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.
Narayan Hari Naik Vs. Inacio Martins, Son of Sebastiao Martins, Since ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-1991
Reported in: 1991(3)BomCR276
E.S. Da Silva, J.1. These two appeals directed against the same judgement and decree of the first Appellate Court of the District and Sessions Judge, Panaji, can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment since both involve fundamentally similar substantial questions of law.2. The respondent No. 1 in both the Appeals, the late Inacio Martins (hereinafter called the late plaintiff), had instituted a Special Civil Suit No. 114/74/A in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji, against the two appellants, namely, one Narayan Hari Naik, the appellant in Second Civil Appeal No. 27 of 1988 (hereinafter called the defendant No. 1) and one Nayantara Agrawal, the appellant in Second Civil Appeal No. 31 of 1988 (hereinafter called the defendant No. 2), seeking for eviction of the defendant No. 1 from the suit property known as 'Palmar Oiteiral do Predio Aivao' situated at Caranzalem, belonging to the defendant No. 2 as well as for restoration of its possession to him.3. The rel...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Bharat Maruti Chavan and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-1991
Reported in: 1991(3)BomCR383
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra and raises an issue of some significance. Respondent No. 1, who was the original accused, though served, has not appeared at the time of the hearing, nor has any appearance been filed on his behalf. As far as respondent No. 2 is concerned, he is an Advocate who was at the relevant time working as a Court Receiver and, therefore, he is expected to appear at the hearing of the appeal. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present Prosecution are as follows :---2. The present respondent No. 2, Shri M.S. Patil, who is an Advocate, had been appointed as Court Receiver by an Order of the Civil Court, Pandharpur in Regular Civil Suit No. 368 of 1975 to the extent of 1 Acre and 15 Gunthas of land. It appears that there was a certain sugarcane crop on the sold land and that under the orders of the Court the sugarcane in question was to be said through public auction. The Court Receiver followed the requisite procedur...
Pundik S/O Mahadu Nazire Vs. Maharashtra State Farming Corporation
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Bom48; 1991(3)BomCR478; 1992(1)MhLj455
ORDER1. The revision application is directed against the order issuing warrant for arrest and detention of the petitioner under Order XXI Rule 38 read with S. 51 of Code of Civil Procedure.2. The petitioner was working with the respondent as a Clerk and it was the case of the respondent that during his tenure of service he has misappropriated certain amount being the sale proceeds to a sum of Rs. 6,530.62 Ps. The plaintiff-respondent therefore, filed a suit to recover the said amount from the petitioner. The said suit was decreed on February 26, 1980. The respondent, thereafter, tried to execute the decree by attaching the petitioner's provident fund. The amount could not be legally attached and, therefore, there was no realisation of the decree. Thereafter, it appears that the petitioner gave his consent and authorised the respondent to withdraw the amount from hisprovident fund with the leave of the Court.The decree was, however, not satisfied. Therespondent then applied to the execu...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. National Rayon Corporation Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1991
Reported in: (1992)106CTR(Bom)333; [1992]193ITR577(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. In this departmental reference relating to the assessee's assessment for the assessment year 1973-74, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred to this court the following three questions of law for opinion under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the dividend of Rs. 1,37,66,585 declared on May 3, 1972, should go to reduce the general reserve of Rs. 4,01,10,167 as at January 1, 1972, for the purpose of computing the capital in terms of rule 1 of the Second Schedule to Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, for the assessment year 1973-74 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the debenture redemption reserve of Rs. 1,41,00,000 constitutes a reserve includible in the computation of capital in terms of rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, for the assessment year 1973-74 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mahavirprasad R. Morarka
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1991
Reported in: (1991)97CTR(Bom)297; [1992]193ITR530(Bom)
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. This reference made under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, refers for the opinion of this court the following questions of law arising out of the Tribunal's order dated September 6, 1975, in I. T. A. No. 2230/B/74-75 pertaining to the assessment year 1971-72 : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the surplus of Rs. 1,60,482 realised by the assessee did not constitute profits from business (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in not decided the issue regarding the levy of interest under section 215 of the Act ?' 2. The assessee had a controlling interest in a company called the 'India Sugar and Refineries Ltd.' Another company by name Salar Jung Sugar Mills Ltd. was a subsidiary company of this company. In or about 1968, Salar Jung Sugar Mills Ltd. acquired 47% shares in a company named Tungabhadra Pulp and Board Mills Ltd. A p...
Sharad J. Rao Vs. Subhash Desai and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1991
Reported in: 1991(4)BomCR156
H. Suresh, J.1. The petitioner Sharad Rao, a Member of the party of Janata Dal contested election to 42, Goregaon Legislative Assembly Constituency, held on February 27, 1990. Respondent No. 1, Subhash Desai, a Shiv-Sena Member, contested in the same constituency against the petitioner. Respondent No. 1 was declared as elected. There were other candidates from other parties who have all been made parties to the petition. The petitioner has filed this petition to set aside the election of respondent No. 1 on the ground of certain corrupt practices as provided under the representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1951). The charges are under section 123(1), bribery, by way of gift of various articles to the voters 123(3), appeal by respondent No. 1 or his agent or any other person with his consent to vote or refrain from voting on the ground of religion or community 123(3-A), promotion of or attempt to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different...
Devanand Vishwanath Shirodkar Vs. State of Goa and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1991
Reported in: 1991(4)BomCR358
M.S. Deshpande, J.1. The two petitioners in these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution challenge the action of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 of alloting a fair price shop to the respondent No. 3-Sumati Shambu Palyankar.2. A notice was published by the respondent No. 1, inviting applications from educated unemployed for grant of a fair price shop. Devanand Shirodkar, petitioner in Writ Petition No. 50, of 1991, filed an application on October 4, 1990, for allotment of the shop, setting out his qualifications and also informing that he had been registered at the Regional Employment Exchange for four years and also indicated the premises where he proposed to set up the fair price shop. Original guide lines were laid down under the letter of the under Secretary dated 13th May, 1987, but the preference mentioned therein was modified and the class of educated unemployed was given first preference. The respondent No. 3 did not belong to the categories to which preference was to ...
Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1991
Reported in: (1991)LC403Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal directed against the Order-in Appeal bearing No.1338/90BCH dated 6-9-1990 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay, rejecting the appellants' appeal.2. The facts of the case for the purpose of disposal of this appeal can be stated as below.3. The appellants, a Public Sector Undertaking, imported a consignment consisting of two boxes of various components. They paid the duty on the entire invoice value under Bill of Entry Cash No. 132 dated 30-6-1984. However, when the goods were examined, the concerned Appraiser of the Customs Department, he found only one box and the other box was not available for examination. He however held that the contents of both the boxes were packed in one box and gave examination report on that basis. The Bill of Entry was amended and also the IGM entry was amended and the goods were cleared. However, the appellants noticed that 4 items had not been received by them and they corresponded with the suppliers, who confirmed that...
M/S. Farohar and Company and Others Vs. Hemant Manohar Nabar and Other ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Bom8; 1992(2)BomCR213
ORDER1. This is a petition u/S. 33 ofthe Arbitration Act, 1940 seeking to set aside an Award dated 26th March 1990 made by Shri N. A. Shah. Advocate. By an order dated 7th October 1988, Pendse, J. decreed Arbitration Suit No. 2031 of 1988 by consent of parties and appointed Mr. N. A. Shah, Advocate, as sole arbitrator to decide all disputes and differences between the parties. By the said order, the arbitrator was directed to publish the award within a period of four months from the date of entering upon the reference. It was specifically provided in the order of reference that the arbitrator will have summary powers and will not have to give reasons. 2. By an order dated 22nd February 1990, time to make and publish the Award was extended by this Court up to 31st March 1990 as recited in the award. 3. The impugned award is a non-speakingsummary award. The operative part of the impugned award reads as under :-- 'And whereas having considered the pleading, the oral and documentary eviden...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. D.H. Venaina
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1991
Reported in: (1991)97CTR(Bom)150
T.D. Sugla J.1. In this department reference relating to the assessee's wealth-tax assessments for assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73, the Tribunal has referred to this court the following questions of law for opinion under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the loans aggregating to Rs. 1,59,045 and raised by the assessee on the security of his life insurance policy, motor car and shares were deductible as debts in the computation of his net wealth and were not hit by sub-clause (ii) of clause (m) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the loans aggregating to Rs. 1,95,550 and raised by the assessee on the security of his life insurance policy, house property and shares were deductible as debts in the computation of his net wealth and were to not hit by sub-claus...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »