Mumbai Court November 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.
Shivraj S/O. Hanmantrao Patil Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1992
Reported in: 1993(3)BomCR717
N.P. Chapalgaonker, J.1. Heard Shri V.G. Sakolkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.B. Bhapkar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The petitioner herein challenges punishment inflicted on him for the overstay when he was released on parole. The petitioner was undergoing sentence awarded to him for an offence under section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and was kept in Nanded District Prison. It is alleged that initially a parole of two months was granted to him which was extended. However, the petitioner overstayed for a period of two years beyond the time extended also. It is alleged that the petitioner overstayed for a period of 697 days and, therefore, he was removed from remission system for a period of 3 years and an entry thereof was to be taken in the remission register. This order of punishment was later sent to the learned District & Sessions Judge, Aurangabad by Reference No. JL/I/4829/86 on 30th June, 1986, and the learned Sessions Judge was pleased...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. India United Mills Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1992
Reported in: [1995]212ITR449(Bom)
U.T. Shah, J. 1. Under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as applied to the Business Profits Tax Act, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question at the instance of the Revenue : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in reducing the business profits of the assessee-company for the period from January 1, 1948, to December 31, 1948, by a sum of Rs. 76,92,566 which was added by the Income-tax Officer by was of additional gross profit in the income-tax assessment for the assessment year 1949-50 ?' 2. The respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') is a company. The assessment year is 1949-50 and the chargeable accounting period is January 1, 1948, to December 31, 1948. 3. While framing the assessment under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the Income-tax Officer made a gross profit addition of Rs. 76,92,566 by resorting to proviso to section 13 of that Act. In this way, he comp...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Principal Officer, Laxmi Surgical Pvt. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1992
Reported in: [1993]202ITR601(Bom)
Dr. B.P. Saraf, J. 1. This is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench, Bombay, under the direction from the High Court of Gujarat under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The reference has been made at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax. It relates to two assessment years, i.e., assessment year 1968-69 and assessment year 1969-70. The following four questions of law have been referred : '(1) Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the asset i.e., rights in the property 'Nirmal building' acquired by the assessee was a business asset forming stock-in-trade, and not a capital asset, is unreasonable or contrary to evidence or based on no evidence at all (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the profit arising from sale of rights in the property was business income and not capital gain (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumsta...
Basu Deba Das Vs. M.R. Bhope and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1992
Reported in: 1993(2)BomCR90; (1993)IILLJ1022Bom
1. The present petition seeks to impugn the Award (Part-I) dated April 20, 1987, order dated August 21, 1987 rejecting the petitioner's application for review and the Part-II Award dated September 27, 1988 passed by the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court in Reference (I.D.A) No. 503 of 1982. 2. By the Award the action of the second respondent in dismissing the petitioner from service has been held to be justified and the reference, which was initiated at the instance of the second respondent, is rejected. 3. The petitioner was employed by the second respondent as an Assistant Cook with effect from September, 1978. An incident took place on November 26, 1980 when the petitioner allegedly assaulted a co-worker Abdul Salam. On account of the incident the second respondent on December 3, 1980 issued a charge-sheet. Charge levelled against the petitioner are as follows : '1. For joining duties in the general shift (9.00 A.M. to 6.00 P.M.) on November 26, 1980, you visited the locker room...
Rambhau Muralidhar Raijade Vs. the Collector and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1992
Reported in: (1992)94BOMLR644
M.L. Pendse, J.1. By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging legality of order, dated December 30, 1985 passed by Officer on Special Duty (Appeal and Revision) Revenue and Forests Department, Government of Maharashtra. By the impugned order, the Officer on Special Duty confirmed the order of resumption passed by the lower authorities. The facts giving rise to the passing of this order are as follows:2. The petitioner secured lease in respect of land bearing City Survey No. 4764 admeasuring 56.95 sq. metres and situated at Sinnar in Nasik District from the State Government. The lease was executed by the petitioner after the rights were auctioned and the petitioner was highest bidder. The lease was granted on conditions and the principal condition was that the land shall be put to non-agricultural use within a period of two years from the date of the execution of the lease. The petitioner failed to comply with the requirement and ...
Sou. Sunanda Raghunath Sadavarte Vs. Raghunath Keru Sadavarte
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1992
Reported in: II(1993)DMC519
M.G. Chaudhari, J.1. The appellant-wife, feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of divorce passed by the learned Judge of Family Court, Pune, dated 19th November, 1990 dissolving her marriage with the respondent has preferred this appeal.2. The proceedings arose out of a petition filed by the respondent-husband seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The parties were married according to Hindu religious rites at Pune on 6.6.1975. At the time of marriage the respondent was residing at village Chas near Khed in a Ram Mandir. After the marriage, the spouses started residing together at the said place. The respondent's parents were also residing with them. His father was about 85 years old and the mother was about 62 years old and was blind. She was also a patient of cancer. The case of the respondent was that their marriage was an arranged marriage. His father had retired and could not earn anything. He had to repay lo...
The Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Mahesh Vadilal Gandhi and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1992
Reported in: 1993(2)BomCR419
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. On joint request of parties, both these references under section 18 of Land Acquisition Act I of 1894 are heard together. With consent parties are allowed to lead common evidence in both these references. The two references are interrelated only to a limited extent as would be obvious from the narration of facts in later part of this judgment.2. The basic facts pertaining to Land Acquisition Reference No. 104 of 1975 are as under :(a) The reference concerns vacant plot of land bearing C.S. No. 320 of Fort Division, Ward No. A 2173 situated at 244, Per in Nariman Street (Bazar Gate) Bombay. Prior to August 1961, a three storeyed building used to exist on the said plot of land. On 19th April 1961, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay declared that the said building was unfit for human habitation. In or about August 1961, the said building was demolished. The said building was totally dilapidated building. Since about August 1961, this plot of land was a vacant p...
Bombay Municipal Corporation Vs. Y.J. Dave and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1992
Reported in: 1993(2)BomCR199
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. In this and the companion two appeals, the Bombay Municipal Corporation has assailed the correctness of three orders of acquittal passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 39th Court, Vile-Parle, Bombay. The Bombay Municipal Corporation Authorities had filed three complaints against the accused in his capacity as trustee/landlord of the premises by the name of 'Ambika Bhuvan', situated at S.V. Road, Goregaon (West). It was alleged in the first case, which is the subject-matter of this appeal, that the roof repairs had not been carried out within the prescribed time and that, therefore, an offence punishable under section 377-A of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act had been committed. In the second case, it was alleged that certain repairs to the drainage and plumbing systems had not been carried out and that an offence under section 257 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act had been committed. In the third case, respondent No. 1 had been directed to carry o...
Hamid Khan S/O Rustam Khan (Deceased) Through L. Rs. Vs. Municipal Cou ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1992
Reported in: (1992)94BOMLR764
A.A. Halbe, J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Beed, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 165/78, whereby the suit of the plaintiffs came to be dismissed, the appellants/ plaintiffs have approached this Court and an argument has been devised on behalf of the appellants/plaintiffs that the record and proceedings involved in several orders recorded by the Respondent/Municipal Council clearly show that the Respondent/Municipal Council has waived its right of ownership on the suit plot Nos. 116 and 80 at Bhaldarpura, Beed. The learned Advocate for the appellants, when being drawn attention to the ground of estoppel being the ground of admission of this appeal, has fairly conceded that he would prefer to dwell on the question of waiver rather than estoppel since the documents, upon which he seeks reliance, show the waiver on the part of the Municipal Council. He had drawn my attention to several orders that have been passed by the Chief Officer, Mu...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A.L.A. Chemicals (P.) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1992
Reported in: [1993]203ITR891(Bom)
Mrs. Sujata Manohar, J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, the Appellate Tribunal has referred certain question of law arising out of the decision of the Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessee is a private limited company and the assessment year involved is 1974-75. The assessee-company had incurred capital expenditure of Rs. 87,453 for scientific research and development in the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74. Deduction under section 35 was allowed at Rs. 76,784 and Rs. 10,669, respectively, in these two assessment years. The assessee also claimed depreciation of Rs. 5,708 on the capital assets used for scientific research and development. This was disallowed. 3. The Income-tax Officer excluded this total amount of Rs. 87,453 from the capital computation for the purposes of deduction under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, allowed this amount to be included in the capital c...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »