Mumbai Court December 1992 Judgments
Commercial Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-31-1992
Reported in: [1993]201ITR348(Bom)
G.D. Kamat, J.1. This petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India poses a question of some importance and may have a bearing outside Goa as we are told that several States have entered into contracts for organizing and conducting State lotteries. 2. The petitioner is a company having its registered office at Manipal. The company entered into an agreement dated December 21, 1989, with the Government of Goa to organize lotteries on behalf of the State of Goa on All-India basis except within the State, for a period of three years commencing from the date of the first draw admittedly held on March 5, 1990. Under that agreement, the company is required to cause the lottery tickets to be printed at its own cost against payment of guaranteed profit to the Government. The company is to deposit the prize money and the cost of the draw. The company conducted the lotteries for a considerable period without any difficulty under the agreement when, all of a sudden, the Ex-officio Direct...
Tag this Judgment!Shital Trading and Investment Co. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-28-1992
Reported in: (1993)45ITD399(Mum.)
1. In this appeal M/s Shital Trading & Investment Company Pvt. Ltd., Bombay disputes the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-III, dated 28-3-1988 passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act.2. The assessee filed the return of income on 7-9-1983 declaring net income of Rs. 89,490. The assessment order passed under Section 143(3) on 31-1-1985 determined the total income at Rs. 2,16,607. The Income-tax Officer also granted deductions under Section 80M and Section 80K totalling Rs. 1,25,116 and the taxable income was determined at Rs. 91,491. On 30-8-1985 the ITO passed an order under Section 154. In the said order it was stated that deduction under Section 80M was allowed on gross basis without making any deduction for the expenses incurred for earning the dividend. The assessment order was modified by deducting the expenses and computing the deduction under Sections 80M and 80K at Rs. 70,044. Subsequently on 10-12-1985 another order under Section 154 was passed b...
Tag this Judgment!Anant Dattatraya Sathe, and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-24-1992
Reported in: 1993(2)BomCR225; 1994CriLJ99; 1993(1)MhLj377
1. Parties by counsel. Rule returnable forthwith. 2. The applicant/s have filed application for bail before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buldana fort the release of the applicant/s on bail for offences publishable under sections 10 and 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The learned Magistrate, in paragraph 8 of the order, has referred to Section 17 of the Act and rejected the application on the ground that the Court cannot take cognizance of the offence and nowhere in the Act it is mentioned that the Court granting remand or magisterial custody can release the accused on bail. The applicants, therefore, approached the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Buldana for bail. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Buldana, vide his order dated 19-12-1992, rejected the application for bail on more or less same grounds as given by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Both the Courts below have observed that the Magistrate has n...
Tag this Judgment!Executors of the Estate of Late Vs. Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-22-1992
Reported in: (1993)45ITD49(Mum.)
1. These two appeals relate to the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86 and are directed against the orders of Dy. Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) J-Range, Bombay dated 28 January 1992 in appeal Nos. J/W-9/WT 8, 9/89-90.2. In the appeals filed by the Executors of the Estate of Late Mrs.Shirin S. Mody, the grounds of appeal are common for both the assessment years. It is claimed by the Appellant that the Dy. C.W.T.(Appeals) erred in confirming the non-deductibility of the assessee's outstanding tax liabilities arising on self-assessment of Income-tax for the earlier assessment year in computing the assessee's net wealth and such tax liabilities arising on self-assessment and outstanding on valuation date are not covered by the restrictive provisions of Section 2(m) and are deductible in computing the assessee's net wealth.3. The facts relating to the dispute in these appeals are mentioned in the assessment orders for 1984-85 and 1985-86 and also in the appeal orders. According to ...
Tag this Judgment!Oil and Natural Gas Commission Vs. Offshore Enterprises Inc.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Bom217; 1993(2)BomCR618; (1993)95BOMLR396; 1993(1)MhLj243
1. While hearing Arbitration Petition No. 210 of 1989, I found that Shri Atul Munim and Shri Pramod Dalai, Partners of Messrs. Bachubhai Munim and Co., a firm of Advocates, had filed their own affidavits as Constituted Attorney of the Respondent Messrs. Offshore Enterprises Inc., while Messrs Bachubhai Munim and Co. were also on record of the proceedings in their professional capacity as advocates for the Respondent. I have come across several such cases where power of attorney is obtained by one or other partner of the Advocates' firm/Solicitors' firm from a non-resident client and the Advocates' firm acts for that party in a professional capacity. While delivering my judgment dated 20th and 23rd April 1992 I observed as under :--'In case of foreign clients, a practice appears to have grown up to the effect that the Advocate on record acts both as a Constituted Attorney of the client as well as an advocate on record. Time has reached when it shall have to be considered as to whether t...
Tag this Judgment!Sou. Sanjeevani Anil Wadnere Vs. Anil Murlidhar Wadnere
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1992
Reported in: 1993(2)BomCR608; II(1993)DMC623
D.J. Moharir, J.1. This is an appeal by the original respondent-wife taking exception to the judgment and decree passed against her, granting divorce to the petitioner-husband under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.2. The appellant and the respondent herein would be usefully referred to hereafter as respectively the respondent and the petitioner. The petitioner who is a resident of Pune and Sanjeevani, the respondent who hails from Kalwa, District Thane came to be married on 29-6-1986. It was an arranged marriage. Out of the wedlock a child, the daughter by name Shalaka was born to them on 15-9-1987. Sanjeevani lived in the marital home till January, 1989. According to the petitioner, only a very short period was spent by them happily as husband and wife. For, soon after the marriage the respondent started picking up quarrels with him over triflings. He alleged that it was at her instance that he set up a separate establishment for himself and Sanjeevani in the Karve Nagar locality...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shiv Sagar Estates (Aop)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-1992
Reported in: (1993)112CTR(Bom)198; [1993]201ITR953(Bom)
Dr. B.P. Saraf, J. 1. By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this court for opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was right in holding that the lease rent from the property Shiv Sagar Estates accrued to the individual co-owners and not to an association of person ?' 2. The controversy in this case relates to the status in which 65 co-owners of an immovable property called 'Shiv Sagar Estate' which is owned by them in definite and determinate shares are to be assessed in respect of the rental income therefrom - whether it is to be taxed in the hands of the 65 persons as an 'association of persons' or it is to be charged to tax individually in the hands of the different co-owners to the extent of their respective shares. The relevant assessment years are 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70. 3. The facts giving rise to this reference...
Tag this Judgment!Nalini Rajendra Kotwal Vs. Rajendra Ranpat Kotwal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-1992
Reported in: II(1993)DMC302
S.W. Puranik, J.1. Original Respondent in Family Court Petition A-No, 8 of 1990, decided on 31st August, 1990, has filed this Appeal feeling aggrieved by the said Judgment and Order. Respondent-original Petitioner is the husband who had filed the Petition on the ground under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act. He sought annulment of the marriage by decree of nullity on the, ground that the consent for marriage of the Petitioner was obtained from him by fraud at, the time of marriage. It was his contention that the Respondent-wife was suffering from mental disorder or mental sickness since long prior to the marriage and was under treatment of a psychiatrist by name Dr. Watwe and this material fact was suppressed from the Petitioner and his family members thereby seeking his consent to the marriage fraudulently. In the Petition filed before the learned Judge of the Family Court, the Petitioner has narrated that the wedding of the Respondent took place on 2nd June, 1989 at Pune. B...
Tag this Judgment!Mirza Hashmatulla Beg Vs. Farzana Hashmatulla Beg and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-1992
Reported in: II(1993)DMC607
S.W. Puranik, J.1. Respondents Smt. Farzana and her daughter Sanober filed an application before the Family Court for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. She claimed Rs. 500/- per month for herself and Rs. 300/- for her daughter, original petitioner No. 2.2. During the proceedings the appellant Mirza appeared as original respondent and filed an application, inter alia, contending that he has already divorced his wife under a Talakhnama dated 6th November 1989 in presence of two witnesses and that it was sent by registered post to the original petitioner wife which she refused. He, therefore, contended that the marriage having been dissolved, the Family Court had ceased to have jurisdiction and it was only under Muslim Woman Protection of Divorce Act, 1986 that the case could be governed. No regular written statement seems to have been filed on record on his behalf.3. The learned Judge of the Family Court proceeded to record evidence. The petitioner no...
Tag this Judgment!Darshan Anilkumar Patel Vs. Gitaneel Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1992
Reported in: 1993(2)BomCR440; (1993)95BOMLR462; [1994]81CompCas805(Bom)
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. This is an application for appointment of a provisional liquidator of the first respondent pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition for winding up of the first respondent-company. Some of the facts emerging from the record disclose a shocking state of affairs and prove at least prima facie that the second respondent and members of his group have indulged in various acts of manipulation amounting to subterfuge, fraud and acts purporting to jeopardise the assets of the company and lack of probity. Respondent No. 2, respondents Nos. 5 and 8 have purported to appropriate the valuable assets of the company to themselves personally and caused serious prejudice to the company and minority shareholders as would be obvious from the later part of this order. This is my strong prima facie finding for the purpose of this application. 2. On March 18, 1980, respondent No. 1 company (formerly known as 'Gitaneel Hotels and Investments Pvt. Ltd.') was incorporated as a ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »