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.
The State of Maharashtra and ors. Vs. Mahavir Lalchand Rathod and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1992
Reported in: 1992(2)BomCR1; (1992)94BOMLR110
S.P. Kurdukar, J.1. This batch of three appeals and several other connected writ petitions were heard together since they raise common questions of law under section 4 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 and the Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970, and in particular liability to pay stamp duty under Entry 25 of Schedule I of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958. Appeals Nos. 395 of 1991, 396 of 1991 and 551 of 1991 are filed by the State of Maharashtra and other impugning the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge in the respective writ petitions. All these writ petitions are admitted. Mr. Bhandari, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents-writ petitioners, took strong exception to the maintainability of these appeals. We will deal with this argument little later after we set out the necessary facts.2. At the outset it may be stated that in all these writ petitions the agreements for sale w...
Babu Amboo Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1992
Reported in: II(1992)DMC379
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. The appellant before us, Babu Amboo Pawarattends convicted of the offence of having murdered his wife Tulsibai on18.5.1987 at Bhatipada, Taluka Jawhar, District Thane.2. It is alleged that at about 9 p.m. on that night, the appellant haddemanded money from his wife as he desired to purchase liquor.She wasunable to give him any money for the reason that she did not posses any,where upon the appellant is alleged to have poured kerosene oil from a lampon her and ignited it. Tulsibai started screaming, whereupon her mother Sakari(PW 1) and others rushed to the spot. Apparently with the assistance of thepersons who rushed there, the flames were extinguished and it appears that theappellant was one of those who assisted in this operation, in the course ofwhich he sustained minor burn injuries. Tulsibai was removed to the CottageHospital at Jawhar. On the same night, a statement of her came to be recorded by the Police Constable. Thereafter around midnight, PW 4 Abdul Kadi...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Orion Chemicals
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1992
Reported in: 1992(40)LC438(Bombay)
M.L. Pendse, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the Union of India against judgment dated January 30,1987 delivered by learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 222 of 1987. By the impugned judgment, the appellants were directed to refund a sum of Rs. 2,28,199.25 together with interest at the rate of 15% p.a. from the date of the judgment till date of payment to the original petitioners. The original petitioners arc M/s Orion Chemicals, a partnership firm registered under the Partnership Act. The refund was granted by the learned single Judge in respect of three bills of entries dated November 28, 1984, October 19, 1984 and September 24, 1984 as indicated in the work-sheet attached to the petition.2. Shri Deodhar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, submitted that the order was secured from the learned single Judge by playing fraud upon the Court. Shri Deodhar submitted that the bill of entry dated September 24,1984 was lodged with the Customs House by M/s Dyes Dist...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Sigma Paints Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1992
Reported in: (1994)(69)ELT779Tri(Mum.)bai
1. All the three aforesaid appeals involve in consideration of the same issue and hence they were heard together and proposed to be disposed of by this common order.2. Appeal No. 289/91-Bom is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No.ADN-26/91-BI, dated 31-1-1991 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.3. Appeal No. E/404/90-Bom is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No.SKM-333/90-BI, dated 21-3-1990 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Bombay.4. Appeal No. E/467/90-Bom is directed against the order of the Collector (Appeals) No. SKM-514/90-BI, dated 23-4-1990.5. The facts involved in these appeals can be briefly stated as below.The appellants are manufacturers of paints and varnishes. They had cleared certain paints and varnishes to their customers like Larsen & Toubro Ltd. However, part of the consignments were returned to them as rejected material. This return was done by their customers M/s. Larsen & Toubro and Ors. by way of debiting the MODVAT accounts,...
Godfrey Philips India Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1992
Reported in: (1992)41ITD544(Mum.)
1. These three appeals filed by the assessee are being consolidated for the sake of convenience since common points are involved.2. The first ground in all three years relates to rejection by the CIT (Appeals) in the change in the method of accounting adopted by the assessee for valuing the closing stock. The additions made on this account were Rs. 92,03,357 in assessment year 1981-82, Rs. 60,62,910 for assessment year 1982-83 and Rs. 1,68,73,765 for assessment year 1983-84. The closing stock for assessment year 1981-82 was the opening stock for assessment year 1982-83 and the closing stock for assessment year 1982-83 was the opening stock for assessment year 1983-84. The additions for assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84 were made after giving credit for enhancement of the value of the opening stock, which was the result of enhancement of the value of the closing stock of the previous year.3. The assessee is a manufacturer of cigarettes. The dispute before us arises on account of val...
Smt. Kanchan W/O Kamelendra Sawarkar Vs. Kamalendra Alias Kamalakar, S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1992
Reported in: AIR1992Bom493; 1992(3)BomCR219; (1992)94BOMLR418; I(1992)DMC619; 1992(2)MhLj1595
ORDER1. The parties married on 5-7-1981. They are having one child out of wedlock. In the year 1985 the applicant-wife presented, the proceedings under S. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce. The non-applicant-husband on 23-2-1989 applied under S. 24 of the Act for grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 600/- per month with expenses of the litigation. The trial Court awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100/-per month and further directed to pay Rs.500/- towards litigation expenses by his order dated 6-12-1989.2. Heard Mr. Moharil the learned counsel for the applicant-wife. The non-applicant-husband appeared in person.3. Taking into consideration the scheme of S. 24 of the Act, either of the spouse in the proceedings on satisfying that they have no independent source of income to support them can claim maintenance pendente-lite. Husband is therefore equally entitled to claim maintenance. However, the non-applicant-husband will have to satisfy the Court either due to physical or...
Khanbhai Esoofbhai Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1992
Reported in: 1992LC572(Bombay); 1992(60)ELT365(Bom)
Sukumaran, J. 1. These writ petitions raise a common question regarding the exigibility of customs duty or additional or countervailing duty or auxiliary duty in respect of the ships referred to in the writ petitions. The ships were built outside India. They were acquired for the purposes of Indian Navy. In some cases particulars with regard to the date on which or the year in which the ship had been brought to India have been given. Such is the position in relation to Writ Petitions No. 1476 of 1983, 2931 of 1983, 2976 of 1983 and 2978 of 1983. In relation to other cases it has been indicated that these ships had been built for the Indian Navy in 1943 and in 1956. It will be reasonable to assume that the ships so built had been brought to India within a reasonable time thereafter. This would support the submission of counsel for the petitioners, that they had been brought to India before 1958. 2. Counsel submitted that the import of such ships prior to 1958 had been totally exempt fro...
Janardan S/O Laxmanrao Barwat and anr. Vs. Narmadabai W/O Laxmanrao Ba ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)BomCR308
A.A. Desai, J.1. The non-applicant filed a suit for declaration as regards her ownership over the suit field and claimed permanent injunction restraining the applicants from interfering over the possession. The trial Court granted the temporary injunction. The applicants, therefore, went in appeal. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal observing that 'when the appeal has been taken up for hearing the appellants Counsel Mr. Shelke has appeared but he was not prepared. He was narrating the facts which are totally irrelevant. Hence the appeal is dismissed.'2. Mr. Patil appearing for the appellants made a submission that Mr. Shelke was beginner in practice and junior Counsel.3. It is obligatory on the part of a Counsel to render adequate and necessary assistance to the Court on facts and law by studying the brief. It was really a misfortune for the Counsel to appear and address without desired preparation. Such Casual manner can hardly be encouraged.4. However, omit to perform the oblig...
Ajit Khimji Udeshi Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)BomCR398
S.P. Kurdukar, J.1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking appropriate writ or direction for quashing application of provisions of section 5 of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, in respect of C.R No. I 135 of 1991 of Virar Police Station.2. In order to consider the rival contentions raised before us, it would be appropriate to set out averment contained in the complaint dated 28-4-1991 lodged by the complainant Shri Ranjitkumar Raj Deshmukh at Virar Police Station (F.I.R.). This complaint came to be registered by the Virar Police Station being C.R. No. I 135 for 1991. The allegations contained in this complaint may be briefly summarised as under : The complainant Deshmukh has a residence in Bombay and also possesses an accommodation at Virar in Rajinsi Apartment. According to him, he obtained arm licence in 1978 from the concerned Police Authority and the said licence is valid till the date of the inci...
New Bank of India and anr. Vs. State Bank of India and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1992
Reported in: 1996(1)BomCR436
B.U. Wahane, J.1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 27th November, 1981, passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur in a Special Civil Suit No. 315 of 1977, allowing the claim of the respondent No. 1-plaintiff against the appellants and the respondent No. 2/original defendant. No. 1.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows:The respondent No. 1-plaintiff is a banking concern incorporated under the State Bank of India Act, 1955, having it's Branch Office at Kingsway, Nagpur. The appellant No. 1/original defendant No. 2 is also a banking company, having it's registered office at New Delhi. The appellant No. 2/original defendant No. 3 is a Branch Office at Nagpur, of the defendant No. 2. On 15th October, 1976, the defendant No. 3 has sent a draft No. DB 691125 to the plaintiff through clearance for payment of Rs. 40,557.28/-. According to the bank practice, the payment under the draft has to be made or refused on the very day before 1.30 p.m...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »