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.
Shri B. Vs. Smt. a
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1992
Reported in: (1992)94BOMLR160
N.D. Vyas, J.1. This is a letters patent appeal preferred by the husband against the judgment and order of Ashok Agarwal J. of this Court. By the said judgment the learned Single Judge allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent herein, namely, the wife, reversed the decision of the trial Court and enhanced the maintenance qua the children. The appellant husband has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the said decision. Cross-objections are filed by the respondent claiming more maintenance.2. The appellant had filed the petition for divorce in the Bombay City Civil Court praying for divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion and for custody of the minor children.3. The brief facts leading to the present litigation are as follows:4. The parties, both Hindus, were married on March 18, 1967 at Bombay according to Hindu Vedic Rites. At the time of the marriage the appellant husband was employed as a lecturer with Polytechnic College at Amravati and the respondent wife was empl...
Mrs. Khorshed Aga and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1992
Reported in: AIR1992Bom427; (1992)94BOMLR817; 1992(1)MhLj914
ORDERK. Sukumaran, J. 1. This Writ Petition questions a Coroner's action. The Coroner has directed the Petitioners to appear before him for the purpose of recording their statements. A direction of that nature is not per scan infliction of injury. The Petitioners mount their attack from grounds of conscientious objection and constitutional provisions. The short question for consideration of this Court is whether the resistence has the support of law or legal principles.2. It was a long time back -- on 5th April1983 that Miss Prems Jeeyandas died. Admittedly, she was possessed of fabulousfortunes. That circumstance, helpful duringthe life time of the person, can create complications after his or her worldly exit. It happened in, the present case. 3. The deceased was not an invalid confined to bed for a long time. She was moving around with reasonable agility consistent with her advanced age. She had a fall in her house. At any rate, that was how thehospital authorities noted the case hi...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shankar D. Dhanwatey and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1992
Reported in: [1995]212ITR150(Bom)
V.A. Mohta, J. 1. The following question has been referred for the opinion of this court at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Nagpur, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the I. T. Act') : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that penalty levied under section 271(1)(a) was not legal since no fresh hearing was provided in view of section 129 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The basic backdrop against which the point arises is very short and it is this : A notice under section 139(2) of the Income-tax Act was served by the Income-tax Officer, Bombay, on the assessee. The assessee requested for time to file the return of the income. Time was granted up to November 30, 1972. The return was not filed within time. It was filed on March 16, 1974. Assessment was completed on February 11, 1975, by the Income-tax Officer, Bombay, who initiated proceedings under section 271(1)(a) and issued notice u...
Union of India Vs. Mine-chem (India)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1992
Reported in: 1992(59)ELT39(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. This appeal discloses fraud committed both on the Customs Department and on this Court and we propose to direct the Commissioner of Police to investigate the matter and prosecute every person connected with this fraud irrespective of the position held. The facts set out hereinafter would disclose the nature and extent of fraud to make wrongful gain.2. On January 18, 1987 Writ Petition No. 173 of 1987 is filed in the name of M/s. Mine Chem (India) a partnership firm having office at 308, Admaji Building Syed Mukri Street, Bombay 400 009 on the Original Side of this Court by M/s. Kantawala & Co., a firm of attorney. The petition is drawn by Dr. Nitin Kantawala. The petitioners claim that petitioners are a partnership firm and imported orbital solution in two consignments. The petitioners claim that the benefit of duty exemption of countervailing/additional duty as per Notification bearing No. 55/75 dated March 1, 1975 was available in respect of duty payable in importing the...
Vijay Babulal Patel Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1992
Reported in: 1994(2)BomCR158
S.M. Daud, J.1. This appeal takes exception to the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant for the commission of an offence punishable under section 17 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Act).2. P.W. 1 P.S.I. Kadam was attached to the Narcotic Cell which is a special cell forming part of the Vigilance Branch at Pune. Kadam on 19-3-1988 between 13.30 to 13.40 hrs. received an information that one person known as Vijay Patel was engaged in the sale of narcotic drugs at a certain spot in Narayan Peth in Pune. The area fell within the jurisdiction of Vishrambaug Police Station and therefore, Kadam informed the said police station of the intelligence received by him. Panchas were sent for and they included P.W.2 Chandrakant Aher. Kadam in company with the panchas and his subordinates went to the spot indicated. The appellant was found at the spot indicated and was told of Kadam desiring to take a search of his person. Appellant was invited to take a ...
American Dry Fruits Stores Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-1992
Reported in: (1993)LC27Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This day only stay application was listed for hearing. After hearing both the sides, we have decided to take up the appeal itself since the issue involved in the stay application as well as in the appeal is the same and it falls within the short compass.2. This is an appeal directed against the order in original bearing No.93 of 1991 dated 4-7-1991, passed by the Addl. Collr. of Central Excise, Bombay, demanding duty to the extent of Rs. 92,002.30 and also imposing a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the appellants under Rules 210, 226 and 173Q of the Central Excise Rules. The undisputed facts involved in the appeal are that the appellants, who are holding L-4 licence for manufacture of various products manufactured custard powder and cleared the entire quantity manufactured for export purposes during the period Dec, 1988 to March, 1989. For the purpose of getting drawback in respect of these export of custard powder, they approached the Department asking for issue of certificate to the e...
Kanjur Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-1992
Reported in: AIR1992Bom507; 1992(3)BomCR76; 1992(1)MhLj526
ORDER1. The petitioners arc a cooperative housing society who arc the owners of land admeasuring 20 acres or thereabout in village Kanjur Bhandup (East). The said land is divided into several plots and by order dated 5th October 1974 passed by the Additional District Deputy Collector (Exhibit A to the petition) the lay out plan was sanctioned. Condition No. 3 of the sanction provided that no construction shall be made without getting N.A. permission as well as without getting building plans approved. Condition No. 4 provided that breach of any of the conditions will render the petitioners liable for penalty under the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and Rules thereunder. 2. On 2m March 1984 the separate orders were passed in respect of different plots of the land belonging to the petitioners levying N.A. assessment. Two of such orders were passed by the Additional Tahsildar (N.A.) Kurla are annexed at Exhibits C and D to the petition. Taking exception to the above orders...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Kaushalya and Athers (Legal Repres ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-1992
Reported in: [1995]216ITR660(Bom)
V.A. Mohta, J.'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, imposing penalty for 1967-68 was passed without giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Income-tax Officer imposing penalties for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70 were passed without giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the orders of the Income-tax Officer imposing penalties for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70 were without jurisdiction ?' 1. The above three questions have been referred for the opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the I.T. Act'), at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Vidarbha and Marathwada, Nagpur. 2. The assessee (deceased Sampatprasad Tiwari) declared his income from the business of supp...
Maharashtra State Electricity Board Vs. Khare and Tarkunde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)BomCR312
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. By this petition filed under section 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, the petitioner has impugned Award dated 4th April 1991, made by Shri E.C. Saldanha, Retired Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Maharashtra, Bombay, in his capacity as an Umpire, one of the question involved in this petition is as to whether the present petition can be considered as a 'pending proceeding' within meaning of the ratio of judgment of the Apex Court dated 12th December 1991 in the case of Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Orissa & ors., (Civil Appeal No. 1403 of 1986) reported in 1991 IV SVLR 487, and what is the meaning and effect of 'prospective operation' of the ratio of the judgment. The answer is plain and simple as discussed in later part of this judgment. The respondent are clearly entitled to rely on the said judgment and the present proceeding is undoubtedly a pending proceeding.2. By the impugned award, the learned Umpire directed the petitioner to p...
Radhabai W/O Ramesh Malegave and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)BomCR459
S.S. Dani, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard Shri Mandlik, advocate for the petitioners and Shri Bhapkar, A.P.P., for respondents Nos. 1 and 2.2. This writ petition is directed against an order dated 30th of December 1991 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Degloor in Criminal Case No. 114 of 1990 rejecting the application for permission to compound an offence under section 498(A), Indian Penal Code.3. Petitioner No. 1 Radhabai is the wife of petitioner No. 3 Petitioner No. 6 is the mother in-law of the petitioner No. 1. Petitioners No. 2, 4, 5 and 7 are the near relations of petitioner No. 3. After the marriage, petitioner No. 1 Radhabai started residing with her husband and other petitioners. Petitioner No. 1. then alleged that the petitioners No. 2 to 7 (who are accused Nos. 1 to 6 before the trial Court) ill-treated petitioner No. 1 during the period from 31-10-1989 to 19-6-1990 and they also assaulted her and threatened her during this period. It was alleged that t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »