Mumbai Court April 1992 Judgments
Sangeeta Balkrishna Kadam Vs. Balkrishna Ramchandra Kadam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-1992
Reported in: AIR1994Bom1; 1994(1)MhLj230
ORDERSaldanha, J. 1. Aspects of some significance touching proceedings instituted for dissolution of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 have arisen in these appeals, in which we have heard learned counsel extensively, which issues are summarized below : (a) Whether in a proceeding for dissolution of marriage while granting a relief under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the trial Court would be justified in the grant of ancillary orders in relation to items of property, such as the ornaments, furniture, fixtures etc., or whether on a strict construction of S. 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, a Court would be required to direct the parties to adopt separate proceedings only in respect of these reliefs? (b) Where the Act is silent and it appears both reasonable and desirable that the reliefs in respect of property not covered by S. 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act be granted, whether the inherent powers under S. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure ought to be used? (c) Whether in a case ...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. and Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Commi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)BomCR678; [1993]199ITR351(Bom)
ORDER THEREON'--In s. 254(1)--Not merely refers to the appeal but the entire tax proceedings.HELD :Sec. 254 states that the Tribunal, while deciding the appeal, may pass such order on the appeal as it thinks fit. To read the word `thereon'as restricting the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is, not warranted. It does not refer to the scope of jurisdiction at all. The words which prescribe the extent of jurisdiction of the Tribunal under s. 254 are the words 'may pass such orders...as it thinks fit'. These are the words which describe the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The word `thereon' merely refers to the fact that the Tribunal while deciding the appeal has to exercise this jurisdiction. The phrase 'pass such order thereon' does not in any way restrict the jurisdiction of the Tribunal but, on the contrary, confers the widest possible jurisdiction on the Tribunal including jurisdiction to permit any additional ground of appeal if, in its discretion, and for good reason, it thinks it necessa...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Vardhan Birla Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)BomCR645; [1994]208ITR958(Bom)
Mrs. Sujata Manohar J.1. This reference under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, deals with the assessment years 1962-63, and 1963-64 and 1964-65, the corresponding valuation dates March 31, 1962, March 31, 1963, and March 31, 1964. The original applicant was one of the beneficiaries under a deed of settlement made by the grandfather of the applicant (hereinafter referred to as the 'Shri R. D. Birla Trust'). The applicant was entitled to the balance of the income of the trust and to the corpus of the trust in terms of clause 1 of the deed of settlement. The applicant was also the sole beneficiary under another trust known as the 'Ashok Kumar Birla Trust' in which the applicant was entitled to receive the entire income of the trust in terms of clause 2 of the deed of settlement. 2. For the relevant assessment years, the applicant had included in his net wealth the total wealth the total value of the assets of the Shri R. D. Birla Trust, after deducting therefrom the value of the...
Tag this Judgment!Pravinchandra Jinabhai Patel Vs. Gitaneel Builders (India)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)BomCR650
S.M. Jhunjhunuwala, J.1. This petition has been filed under the provisions of section 583 of The Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'The said Act') for winding up of the affairs of M/s. Gitannel Builders (India) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company') by and under direction of this Court and for other reliefs as prayed for in the petition.2. The Company is an unregistered Company within the meaning of the provisions of section 582 of the Act. The petitioners and the respondents 2 to 8 and 10 to 21 are members of family and related to each other. Respondents 2 to 11 constitute one ground (hereinafter referred to as 'Group A'). The petitioners and the respondents 12 to 21 constitute another group (hereinafter referred to as 'Group B'). However, the respondents 15 and 19 are supporting the members of Group A. The petitioners and the respondents are the creditors/members/partners/beneficiaries of the shares in the Company. The business of the Company has been that of builde...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Mipa Investment Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-1992
Reported in: (1992)43ITD60(Mum.)
1. There is an appeal by the department and cross objection by the assessee in respect of the assessment year 1983-84. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to consider the net dividend and not the gross dividend received by the assessee from a foreign company for including the total income of the assessee company.3. At the hearing, while it was contended on behalf of the assessee that the issue is squarely covered in their favour by Tribunal's order in their over cost of sister concerns based on a decision of the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. [1981] 132 ITR 466, the learned departmental representative pleaded that it was not.4. In saying so, the Ld. D.R. particularly invited our attention to the observations made by the High Court in this case at page 480 stating that their Lordships' attention, was invited to an unreported decision in the case of CIT v. India Textile Agenc...
Tag this Judgment!Jamshed N. Guzdar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-1992
Reported in: AIR1992Bom435; 1992(3)BomCR494; (1992)94BOMLR984
ORDER1. The Petitioner, who is the Chairman of Airfreight Limited and claims to be the Director of 14 other Public Companies espousing the cause of litigants in Greater Bombay, by way of public interest litigation has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the constitutional validity of the Bombay City Civil Court and Bombay Court of Small Causes (Enhancement of Pecuniary Jurisdic-tion and Amendment) Act, 1986 (Maharashtra Act No. XV of 1987) -- hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned Act'. 2. Apart from challenging the competency of the State Legislature as regards the impugned Act the Petitioner has also sought a declaration that the Notification dated 20th August 1991 -- Exh. B to the petition, issued by the State of Maharashtra is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. 3. This petition raises pure questions of law relating to the legislative competence of the State Legislature. ...
Tag this Judgment!The Goa Foundation and Another Vs. the Konkan Railway Corporation and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-1992
Reported in: AIR1992Bom471; 1994(1)MhLj21
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Kakodkar Waives service on behalf of respondent No. 11 Mr. Dias, Advocate General, on behalf of respondents Nos. 2 and 4 and Mr. Khandeparkar on behalf of respondent No. 3. Heard counsel.Very few people are fortunate to see their dreams fulfilled and people residing on the west coast saw fulfillment of their dream when the Central Government decided to provide a broad guage railway line from Bombay to Mangalore and thereafter to extend to the State of Kerala. It was a longstanding demand of the people in the region for a cheap and fast transport to improve the economic conditions and to make accessible the hinterlands in the State of Maharashtra, State of Goa and State of Karnataka. The Central Government was considering providing a railway line for a considerable length of time but the project was postponed from time to time due to lack of requisite funds. Ultimately the Central Government took a decision to provide the line and to achieve that purpos...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Vs. State of Maharashtra, Jayant and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-1992
Reported in: (1992)94BOMLR454; [1994]80CompCas212(Bom)
V.A. Mohta, J.1. The common point that arises in these two petitions relates to the width and extent of the power of the Registrar under section 78 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, to remove the committee of an 'insured co-operative bank', in view of section 110A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. 2. The short factual background is this : The Bhandara District Central Co-operative Bank, Bhandara, respondent No. 3, is an 'insured co-operative bank' as per the Explanation below section 110A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, has issued notices under section 78 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act to all the 28 members of the committee of the said bank calling upon them to show cause as to why the committee should not be removed for the several charges mostly pertaining to mismanagement mentioned in the notice. Mahendra Gadkari, the petitioner, in Writ Petition No. 2746 of 1990, and Janbaji Bedurka...
Tag this Judgment!Lachhman Purshottam Bhagtani Alias Setpal Vs. Union of India and Other ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)BomCR195; 1992CriLJ3685; 1993(1)MhLj32
Puranik, J. 1. The petitioner was detained under S. 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 during the declaration of national emergency on 13-4-1976. However, on the termination of the national emergency on 21-3-1977 the petitioner was unconditionally released on 22-3-1977. 2. During the period of emergency was proclaimed the petitioner could not challenge his order of detention and after his unconditional release immediately after the period of emergency the question would have been only academic and was not challenged subsequently by the petitioner. 3. After these events of 1977, no steps were taken against the petitioner under the provisions of Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeitures of Property) Act, 1976 for a long period of nine years. It was only in the year 1986 that a letter dated 17-9-86 was received by the petitioner purporting to be under SAFEMA proceedings calling upon the petitioner to furnish requisi...
Tag this Judgment!NavIn Parekh Vs. Madhubala Shridhar Sharma and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-1992
Reported in: (1992)94BOMLR467
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. This is a criminal writ petition filed by a practising advocate whereby he has assailed the validity of an order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 23rd Court, Esplanade, Bombay, in Criminal Case No. 356/S of 1987 issuing process against him for an alleged offence of defamation. To say the least, the facts of the present case represent a rather unsavoury state of affairs and it is ironical that we are concerned here with not one but two practising advocates embroiled in a personal tiff that, to my mind, should never have reached a Court of law. Respondent No. 1, who is the original Complainant, to crown matters, is a lady advocate. She was appointed legal adviser of the Indian Motion Pictures Producers' Association ('IMPPA' for short) in the month of November 1984. It appears that a dispute arose with regard to certain bills submitted by her in relation to the professional work done for this body and for the Film Industry Anti-Video Piracy Organization (...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »