds. Firstly, that no charge under Section 123 (3) and (3A) of the Representation of the People Act has been made out and that for that reason the Notices are not maintainable. Secondly, it is urged that the Notices do not ...
Parvati Kewalram Moorjani Vs. Anand Mohan Kundu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)BomCR116; 1991(1)MhLj1379
A.A. Cazi, J.1. The suit is for (a) a declaration that the defendant is a trespasser in respect of the suit premises, (b) a mandatory order ordering the defendant to remove himself from the suit premises, (c) a decree for Rs. 9,800/- as mesne profits/compensation for the period from 1st March, 1973 to July 1975 at the rate of Rs. 350/- per month, and (d) future mesne profits.2. The suit premises are the residential premises being Flat No. 34/C, Geeta Bhavan, 93, Warden Road, Bombay-26. It appears that the flat is situate in a building owned by a co-operative housing society, but for all our purposes the plaintiff may be considered as the owner of the suit premises. The defendant has been occupying the suit premises and using the same for the residence of himself and his family ever since 1st September, 1962. However, every eleven months the parties have been signing an agreement termed 'Leave And Licence Agreement'. The last of such agreements which is dated 1-11-1971 is at Exhibit `A-...
Kec International Ltd. Vs. Surtax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-1991
Reported in: (1991)38ITD90(Mum.)
1. Under the Surtax Act, these are cross-appeals. The amounts involved are substantial and the points involved are interesting.2. At the outset, we may first note that in essence, Surtax is levied on so to say, the super-profits of a company: Starting from total income as per the income-tax assessment, certain adjustments are made to arrive at the' Chargeable profits' and the most note-worthy adjustment is that of income-tax paid being allowed as deduction. Then, a percentage of 'capital employed' is allowed as deduction therefrom to arrive at the excess of chargeable profits, on which tax is levied on a progressive scale. Thus, out of the taxed income, deduction is allowed for a percentage of capital of the company and the balance is taxed.3. Disputes in the present appeals arose on account of existence of profits from contracts works in Libya and Iran. Taxes were levied in those countries and the schemes were substantially different from the scheme of Indian Income-tax. In Libya, Li...
Laxmi Board and Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. M.V. seacrest Achiever and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Bom86; 1991(3)BomCR574
ORDER1. By this notice of motion the first Defendant prays that the suit be dismissed against it and pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, the amount of Rs. 3,12,000/- deposited by the first Defendant as security for releasing the first Defendant from arrest, be returned to the agents of the first Defendant together with accrued interest. It would be necessary to state the salient facts to appreciate the contentions raised by the first Defendant by the present notice of motion.2. The plaintiffs filed the present suit on 16th February, 1991 (Sic), claiming a sum of Rs. 3,11,950.45 Ps. with the interest and costs against the first Defendant vessel M. V. Seacrest Achiever. The plaintiffs allege that due to the failure and negligence of the first Defendant they had been required to incur demurrage and detention charges aggregating to the aforesaid sum which was a claim enforceable against the first Defendant in the admiralty jurisdiction of the Court. The plaintiffs moved for...
Anoop Krishan Sharma Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)BomCR560; 1992CriLJ1861; 1991(2)MhLj1028
1. This is an appeal preferred by the original Complainant, one Anoop Krishan Sharma, who had filed a private complaint numbered as Case No. 40/S of 1982 before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 43rd Court, Borivli, Bombay. The 2nd Respondent to this Criminal Appeal was original Accused No. 1. Original Accused No. 2, who is supposedly an employee of original Accused No. 1, was not available at the time of the trial. The learned Trial Magistrate, by his judgment dated 24-6-1983, acquitted Accused No. 1, who had been charged with having committed an offence of wrongful restraint u/S. 342 read with S. 114 of the Indian Penal Code. This proceeding arose out of a private complaint and leave has been granted by this Court to file the present appeal, to the original complainant. The State of Maharashtra is only a formal party in so far as the prosecution before the Trial Court was not at the instance of the State. At the hearing today, neither the original complainant, who is the Appellant before ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »