Mumbai Court January 1992 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.
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Hindustan Ferodo Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1992
Reported in: (1994)(70)ELT240Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order No.SKM-1141/89-B.n dated 25-5-1989 of the Collector (Appeals) setting aside the Order No. V(Ch. 87-18-1/87/22250) dated 30-11-1987 passed by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise.2. During the period from 30-6-1982 to 25-7-1983, the respondents cleared Brake linings under Chapter X Procedures without payment of duty, under AR. 3A to M/s. Brakes India Ltd. However, the consignee vide their letter dated 19-1-1984, appears to have rejected the goods on account of some manufacturing defect. The respondents however with an alleged desire to divert the same to the local market decided to pay the duty on the goods in question and accordingly debited the sum of Rs. 40,087.85 in their PLA A/c vide entry No. 83, dated 13-3-1984. On 3-9-1984 however M/s. Brakes India Ltd. returned the goods under AR. 3A No. 41 and GP-2 No. 67 and on receipt thereof, the respondents filed D-3 declaration on 12-9-1984 and filed a refund claim on 17-10-19...
Devandas Kishnani and Others Vs. Nanikram Kishnani and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Bom76; 1992(3)BomCR1; (1994)94BOMLR904
1. Shri Prem Devandas Kishnani (Petitioner/Claimant No. 8) and Smt. Neeru Prem Kishnani (Petitioner/ Claimant No. 19) (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners) have challenged the impugned Award dated 10th March, 1990 as modified by Supplemental Award dated 20th Sept., 1990 made by Shri Ram Jethmalani, Senior Advocate, as a sole Arbitrator. The petitioners are members of 'DKK Group'. Shri Devandas K. Kishnani, Claimant No. 1, is father of Shri Prem Devandas Kishnani. The respondents to the petition are members of 'NKK Group'. Parties to the proceedings are family members.2. Claimant No. 8 has filed a separate petition numbered as Interim Petition No. 79 of 1991, for condonation of delay in filing of the main petition seeking to set aside the impugned Awards. The petitioners have contended that as a matter of law, their application seeking to set aside the impugned awards is in time. The petitioners have further contended in alternative that in any event, the petitioner No. 1 (claima...
Sindhu Krishna Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)BomCR224
D.J. Moharir, J. 1. The appellant Sindhu Krishna Thakur of village Nagathana, Satara was along with two other women Nadira Siraj Khache and Jahira Hishamuddin Kazi tried for commission of offences under sections 363, 367, 368 and 370 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant however came to be convicted of only the offence under section 363 of the Indian Penal Code as was disclosed and proved from the evidence led at the trial. She was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default further R. I. for four months. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were however acquitted of the offences punishable under sections 368 and 370 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Stated in brief, the prosecution case is that on 5th January, 1989 the appellant accused Sindhu though a resident of Satara went to a considerably far off place Kudal in Sindhudurg district. She was accompanied by two small children. She went to the house of the complainant Sunita Bhagwan Jalavi...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bhandara Zilla Sahakari Kharedi Vikri S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1992
Reported in: [1995]212ITR124(Bom)
V.A. Mohta, J.1. Following question needs to be answered in this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the I. T. Act'), at the behest of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Nagpur : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the provisions of section 80P(2)(e) of the Income-tax were applicable to the case and the assessee was eligible for relief under the said section in respect of the income earned by it from activities carried on during the year ?' 2. The relevant years are 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1974-75. The assessee, the Bhandara Zilla Sahakari Vikri Sangh Ltd., Bhandara, is a 'co-operative society' under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. It had constructed certain godowns which were used in earning income of commission under the two different agreements - (i) dated March 31, 1970, for distribution of fertilisers with the State of Maharashtra ('the fertiliser agreement' for short), (ii) d...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. India Corporation Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1992
Reported in: [1992]196ITR425(Bom)
Mrs. Sujata Manohar, J. 1. This is an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for a direction that the Tribunal should be asked to frame the following question of law and refer it to us. The question is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that raw cotton is not an agricultural primary commodity specified in clause (b)(i) of section 80HHC(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and in consequently holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80HHC ?' 2. The question relates to the deduction to be granted to the assessee under section 80HHC(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as then in force. This section deals with deduction in respect of profits retained for export business. The section does not apply to good or merchandise specified in clause (b) of section 80HHC(2)(i). Clause (b)(i) is as follows : 'Agricultural primary commodities, not being produce of plantations'. 3. The p...
Ramrao Zingraji Shende Vs. Indian Yarn Manufacturing Company
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1992
Reported in: 1994ACJ916; (1992)94BOMLR596; [1992(65)FLR1055]; (1993)ILLJ442Bom; 1993(1)MhLj23
1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order passed by the Commissioner for workmen's Compensation, Akola in Work-men's Compensation Application No. 1 of 1980, rejecting his claim vide Judgment and order dt. March 25, 1983. 2. The appellant Ramrao was working in the Indian Manufacturing Company, Akola i.e. the Respondent concern. On November 11, 1979, while he was working on the machine, he met with an accident and sustained injuries to his two fingers of his left hand. Both the fingers were crushed in the machine. On the day of incident, his monthly salary was Rs. 675/-. After the incident, a notice of the incident was given to the respondent and also to the Factory Inspector. The Factory Inspector has visited the factory of the respondent and made investigation and advised the non-applicant to pay the compensation. But, in spite of this, the amount of compensation was not paid to him. Consequently, he was constrained to approach the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensatio...
Andhra Civil Construction Co. Vs. the Board of Trustees of the Port of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)BomCR132
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. Messrs Andhra Civil Construction Company has made an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 against the Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay for filing of the arbitration agreement as contained in Clause 18 of the General Conditions of Contract forming part of contract dated 6th December 1980 between the petitioner and the respondent and for an order of reference in respect of various claims of the petitioner particularised in paragraph 20A of the petition. The petition is numbered and registered as a suit as required by the provisions of The Arbitration Act, 1940. 2. The petitioner has also made an application under section 41 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for an order of injunction restraining the respondent from encashing the Bank guarantee, copy whereof is Exhibit 'A' to the petition/plaint or the renewal thereof in Arbitration Suit No. 3795 of 1990.3. It is necessary to summarise the material facts having bearing on the petition.(a) In or ab...
Harinder Kaur Narender Singh Dhanova and ors. Vs. Narender Singh Ratta ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)BomCR61
S.M. Jhunjhunuwala, J.1. In the suit filed by plaintiff and the two minor children for maintenance, these notices of motion have been taken out by the plaintiffs for interim maintenance as prayed for therein.2. The 1st plaintiff is the wife of the defendant. The 2nd plaintiff and 3rd plaintiff are the minor son and minor daughter respectively of the 1st plaintiff. The marriage between the 1st plaintiff and the defendant was solemnised on 6th February, 1976 as per Sikh religious rites. The parties are governed by Hindu Law.3. Two sons and two daughters are born out of this wed-lock. The 2nd plaintiff who is the son of about 14 years age, is known as Tinku. The 3rd plaintiff who is a daughter of about 13 years old, is known as Pinki. One Harjinder Singh is a minor son of about 11 years age, is also known as Minku. Gurucharan Kaur is a minor daughter of about 8 years old. She is also known as Dinki. The plaintiffs and the defendant as also the said Harjinder Singh and Gurucharan Kaur resi...
Harinder Kaur Narender Singh Dhanova and ors. Vs. Narender Singh Ratta ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1992
Reported in: II(1992)DMC623
S.M. Jhunjhunuwala, J.1. In the suit filed by the plaintiff and the twominor children for maintenance, these notices of motion have been taken outby the plaintiffs for interim maintenance as prayed for therein.2. The 1st plaintiff is the wife of the defendant. The 2nd plaintiff and3rd plaintiff are the minor son and minor daughter respectively of the 1stplaintiff. The marriage between the 1st plaintiff and the defendant was solemnised on 6th February, 1976 as per Sikh religious rites. The parties are governedby Hindu Law.3. Two sons and two daughters are born out of this wed-lock. The2nd plaintiff who is the son of about 14 years age, is known as Tinku. The 3rdplaintiff who is a daughter of about 13 years old, is known as Pinki. One Harjinder Singh is a minor son of about 11 years age, is also known as Minku.Gurucharan Kaur is a minor daughter of about 8 years old. She is also knownas Dinki. The plaintiffs and the defendant as also the said Harjinder Singh andGurucharan Kaur resided to...
Ramrao Zingraji Shender Vs. Indian Yarn Manufacturing Company
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1992
Reported in: II(1992)ACC710
B.U. Wahane, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Akola in Workmen's Compensation Application No. 1 of 1980, rejecting his claim vide judgment and order dtd. 25th March 1983.2. The appellant Ramrao was working in the Indian Manufacturing Company, Akola i.e. the Respondent concern. On 11th November 1979, while he was working on the machine, he met with an accident and sustained injuries to his two fingers of his left hand. Both the fingers were crushed in the machine. On the day of incident, his monthly salary was Rs. 675/-. After the incident, a notice of the incident was given to the respondent and also to the Factory Inspector. The Factory Inspector has visited the factory of the respondent and made investigation and advised the non-applicant to pay the compensation. But, in spite of this, the amount of compensation was not paid to him. Consequently, he was constrained to approach the Commissioner for Work...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »