Mumbai Court February 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.
Babulal Jairam Maurya and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1992
Reported in: 1993(3)BomCR478; (1992)94BOMLR608; 1993CriLJ281
Daud, J.1. This appeal takes exception to the conviction and sentences recorded against the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 392 and 342 read with 34 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case is that complainant-P.W. 1 Rajendrakumar is in the business of diamond polishing. His workshop is located at Shop No. 10, Tulsi Vrindavan Building, L.T. Road, Borivli (West), Bombay. For the purpose of polishing diamonds there is a work force of about 10-12 employees - some of them being related to the employer. The rest of the employees use the workshop also for sleeping at nights. The normal working hours of the workshop are 8.00 a.m. to 8.00 p.m. Rajendrakumar gets unpolished diamonds from his customers and returns the same to them after the polishing has been completed. 3. The incident figuring in this appeal took place on 22nd August 1985. Inside the cabin of the employer were Rajendrakumar and a friend of his Karsanbhai. All the employees were inside exce...
Kantaram Maruti Dabhade and anr. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1992
Reported in: 1994(2)BomCR315
D.J. Moharir, J.1. The appellants here, original accused Nos. 1 and 2, are from amongst 8 others who were put on trial before the Additional Sessions Judge at Pune for committing offences of rioting with deadly weapons, for intentional insult to the complainant, for committing a rash act of indulging in discriminate pelting of heavy stones on the house of the complainant, for committing house trespass after having made preparation to cause hurt and lastly for attempting to commit the murder of two persons. The offences were charged with the aid of section 149 of the I.P.C. while six of the accused persons were acquitted, the two present appellants came to be convicted under section 324 as also 324 read with section 34 of the I.P.C., 449 of the I.P.C. and 451 read with section 34 of the I.P.C. For the offence under section 324, each of them was sentenced to R.I. for 3 years and a fine of Rs. 700/- i/d further R.I. for 2 months, for the offence under section 451 of the I.P.C., R.I. for 2...
Cce Vs. Ansuya Packing Services
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1992
Reported in: (1992)(40)LC566Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Department has sought to the Reference to the Bombay High Court on the question of law, as formulated by them, pleading the same to be arising out of this Bench Order No. 1280/91 WRB dt 4.7.1991.2. The Show Cause Notice was issued to the Respondents alleging that they had wrongly availed of the MODVAT Credit in relation to some items. The Show Cause Notice was alleged to have been issued under Rule 56A(5) of the Central Excise Rules read with Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. In the Order-in-Original passed, the said demand was confirmed. In appeal filed before the Tribunal, however, the question was raised that notice for demand as issued, was beyond the period of six months and as such the demand was hit by the period of limitation and on that short ground only the Tribunal allowed the appeal and the demand was set aside. The Department has now come by way of Reference Application, seeking reference to the High Court on the following two questions: (i) Wh...
M.P. Ramachandran Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)BomCR28; (1992)94BOMLR105; [1993]77CompCas54(Bom)
K. Sukumaran, J.1. This writ petition seeks to challenge an interlocutory order of injunction passed by the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') in I.T.A. No. 50 of 1991 in UTPE No. 157 of 1991 dated December 12, 1991, as evidenced by exhibit F. 2. The petitioner is the sole proprietor of Jyothi Laboratories operating from Borivli, Bombay. Another operator in the same field but in the far South-Coimbatore is the third respondent. The two entrepreneurs have come to legal blows over the quality of the blue they manufacture. 'Ujala' manufactured by the petitioner sought coverage, among other things, through magnetic media - Doordarshan. That is per se not objectionable. There is, even if in restricted areas, at least a partial survival of the Darwinian theory of survival of the fittest. However, hitting below the belt is indeed immoral. Such was the allegation made by the third respondent against the petitioner before the seco...
Shantilal Khushaldas and Bros. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Chandanbala Sughir S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1992
Reported in: [1993]77CompCas253(Bom)
G.D. Kamat, J. 1. This application is made in judge's summons praying for the dismissal of the Company Petition No. 5/S/91 instituted by the respondents for winding up the applicant-company under section 433 of the Companies Act, 1956. 2. The petition for winding up of the applicant-company is on the grounds that the company is unable to pay its debts. It is averred on their behalf that by virtue of the agreement dated February 10, 1987, the company had to repay the amount deposited by the respondents; that despite statutory notice dated January 23, 1991, under section 434 of the Companies Act no steps towards repayment were taken and, therefore, the company be wound up under the directions of the court. 3. On notice being issued, the applicant-company opposed the winding up petition by its affidavit. In the judge's summons a contention is taken that the petition for winding up is liable to be rejected in limine on the ground that the petition has been signed and verified by a constitu...
Dilip Alias Jogya Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)BomCR141; 1992CriLJ3551
H.D. Patel, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by Dilip alias Jogya Wamanrao Jog challenging the validity of the order dated 14-6-1991 passed under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980. 2. Though the order of detention is shown as dated 14-6-1991, the actual detention of the detenu was dated 15-6-1991 as per counter-affidavit filed by the respondent No. 1 - the State of Maharashtra. In the preface, the detaining authority has set out the antecedents or background facts preceding the grounds on which the detaining authority is satisfied that the petitioner must be detained to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 3. The petitioner was earlier detained by order dated 10-9-1990 and duly confirmed by Advisory Board on 16-10-1990. A Writ Petition No. 145/90 came to be filed but during the pendency of that petition, the detention order came to be revoked by order dated 21-1-1991...
Arjun Dhondiba Kamble and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1992
Reported in: 1993(3)BomCR473
S.M. Daud, J.1. A husband, wife and their son impugn the conviction and sentence recorded against them for the commission of offences punishable under sections 498 and 105-B r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The victim Lalita is the daughter of Annappa Bhima Kamble who has been examined as P.W. 4 at the trial. She was wedded to appellant Mahadeo some four years prior to July 1969. The marriage was solemnized along with several others in what is known as a `Samooha lagan' (mass marriage). After the marriage Lalita came to reside with the appellants. She was not treated well and in fact was subjected to vilification and beatings. The reason for inflicting ill-treatment on the girl was her not being able to extract gold and a wrist-watch from her parents for her husband Mahadeo. She used to speak of this ill-treatment on the festive occasions of Deepavali and Bendur, when she was visiting her parental home. Annappa counseled patience saying that he would get the articles the appellants ...
Almonard (P.) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1992
Reported in: (1992)41ITD337(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal against the order of the CIT (Appeals) wherein he has confirmed the action of the Asstt. Commissioner (AC) (i) in respect of bringing to tax Rs. 20,00,000 though under different head and (ii) disallowance of Rs. 3,33,744 and Rs. 75,000 under Section 43B of the Act.2. The assessee is a company. The assessment year is 1987-88 and the relevant previous year ended on 30th June, 1986.3. The first issue pertains to the taxability of the amount of Rs. 20,00,000. The facts in brief are the assessee had taken a factory premises on lease from M/s. Somabhai Desai & Others as per lease agreement dated 27-1-1970 and was paying rent thereof from year to year. M/s Somabhai Desai & Ors. sold the said premises to P.C.S. Date Products Ltd., as per the sale deed dated 17-9-1986. As M/s. Somabhai Desai & Ors. wanted vacant possession of the said premises, they had agreed to pay Rs. 20,00,000 to the assessee under an Agreement dated 3-6-1986.4. On the aforesaid facts, in t...
Abdul MobIn Ansari and Others Vs. the Maharashtra State Financial Corp ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Bom48; 1992(3)BomCR338; [1994]79CompCas236(Bom)
1. This appeal is directed against the order below Exh. 1 dated 4-10-1982 in M.J.C. No. 126/81 decided by Shri R. D. Deshpande, Joint Civil Judge, Akola.2. The facts giving rise to the instantappeal are as under : The respondent is the statutory corporation established for the State of Maharshtra, under the State Financial Corporation Act, LX-III of 1951. The appellant No. 1 is the proprietor of the Proprietary concern of M/s. New Maharashtra Iron Industries, situated in M.I.D.C. Area at shed No. W-9, Akola having its office at A. S. Ansari building, Azad Park Road, Old City, Akola.On 9th December, 1976 the appellants/non-applicants hypothecated to the respondent/ applicant all the plant, machinery, electric and other installations, impliments, equipments, tools, appliances, accessories, move-able assets described in General terms which were incorporated in the Schedule and to that effect entered into the hypothecated agreement for consideration of Rs. 81,000/,- and all the terms and c...
State of Maharashtra and ors. Vs. M.S. Builders (Private) Limited and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1992
Reported in: 1992(1)BomCR568
S.P. Kurdukar, J.1. These two appeals and other connected matters which were heard together raise common question of law under the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958. We heard advocates for parties in all these matters and we propose to dispose of them by this common judgment.2. The common question of law raised in all these matters is as to whether a consent decree whereunder title to immovable property is conveyed falls under the definition of `conveyance' under section 2(g) of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 - hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', or an `instrument' under section 2(1) of the Act or such consent decree falls outside the ambit and scope of the definition of `conveyance' or `instrument' under the Act. According to the appellants (State of Maharashtra and Others) consent decree is clearly covered by the definition of 'conveyance' under the Act or at any rate an `instrument' falling under the definition of section 2(1) of the Act. According to the respondents 1 and 2 - the writ petitione...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »